Alex De Waal response by proxy on Darfur genocide question
By Steve Paterno
March 26, 2009 — I wrote an article published in Sudan Tribune on March 23rd, 2009 entitled “Alex De Waal and Darfur Genocide Question.” In the article, I stated and explained that Dr. Alex De Waal, a foremost expert and scholar on Sudanese affairs has, of recent, been dismissive of any claim of genocide committed in Darfur, skeptical of the strength of evidence of genocide that can be presented in court, and adamantly opposed to the prosecutions of President Omar al-Bashir on the alleged crimes he committed in the ongoing conflict in Darfur. The article also points out to De Waal’s relentless attacks on the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Luis Moreno-Ocampo, and it as well exposes De Waal’s drastic shift of position over a short period of time on the same subject.
In what seems to be a rather disguised reaction to my article, De Waal made a very weak attempt to refute some of the concerns I raised with respect to his position on the subject matter. His feeble effort surfaced in an article he published, following my article, on his blog which he later forwarded the same article to be carried in Sudan Tribune the subsequent day with the title Genocide by force of habit? In his article, De Waal made endeavored to completely avoid any direct reference to me or my article. The closest he ever comes to making reference to me is where he used generic pronounce such as “those” and “some.” Interestingly, he instead picked up on a likely target, Professor Eric Reeve who is similar to him in some odd ways as his point of reference. He makes a reference of Reeve’s article written awhile ago, which pointed out that he has shifted his position on the genocide question.
De Waal goes in his article to charge that “those” pointing out his drastic shift of position are “half-witted critics,” because though he shifted his position, it is “a minor shift” that changes with facts. For those who follow De Waal’s shifting of position, the fear is that he is trying to change the facts as he goes other than trying to allow facts change him. According to him, some of the facts, which make him shift his position include: lack of evidence on part of Khartoum regime for its intention to commit genocide in Darfur; advice from lawyers who told him not to use the term genocide when referring to atrocities committed in Darfur; the dropping down of mortality rate; the reduction of violence by 90%; and the bringing of humanitarian crisis under control.
Though De Waal sought to address my article by proxies, I was in away compelled to respond to his article by posting my comments on his blog to address some of the issues that he tried to refute. To my surprise, De Waal decided to block my commentaries. He then wrote me privately, issuing a condition that before he would post my commentaries, I “must apologize in public” for alleging that he (De Waal) opposes the arrest of al-Bashir and for questioning his motive for having alerted al-Bashir weeks prior to prosecutor of ICC officially filing for the arrest warrant against al-Bashir.
To me, it was apparent that De Waal was attempting to blackmail me into apologizing to him, given that my article has clearly impacted him negatively. It also became obvious that he was in away trying to suppress my freedom of expression and limit my ability to exchange ideas by not only blocking my commentaries, but also by threatening to deny me access to public platform. It would only be fair if he would allow my commentaries to be posted along his article, because his article was attending to my previous article by proxy. In addition, my commentaries were relevant to his article. But instead, De Waal chose the art of blackmailing and power of suppression to deal away with me, though not successful. So the concept of censorship is not only practiced in Khartoum or by some dictators with big names. It seems to be all over.
Anyway, on my part, I see no reason to apologize to De Waal for my article. I don’t think I can also be blackmailed or succumbed into any threats. And I am not in any way bound to have my freedom of expression restricted and my ability to exchange ideas get limited by those who falsely think they have monopoly of thoughts. I have not made any false allegations against De Waal, but my points are all supported by hard facts—the facts, which mostly originated from De Waal’s own writings. For example, on a notion that De Waal opposes the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir, in an Op-Ed for Washington Post, even weeks before the ICC Prosecutor Ocampo could file a request for the arrest warrant against al-Bashir, De Waal warned that bringing charges “against the highest echelons of government” in Khartoum is a terrible gamble. (This was when De Waal had already a tip-off on the possibility of imminent charges being leveled against al-Bashir where in turn he alerted al-Bashir of it). Ever since then, De Waal continued to argue against the arrest warrant against al-Bashir. Just months prior to the ICC Pretrial Chamber making the rulings against al-Bashir, De Waal went on to critique the public application by the chief prosecutor of the ICC for an arrest warrant against al-Bashir where De Waal recommended that there should never be any charges “brought against the Sudanese President.” He urged the United Nation Security Council to invoke article 16 for “unconditional” deferral of al-Bashir arrest warrant. The facts that De Waal is opposed to the arrest of al-Bashir are very clear and can be inferred from all his writings, even way before the application of arrest warrant for al-Bashir was filed as demonstrated in the examples above. De Waal is a featured celebrity of pro Khartoum regime Sudan Media Center, where his arguments in opposition of ICC are echoed in that platform over and over for the amazement of the regime in Khartoum and its supporters.
As for De Waal complaints for being questioned on his motive for alerting al-Bashir prior to the ICC prosecutor filing the application for the arrest warrant, it is up to De Waal to explain his motives and for the general public to interpret or even speculate on those motives.
Well, the last time I checked De Waal’s blog, Eric Reeve, the lone respondent whom De Waal picked-on and allowed to comment on his article, is being pounded by the supporters of the regime in Khartoum. Those supporters of the regime in Khartoum are allowed to post their commentaries at the expense of those who disagree with De Waal. The most shocking twist of events is that De Waal had no choice, but to forward his article to be published in Sudan Tribune as a counteraction to my own article. I hope this is not “counteraction on the cheap.” This is ironic, because De Waal could privately threaten to deny me access to a public platform he controls while he would sneak around to go after me in search of another public platform that I thrive on. After all, De Waal does not control public platform at least that is what he found out. Now with his article, which he denied me to comment on already published in Sudan Tribune, I am in a liberty to comment on it as much as I want, but out of respect, I am not going to. I leave it for those who agree with him to do the commentaries.
If there is any lesson learned, it will be that my article affects De Waal negatively and exposes his contradicting positions on the ongoing conflict in Darfur, though it is difficult for him to openly admit the obvious. Another lesson learn is that knowledge is independent of any single individual regardless of their race, region, class or what have you—there is no one in charge of monopolizing knowledge—no matter how many times he or she is called “expert.” The search for truth, which is independent of any individual human being or a race, is left to all. The good thing about the truth is that it will always prevail in the end and set one free. With that, this must be the lesson of today.