Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
WANTED: NEW OCCUPIER
KABOBfest is currently soliciting applications for a new occupier in the land of Palestine. We are looking for a belligerent foreign army that, like the current occupier, is brutal, menacing, and racist.
Sadly, after 60 years of Zionist settlement and occupation, we have concluded that Israel is too good at its job.
Namely, we are interested in joining the people of Darfur and Tibetans as people oppressed by a state the US opposes. Things were exciting with Israel at first, but after effectively shoring up American support, the occupier-occupied dynamics have become a little too-stilted and one-sided. Like any relationship, we want to keep things spicey and surprising. Re-aligning the geo-political terrain with a new occupier seems like the perfect answer.
Our only requirement is that your country possesses an army. Please include a 500-word essay answering this question: "What ancient or religious reasons can you concoct to justify occupying Palestine?"
Direct applications to KABOBfest Administrator, Chaim Sugarman.
----
Note. This was inspired by a rare e-mail from Nabeel:
Anyone watch the [Dalai Lama] ceremony? Tom-F-ing-Lantos spoke at the event. He's so supportive of people's right to self-determination; NOT!!! I think the key to liberating the P is to find a different occupier. We need a nation that Americans can hate like China or Russia to occupy our land.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Hassan al Turabi
The Sudan tribune offers a lengthy interview with one of the most fascinating figures in the Middle East today, Hassan al Turabi. Although al Turabi can seem at times as nothing more than a shrewd political operator, he has been on both the outside and inside of the Sudanese political structure and has a lot of insight.
The interview is not terribly critical, but winds through many of the major topics of the day (democracy, Islamic movements, fatwas, Darfur etc.). From the intro:
Dr Hassan Al Turabi, the Godfather of the Islamic movement of Sudan, is considered to be one of the most controversial political figures in post-independence Sudan. The 75-year-old charismatic political leader has proved beyond any doubt to be a skillful political survivor. He belongs to what he himself describes in a pejorative sense as “the indestructible Sudanese political class”. According to him, “They betray one another, imprison one another, reconcile with one another, but they never assassinate one another. In Sudan, only the people have the privilege of dying”. In return the Sudanese people have increasingly become cynical about this political class and they tend to view them as hopelessly corrupt, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritical misfits, or incurable idealists doomed to failure – unfortunately most of them fit this description perfectly.In this interview we have tried to make sense of the man behind the controversy, the man who has tried all the tricks in the book, and outside it, to install a totalitarian Islamic regime in Sudan. For 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, Al Turabi remained the ultimate power behind the throne, whether as leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) or later as speaker of the assembly. During that time many human rights abuses were committed, including summary executions, torture, arbitrary detentions, denial of freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and violations of the rules of war, particularly in the south and Nuba Mountains.
But now he characterizes the experiment that he meticulously engineered as a “failure”. The British and French educated politician decided his political destiny as a very young man in the early 1950s when he joined the Sudan’s Muslim Brothers movement, which at the time was an inhibited and politically naïve organization. He presided over a movement that comprised contradictions between the Sufi order and hard-line, radical Islamists, but to many people, even his enemies, he increasingly came across as pragmatic and liberal minded. Many see this as part of the opportunistic nature of the Islamic movement in Sudan, lead by an essentially westernized, open-minded leader who cynically thought that access to power in Sudan is best achieved by competing successfully against the popular sectarian parties of Sudan, and to outbid them in their political comfort zone which was securely centered around religion.
Entire interview is, here.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Muslim Live8
A collection of Islamic organizations and charities are producing a Muslim style Live8 concert in England to celebrate Eid and raise funds and awareness for Darfur. Although I couldn't find the concert lineup, it looks like the headliner will definitely be Sami Yusuf, who has recently been the focus of a fair amount of media coverage in the West. From the article about the concert:
Mr Malik said: "This is a thorny issue for us and it is clear that we have to do more. It is a challenge for us because people are highly motivated and get highly charged in other areas, and we need to do considerably more."
