Posted on 08/03/2004 12:56:12 PM PDT by anotherview
IMG SRC="http://static.jpost.com/images/2003/site/hr/header.Editorial.gif">
Aug. 2, 2004 21:02 | Updated Aug. 3, 2004 11:03
Darfur - exposing Arab goals for what they are
By SHLOMO AVINERI
Zenaba Ismail cradles the bodies of her daughter and that of her niece, both killed by Arab gunmen
Photo: AP
The EU and the UN have finally decided to take the first timid steps to try to put an end to what it happening in Darfur in the Sudan.
The recent report by Human Rights Watch on Darfur corroborates the worst suspicions of those who have followed developments in western Sudan. There have been killings on a massive scale, expulsions, the systematic torching of villages and – last and not least – the use of rape as a weapon of intimidation and humiliation against the province's black population.
These are not just the depredations of unruly Arab militias. They are the instruments of the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum in its war against the black, non-Arab population of the province.
This is, of course, not the first time Sudan has been involved in violence against its non-Arab population. For decades the Sudanese government has been trying to suppress an insurrection of black tribes, mainly the Dingas, in the South. In that case Khartoum was trying to impose Islamic law on the Southerners, who are mainly Christians and animists.
In Darfur, those oppressed by the Sudan government are themselves Muslims. But in both cases, the Khartoum government has been engaged in oppressing and brutalizing black, non-Arab population groups.
International public opinion – obviously slow to react, as in the case of Rwanda, to a horror in a far away land, where the victims are blacks and the details appear murky – has, however, overlooked the wider context in which these actions have occurred.
One of the characteristics of Arab nationalism – epitomized in the official ideology of the Arab League – has been to view the region as exclusively Arab. Obviously, the majority of the population in the arc stretching from Morocco to Kuwait are culturally and linguistically Arab.
Yet by calling it "the Arab region," Arab nationalist discourse states not only a demographic fact but also presents a normative entitlement: In the book of mainstream Arab nationalism, there is only one legitimate nation-bearing people in the area – the Arabs.
This exclusivist, hegemonic aspect determines much of Arab politics.
Hence there is no Arab voice accepting the rights of the Kurds in northern Iraq for self-determination; hence the difficulties of Algeria in accepting the Berbers – and their language – as a legitimate political component of the country; hence the violent opposition to the attempts of the Christian Maronites to mold a slightly different identity for Lebanon; hence the angry response in Egypt when the issue of the Christian Coptic is raised. The Egyptian riposte has consistently been that there are no minorities in Egypt.
It is in this context that the deep unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of Israel has to be understood.
If any nation in Central or Eastern Europe were to maintain that it has the monopoly of being a Staats-Nation (to use a historically discredited German term), nobody would accept it – and international opinion would, justly, brand it as racist and chauvinistic. This, however, is at the core of the belief system of Arab nationalism. The violence in Sudan – as well as the current violence in Iraq, aimed, among others, also against Kurdish autonomy – is just a more violent expression of the same pernicious thread running though dominant Arab political thinking.
No wonder the Arab League, so vociferous on other issues, has been silent.
What is happening in Darfur is much worse than what Slobodan Milosevic tried to do to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Nobody wants to see the international community involved in another humanitarian war in Africa.
But the issue in Darfur is not just a need for more or quicker humanitarian aid. It is the consequence of a deep, far-reaching version of ethnocentric Arab nationalism, and it has to be robustly confronted, intellectually and politically, for what it is.
The writer is professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Personally, I wonder why President Bush doesn't put together a coalition of the willing for Darfur. It's clear he'd have widespread support, unlike in Iraq, and here he couold be fighting the good fight of eliminating genocide. If the Arab world objects they'd be shown for just who they are.
I can understand why John Kerry woudn't want to talk about Darfur. President Bush, OTOH, would probably gain independent voters for doing something so courageous and risky during an election year. Even the left would have a hard to criticizing him for standing up for human rights and putting a stop to genocide. I also wonder how that would play with African-American voters who aren't totally brainwashed by the NAACP and others.
ping
It beats being blindsided by the accusation that he's done nothing about it.
Criticism that will undoubtedly come from those who would do nothing but wring their hands, bemoan the deaths, and consult with France.
Yup. Pull the troops from Kosovo and let Soros pay out of his own ample pocket to secure his damned mines.
Muslims whether arab or otherwise have been murdering Chrstians by the millions since they started their imperialistic trek from arabia over 1300 years ago.
Our concern for the "Black" non Arab Muslims is well intentioned but where is the outrage when Christians of any racial stripe get massacred by Muslims?
In southern Sudan, where the population is (or at least was) Christian and animist, the death toll is somewhere under 2 million.
Yes, we should decry genocide anywhere. Yes, the U.S. should lead the as much of the world as will be lead into action. Oh, and yes, I agree with you, it should have been done many times before now.
It's just Arab culture to murder all non-arabs they meet. Not our place to judge other cultures by our patriarchal white Christian values, sorry.
The sad fact is that most of America's black citizens don't feel much of a connection with what's going on in Africa, (not a criticism, just a fact. Americans of every stripe and color are too busy trying to keep body and soul together to rail about genocide in Africa or anywhere else. Hence the nitpicking about WMD's and Iraq. We have to analyze what's going on and see the perils of inaction), so any intervention on our part to stop this would be met with blank stares from that section of the electorate. Not that that should be part of any discussion about stopping this slaughter...just a thought.
You just reminded me of a stupid remark by my idiot Cambridge educated son (who is taking out dual citizenship with NZ)..."We need to take Iraqi cultural values into consideration!" To which I responded, "Oh, so pink panties on the head are worse than being put through a shredder?" And his answer, I kid you not, was a resounding, "Yes!" You think you've done a pretty good job raising your kids, and one of them turns out to be crazy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.