21st century genocide: Darfur
Kira Awrey and Andrea Switzer
Throughout the past century genocide has been defined, refined, and moved to the forefront of international consciousness. In 2002, just ten years after the Rwandan genocide the world saw the advent of the most recent genocide in history, the Darfurian genocide in western Sudan. The ending date, most would argue, has not happened yet. Thus far the International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, along with four others, however the suspect is still at large and in charge of the Sudanese government. Though the genocide is recognized internationally and within the political and humanitarian communities there is little understanding of the conflict within the public consciousness. Although most people in the current day feel that they are well-educated on historical genocides and would have some authority to ensure that it would not happen again, the Darfur context demonstrates that due to media constraints and western centric ideals most people do not know about ongoing genocides.
Between 2003 and 2006 it is estimated that between 200,000 to 500,000 people have been killed by the Sudanese government. While between one to three million have been displaced from their homes. Displaced citizens are now living in refugee camps in other sections of Sudan and Chad, many of those in camps have said that they are too afraid to return home after attacks have ceased in their villages. This genocide has been perpetrated through mass murders, systematic raping, the destruction of over 2000 villages, and displacement of peoples.
The determination that is in fact genocide has been controversial, some argue that the international community is determining this as genocide because of collective guilt from Rwanda, while others argue that these crimes are in fact a genocide. During the Bush administration both a commission of inquiry (COI) through the United Nations Security Council and a study by the American government investigated the conflict. The COI found that it was not a genocide, but the American government declared it was. This was significant as it was the first time the United States had ever acknowledged a genocide. Historian, Scott Strauss argues that this difference of opinion stems from the ambiguity surrounding the definition of Genocide. Perhaps with the final determination in this conflict was the ICC charging Al Bashir with three counts of Genocide. The ICC defines genocide as “killing… causing serious bodily or mental harm; and… deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.” As of June 2005, the ICC has focused on crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity relating to the Darfur genocide. The trials start with crimes committed as of July 2002, when the genocide itself began. While the ICC has attempted to bring justice to this conflict, there is not enough sufficient evidence to say that the trials will be successful.
The genocide is being perpetrated by a group of Arab militia called the Janjaweed Razzias. These militia are attacking predominantly black non-arab African tribal farmers or the non- Arabic speaking African population.It has become abundantly clear that this militia was trained and armed by the government. Though the government tried to distance themselves and espouse that the Janjaweed have stopped the killings, it has become clear that the killings have not stopped and are often perpetrated from government camps or with government backing. The Janjaweed perpetrates assaults, predominantly upon non-arab towns through rape, murder, beatings, torture, burning villages, stealing UN and NGO aid, blocking food and water from citizens, and stealing economic resources. Perhaps one of the most systematic and blatantly genocidal attacks upon the people are the imposed famines, slowing starving out and killing their victims, which would be virtually impossible without government assistance.
In 2004, The UN called upon the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjaweed and create some sort of peace treaty, at which point only aprox. 30,000 people had been murdered, but Al Bashir did not comply. In fact it was found that the government actively blocked aid and relief efforts from the international community.Those charged by the ICC with Genocide are government officials, Janjaweed, and resistance forces. Although Chadian governments are attempting to negotiate with the Janjaweed rebels for peace, the treaty has not yet been signed. In December 2003, the Chadian government peace mediator stated that “there has been a breakdown in negotiations because of unacceptable rebel demand. The talks have been suspended: it’s a failure.” Negotiations with rebels perpetrating the genocide has resulted in countries becoming frustrated and disillusioned with the idea of ending the conflict in Darfur.
A huge portion of the victims in Darfur are women, this is perhaps obvious as one of their genocidal tactics is rape. As more research is being done in Darfur about the genocide it has been found that many women who suffered sexual violence, are now suffering from “malnutrition; miscarriages; irregular menstrual cycle; sexually transmitted diseases; physical injuries due to beatings; injuries sustained during flight from their enemies,” nightmares, and suicide, not to mention the physiological effects and feeling of “shame, depression, stigma, illness, [and] difficulty coping.”
At the only free medical clinic in South Darfur they found that 89.8% percent of patients were from 12 non-Arabic tribes and claimed to have been attacked by the Sudanese government. 55.6% of patients were victims of sexual assault. Unfortunately a great deal of these attacks are being perpetrated near to refugee camps, as nearly half of the women who reported sexual assault we assaulted within close proximity to camp for displaced persons.