Fareena Alam, editor of the Muslim magazine Q News, described the response from British Muslims as "shameful".
She said: "We can get hot and bothered about Iraq. There is a lot of information about Darfur. There is no doubt this is Muslim-on-Muslim violence.
"In this situation where are these values we talk about, that killing one life is about killing humanity? It is a huge embarrassment to us. We need to have a very big conversation about this."
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Mithl Me
There are things about the Middle East and its treatment of diversity that I really like. Countries like Syria and Jordan have absorbed wave after wave of refugees through history. Circassians, Chechens, Armenians, Palestinians, Iraqis and many other groups and now an integral part of the fabric in those countries. I met a community of Sudanese Christian refugees in Syria in the 90s. Many Muslim families in Syria go to church with their neighbors for holidays and others proudly recall attending Jewish schools growing up.
There is of course the unfortunate other side of the coin. I find all the bloodshed in Iraq so depressing, but was really saddened by the recent attack on the Yazidi community that took more than 250 lives. This was not the first attack on the community and other minority religions (e.g. Jews, Christians, Sufis and Mandeans) have been persecuted (to say nothing of certain occupations or political views). Is the region unique in its intolerance? With any broad historical perspective the answer is certainly, no, but that does not excuse these kinds of acts. I have to respect a democracy like India, that until recently had religious minorities as both President and Prime Minister (not to say India does not have sectarian problems of its own).
Sadly another group that has been failed by the Middle Eastern community, the Sahrawi, have been served merely "good discourse" rather than substantive progress in recent UN brokered talks. I think it would almost magical how quickly things could get sorted out if France and the Arab League put a bare modicum of pressure on Morocco.
Although it has been late coming in some quarters, it has been heartening to see more and more voices speaking out against the atrocities in Darfur. We can sort out the problems (to put it lightly) in the media coverage later, there needs to be action yesterday. For examples click here and here. Al Jazeera English has also had some good coverage on the issue, which can be seen on their Youtube page.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Everyone's Doing it, LeBron. Just Sign the Letter!
Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James caused a mini-controversy by refusing to "sign an open letter, written by his teammate Ira Newble condemning China's government for contributing to the genocide of people in the Darfur region of Sudan," according to an article by PA Sports Ticker.
"China cannot be a legitimate host to the premier international event in the sporting world - the Summer Olympic Games - while it remains complicit in the terrible suffering and destruction that continues to this day," Newble wrote. Many are criticizing the 22 year-old player.
James claimed he does not "have enough information about the issue." He clearly has not been following the news. Everyone knows about the clear link between the conflict in Darfur and China. It is simple. The nomads and the sedentary folks in Darfur fought over the decreasingly arable land, with the former being armed and encouraged by the Sudanese government (to combat the separatist rebels among the sedentary people). With governmental backing and occasional intervention, the nomadic people became increasingly violent, sometimes retaliating against violence committed against them, but also approaching egregious levels that can be described as "ethnic cleansing." (Though when Israelis do it to Palestinians, who are also separatists, it is justified as "national security.")
Okay, so maybe it is not simple. Since when do political opinions need to informed, LeBron? Don't you watch FOX News? Any blonde with hatred for people of color can get a job as a political commentator and book author these days.
The logic of Newble's letter rests on this: China does business with the Sudanese government, so China must be pressured. I agree with this sentiment, but there are some obvious gaps in Newble's letter.
Curiously no one is condemning the US for doing business with China, or asking countries that do business with the US to stop because of its large hand in the Chinese economy. China is America's second largest trading partner this year. It is easier to hide our national acquiescence in wrong-doing. it makes us seem as benevolent as possible and the problem as foreign -- namely as "Arab" -- as possible. Nothing demonstrates this bigger than the obvious fact that the scale of death, destruction and displacement in Darfur is much smaller than what the US is doing in Iraq now.