The clinic itself opened in 2004 and provided health care, along with rehabilitation and legal services to those victim to torture and human rights violations. Unfortunately as the conflict heightened the staff fled the centre, in 2009, but the documentation from 2004-2006 was retrieved and sent off before they left and has been used to research the conflict in Darfur more in depth. Due to security concerns they were not able to get documentation past Dec 31st 2006 or any of the gynecology reports from sexual assault victims. What they have retrieved has helped immensely in understanding the conflict, as it is still ongoing and being perpetrated by the standing government. In some cases the victims were able to give specific details about their perpetrators and military commanders or high ranking officials that have had a hand in the genocide and attacks, less than 1% of those mentioned were part of a rebel group. This is of course only relative to survivors, the researchers have made it very clear that these statistics are not representative of the entire conflict or the height of the atrocities as they were not involved with those who died and most patients only came forward for care after the incidents occurred. A lot of the information that is known about deaths and displacement in Darfur comes from the ICC and their ongoing investigation.
The justice process involving a genocide is an extremely controversial matter. Courts are used to attempt to bring legal justice and healing to all involved, however that is not always the case. In Darfur, there are still arguments and evidence to prove that the conflict is not over, therefore making the justice process more complicated, but in many ways Darfur has also been a major turning point in the process of bringing justice to genocide, due to its many failed attempts.
At the start of the war, Darfur was ignored by the international community because of Sudan’s seemingly fragile state. Western countries were hesitant about getting involved, partly because of the known internal struggle. When peacekeepers were sent in and the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May 2006, the international community hoped for an end to the conflict. The Darfur Peace Agreement was null when only one of three rebel leaders signed it. This attempt at justice looked appeasing from an outside perspective, but did very little regarding the safety of Darfurian citizens and the stability of Sudan. Likewise, in 2008 the UN initiated a force called The United Nations-African Union Mission (UNAMID). The union was supposed to bring justice to Darfur by stopping the genocide through force. While the initial plan was to send 26000 troops, only 9000 were actually issued. This meant that there were not enough troops or equipment to stop the conflict, and the plan was a failure. While the plan to use force reads well in theory, previous genocides have proven that violence for justice is only successful when there are sufficient troops and equipment.
The international relations between Sudan and the Western world have been affected to the point of minimal chance of reconciliation. President Omar Al-Bashir is still acting as head of government in Sudan, all while being convicted of genocide. The genocide charge he is facing is the mass murder of the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit communities. In the Western world, we like to think that the world would take action and force a government official with these crimes against out of office, when in reality we cannot do anything. While Al-Bashir and other officials have denied all accusations, diplomats and heads of states in Western countries have stopped meeting with the Sudanese government. This halt in international relations make it impossible for Sudan to get rid of its debt, as well as stopping any possibility of Sudan becoming a peaceful country.
In Western countries, people are used to being informed about the world through multiple sources of media. It tells people exactly what is happening, or the version they want to here, in certain areas of the world. The media surrounding Darfur has been sub-par at best. With Darfur being such a recent conflict, many people alive today should be able to talk about the genocide with at least minimal information and opinion. That is not the case, however, as the majority of Western people either have never heard of or know too little about the conflict to discuss it.
Media coverage of international topics often takes a specific bias. The media wants people to consume their material, and therefore will talk about the stories that people want to hear. Sources can add biased perceptions of the conflict in ways that the public is not be able to identify. Likewise, certain locations also hold a bias to them in Western media. African countries are often written about regarding race, poverty, and general unrest. In the Darfur genocide, ethnic identities are immediately used because of the genocide’s ethnic base, as well as to make the media coverage more interesting to western readers. Often, Africa is depicted in the news as desolate land thwarted by ethnic conflicts, while the U.S and the West are described as “aid givers.” This hero status given to the West tells people receiving the news that the conflict will be over soon and that the international community is doing the best they can to solve the conflict, when in fact, the conflict is far from over and many international countries have stopped helping or getting involved.
There is a dehumanising process to this way of media coverage. By labelling the West as the heroes, how severe the Darfur genocide is at risk of being down-played through the media’s bias. A hole forms when that bias is too strong, at the expense of the facts. The West has adopted a tendency that in order to expose people to these conflicts, they must do a large, fun event to raise money, and spread awareness. In September 2006, Senator Romeo Dallaire and Justin Trudeau created a benefit concert in order to help “stop” the conflict in Darfur. In order for these events to be successful, prior to the concerts information needs to be spread about the Darfur genocide and its most basic facts in order to have people attending who want to help and understand what is happening around them.
The media coverage in Darfur severely lacks needed information when it is released to the public. Most of the western population relies on the media for news about what is happening in the international community. By failing to talk about Darfur, an ongoing conflict, media is failing western citizens. In order to stop this, readers need to be aware of the bias in which these articles are written in, find facts for themselves through primary sources, NGOs, International media, and humanitarian organization which will help to provide clearer information, and hold Western media accountable.