Just as mysteriously, China's human rights record is as bad as or worse than Sudan's. Why doesn't the letter address this more obvious and direct problem? Why condemn a notorious human rights violator for its support of other's human rights violations but not its own? This may be some sort of political calculation, but it seems fishy if you ask me.
As for LeBron's silence, I cannot be surprised. He is essentially a human corporation who will do what is clearly in his best interest. He would never threaten his ginormous contract with Nike, with all its stake in the China market. He is following the Michael Jordan model of professional athlete -- maximizing his interests and saving charity for public relations. Given LeBron's public displays of Christianity, I find this hypocritical. WWJD?
Sure, I wish James would follow the example of Mohammad Ali, but then again, a movement for change cannot rest on celebrities.
I applaud professional athletes for trying to use their public visibility to raise awareness about what's going on in the world, even if it is overly simplistic or full of gaps. The people of Darfur, especially the refugees, need to have the right of return and be compensated for their suffering.
Either way, Pistons in six.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Where's the Save Congo Coalition?
Roger Howard raises an important question about the mismatch between the attention paid to Darfur vis-a-vis the stunning silence around the massive tragedy in the Congo.
In a remote corner of Africa, millions of civilians have been slaughtered in a conflict fuelled by an almost genocidal ferocity that has no end in sight. Victims have been targeted because of their ethnicity and entire ethnic groups destroyed - but the outside world has turned its back, doing little to save people from the wrath of the various government and rebel militias. You could be forgiven for thinking that this is a depiction of the Sudanese province of Darfur, racked by four years of bitter fighting. But it describes the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has received a fraction of the media attention devoted to Darfur.
read on
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Road to Darfur Passes Through Baghdad and Jerusalem
I've noticed recently a new generation of "Save Darfur" shirts floating around, many on the bodies of college students, younger activists, and pro-Israeli types looking for something redeeming to support.
I am glad that some humanitarian and political cause is on the radar of folks, even if it reveals a HUGE moral blindspot and strangely hypocritical righteousness. On balance, caring about Darfur is much better than caring about how you look, what brands you wear, or which Hollywood star is with which other one. But, it is much more important that Americans of conscience begin by saving the countries their own government is destroying.
Many find something reeky about the "Save Darfur" enterprise. It lies squarely in the blatant hypocrisy of pushing for sanctions and divestment against an impoverished under-developed country racked by 30 years of famine of civil war, while our government in the United States is committing a significantly larger travesty in Iraq. For instance, estimates of Janjaweed and Sudani government violence against Darfur's rebels and civilians run as high as 300,000. Since 1990, the United States has killed more than four times that many Iraqis through invasions, bombing and sanctions.
Google and the American Holocaust Museum teamed up for a high profile and compelling display of the savaged places in Darfur on Google Maps. That's an important resource, especially for humanitarian workers in Sudan who do not have good access to maps. Google Maps could do some great work on the displacement of Palestinian refugees, who number 4.5 million to Darfur's 2 million. You can bet the American Holocaust Museum would not sponsor that one.
Shouldn't Americans be pointing their efforts to prevent genocide inwards first?
For many good people "Save Darfur" does NOT mean "Destroy Iraq" or "Ignore Palestine." However, at the institutional level, many of us who share common cause with the people of Darfur are turned off by a movement so ready to exploit American tools of imperial power, such as sanctions and force, while silently abating American-sponsorship destruction elsewhere.
Darfur is an African problem. Africa should be supported and encouraged to stop the carnage. However, Israel's America-backed murderous occupation of the Palestinians and the mess in Iraq are both the direct outgrowth of a broken, morally baseless American foreign policy. Both are American problems; Americans should be addressing those.
While, I am glad that people care enough to want to "Save Darfur," Americans need to first save Iraq and Palestine from themselves. Until Americans save their own victims, why would anyone else in the world listen to them when they actually have good intentions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