The Darfur context demonstrates that media constraints and western centric ideals lead the public to neglect ongoing genocides. Though the Darfur genocide is recognized internationally and within the political and humanitarian communities there is little understanding and reaction from the public. Yet, this is still an ongoing genocide that is being ignored by millions and still killing hundreds of thousands non-Arab Darfurians. While the international community is stalled in bring this genocide to an end the Media needs to provide the public with pertinent information in order to keep the world informed and engaged with this conflict.
Between 2003 and 2006 it is estimated that between 200,000 to 500,000 people have been killed by the Sudanese government. While between one to three million have been displaced from their homes. Displaced citizens are now living in refugee camps in other sections of Sudan and Chad, many of those in camps have said that they are too afraid to return home after attacks have ceased in their villages. This genocide has been perpetrated through mass murders, systematic raping, the destruction of over 2000 villages, and displacement of peoples.
The determination that is in fact genocide has been controversial, some argue that the international community is determining this as genocide because of collective guilt from Rwanda, while others argue that these crimes are in fact a genocide. During the Bush administration both a commission of inquiry (COI) through the United Nations Security Council and a study by the American government investigated the conflict. The COI found that it was not a genocide, but the American government declared it was. This was significant as it was the first time the United States had ever acknowledged a genocide. Historian, Scott Strauss argues that this difference of opinion stems from the ambiguity surrounding the definition of Genocide. Perhaps with the final determination in this conflict was the ICC charging Al Bashir with three counts of Genocide. The ICC defines genocide as “killing… causing serious bodily or mental harm; and… deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.” As of June 2005, the ICC has focused on crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity relating to the Darfur genocide. The trials start with crimes committed as of July 2002, when the genocide itself began. While the ICC has attempted to bring justice to this conflict, there is not enough sufficient evidence to say that the trials will be successful.
The genocide is being perpetrated by a group of Arab militia called the Janjaweed Razzias. These militia are attacking predominantly black non-arab African tribal farmers or the non- Arabic speaking African population.It has become abundantly clear that this militia was trained and armed by the government. Though the government tried to distance themselves and espouse that the Janjaweed have stopped the killings, it has become clear that the killings have not stopped and are often perpetrated from government camps or with government backing. The Janjaweed perpetrates assaults, predominantly upon non-arab towns through rape, murder, beatings, torture, burning villages, stealing UN and NGO aid, blocking food and water from citizens, and stealing economic resources. Perhaps one of the most systematic and blatantly genocidal attacks upon the people are the imposed famines, slowing starving out and killing their victims, which would be virtually impossible without government assistance.
In 2004, The UN called upon the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjaweed and create some sort of peace treaty, at which point only aprox. 30,000 people had been murdered, but Al Bashir did not comply. In fact it was found that the government actively blocked aid and relief efforts from the international community.Those charged by the ICC with Genocide are government officials, Janjaweed, and resistance forces. Although Chadian governments are attempting to negotiate with the Janjaweed rebels for peace, the treaty has not yet been signed. In December 2003, the Chadian government peace mediator stated that “there has been a breakdown in negotiations because of unacceptable rebel demand. The talks have been suspended: it’s a failure.” Negotiations with rebels perpetrating the genocide has resulted in countries becoming frustrated and disillusioned with the idea of ending the conflict in Darfur.
A huge portion of the victims in Darfur are women, this is perhaps obvious as one of their genocidal tactics is rape. As more research is being done in Darfur about the genocide it has been found that many women who suffered sexual violence, are now suffering from “malnutrition; miscarriages; irregular menstrual cycle; sexually transmitted diseases; physical injuries due to beatings; injuries sustained during flight from their enemies,” nightmares, and suicide, not to mention the physiological effects and feeling of “shame, depression, stigma, illness, [and] difficulty coping.”
At the only free medical clinic in South Darfur they found that 89.8% percent of patients were from 12 non-Arabic tribes and claimed to have been attacked by the Sudanese government. 55.6% of patients were victims of sexual assault. Unfortunately a great deal of these attacks are being perpetrated near to refugee camps, as nearly half of the women who reported sexual assault we assaulted within close proximity to camp for displaced persons.
The clinic itself opened in 2004 and provided health care, along with rehabilitation and legal services to those victim to torture and human rights violations. Unfortunately as the conflict heightened the staff fled the centre, in 2009, but the documentation from 2004-2006 was retrieved and sent off before they left and has been used to research the conflict in Darfur more in depth. Due to security concerns they were not able to get documentation past Dec 31st 2006 or any of the gynecology reports from sexual assault victims. What they have retrieved has helped immensely in understanding the conflict, as it is still ongoing and being perpetrated by the standing government. In some cases the victims were able to give specific details about their perpetrators and military commanders or high ranking officials that have had a hand in the genocide and attacks, less than 1% of those mentioned were part of a rebel group. This is of course only relative to survivors, the researchers have made it very clear that these statistics are not representative of the entire conflict or the height of the atrocities as they were not involved with those who died and most patients only came forward for care after the incidents occurred. A lot of the information that is known about deaths and displacement in Darfur comes from the ICC and their ongoing investigation.
The justice process involving a genocide is an extremely controversial matter. Courts are used to attempt to bring legal justice and healing to all involved, however that is not always the case. In Darfur, there are still arguments and evidence to prove that the conflict is not over, therefore making the justice process more complicated, but in many ways Darfur has also been a major turning point in the process of bringing justice to genocide, due to its many failed attempts.
At the start of the war, Darfur was ignored by the international community because of Sudan’s seemingly fragile state. Western countries were hesitant about getting involved, partly because of the known internal struggle. When peacekeepers were sent in and the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May 2006, the international community hoped for an end to the conflict. The Darfur Peace Agreement was null when only one of three rebel leaders signed it. This attempt at justice looked appeasing from an outside perspective, but did very little regarding the safety of Darfurian citizens and the stability of Sudan. Likewise, in 2008 the UN initiated a force called The United Nations-African Union Mission (UNAMID). The union was supposed to bring justice to Darfur by stopping the genocide through force. While the initial plan was to send 26000 troops, only 9000 were actually issued. This meant that there were not enough troops or equipment to stop the conflict, and the plan was a failure. While the plan to use force reads well in theory, previous genocides have proven that violence for justice is only successful when there are sufficient troops and equipment.
The international relations between Sudan and the Western world have been affected to the point of minimal chance of reconciliation. President Omar Al-Bashir is still acting as head of government in Sudan, all while being convicted of genocide. The genocide charge he is facing is the mass murder of the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit communities. In the Western world, we like to think that the world would take action and force a government official with these crimes against out of office, when in reality we cannot do anything. While Al-Bashir and other officials have denied all accusations, diplomats and heads of states in Western countries have stopped meeting with the Sudanese government. This halt in international relations make it impossible for Sudan to get rid of its debt, as well as stopping any possibility of Sudan becoming a peaceful country.
In Western countries, people are used to being informed about the world through multiple sources of media. It tells people exactly what is happening, or the version they want to here, in certain areas of the world. The media surrounding Darfur has been sub-par at best. With Darfur being such a recent conflict, many people alive today should be able to talk about the genocide with at least minimal information and opinion. That is not the case, however, as the majority of Western people either have never heard of or know too little about the conflict to discuss it.
Media coverage of international topics often takes a specific bias. The media wants people to consume their material, and therefore will talk about the stories that people want to hear. Sources can add biased perceptions of the conflict in ways that the public is not be able to identify. Likewise, certain locations also hold a bias to them in Western media. African countries are often written about regarding race, poverty, and general unrest. In the Darfur genocide, ethnic identities are immediately used because of the genocide’s ethnic base, as well as to make the media coverage more interesting to western readers. Often, Africa is depicted in the news as desolate land thwarted by ethnic conflicts, while the U.S and the West are described as “aid givers.” This hero status given to the West tells people receiving the news that the conflict will be over soon and that the international community is doing the best they can to solve the conflict, when in fact, the conflict is far from over and many international countries have stopped helping or getting involved.
There is a dehumanising process to this way of media coverage. By labelling the West as the heroes, how severe the Darfur genocide is at risk of being down-played through the media’s bias. A hole forms when that bias is too strong, at the expense of the facts. The West has adopted a tendency that in order to expose people to these conflicts, they must do a large, fun event to raise money, and spread awareness. In September 2006, Senator Romeo Dallaire and Justin Trudeau created a benefit concert in order to help “stop” the conflict in Darfur. In order for these events to be successful, prior to the concerts information needs to be spread about the Darfur genocide and its most basic facts in order to have people attending who want to help and understand what is happening around them.
The media coverage in Darfur severely lacks needed information when it is released to the public. Most of the western population relies on the media for news about what is happening in the international community. By failing to talk about Darfur, an ongoing conflict, media is failing western citizens. In order to stop this, readers need to be aware of the bias in which these articles are written in, find facts for themselves through primary sources, NGOs, International media, and humanitarian organization which will help to provide clearer information, and hold Western media accountable.
The Darfur context demonstrates that media constraints and western centric ideals lead the public to neglect ongoing genocides. Though the Darfur genocide is recognized internationally and within the political and humanitarian communities there is little understanding and reaction from the public. Yet, this is still an ongoing genocide that is being ignored by millions and still killing hundreds of thousands non-Arab Darfurians. While the international community is stalled in bring this genocide to an end the Media needs to provide the public with pertinent information in order to keep the world informed and engaged with this conflict.