Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on June 14, 2004 at 13:34:18: EST (-5 GMT)

THE MEDIA, SUDAN AND DARFUR

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 11 June 2004

Introduction

It is a matter of simple fact that a significant amount of the
international press coverage of Sudan over the past decade has been
questionable. Disinformation and propaganda war have been particular
features of most, if not all, wars over the past fifty years or so. The
international news media has clearly been a target for those who wish to
manipulate the way in which conflicts are presented. The reasons for
this are obvious. International "reporting" is in many instances the
only image many outside observers will have of the country itself.
International press coverage is also sometimes the only material many
commentators and even legislators will have in mind when addressing
issues either directly or indirectly related to Sudan. Journalists have
in many instances managed to get away with some appalling reporting on
Sudan. There has been a mixture of simply bad journalism, misinformation
and deliberate disinformation.

The latest examples of questionable journalism have focused upon the war
in Darfur, a conflict begun by rebels in 2003.

It is worth placing the reporting on Darfur into context. Over the past
decade or so the international news media have carried a number of
deeply questionable claims about Sudan. These have included allegations
that Sudan possessed and manufactured weapons of mass destruction. These
were, of course, particularly grave allegations to have been made. On 20
August 1998, the Clinton Administration launched cruise missile attacks
on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum alleging that the
plant was making chemical weapons as part of Osama bin-Laden's
infrastructure of international terrorism. The Clinton Administration
made several, widely-reported, claims about Sudan and the factory. Every
one proved to be false. After carefully assessing the claims 'The
Observer' newspaper spoke of "a catalogue of US misinformation, glaring
omissions and intelligence errors about the function of the plant." (1)
The claims are now internationally accepted to have been unfounded.

It has also been "reported" that Khartoum had used weapons of mass
destruction in the course of the then civil war in southern Sudan. These
allegations were also shown to be baseless. In this instance anti-
government rebels claimed in July 1999 that Sudanese armed forces had
used chemical weapons in attacks on their forces in southern Sudan. (2)
These claims were repeated by several British newspapers as well as the
BBC. They were also carried in other international media. (3) The United
Nations investigated the claims and arranged for detailed tests which
"indicated no evidence of exposure to chemicals." (4)

One of the other sensationalist claims about Sudan has been allegations
of government-sponsored "slavery" and "slave trade" in Sudan. As "proof"
for this, a great number of newspaper articles "reported" instances of
"slave redemption" in which alleged "slaves" were said to have been
"bought" back from "slave traders". These sorts of claims began to be
exposed as questionable, where not simply false, as early as 1999. (5)
In February 2002, in an unprecedented international focus, and as the
result of some excellent investigative journalism, 'The Irish Times',
London's 'Independent on Sunday', 'The Washington Post' and the
'International Herald Tribune', chose to publish, or republish, articles
definitively exposing the deep fraud and corruption at the heart of
claims of "slave redemption" in Sudan. (6) 'The Washington Post'
reported that in numerous documented instances "the slaves weren't
slaves at all, but people gathered locally and instructed to pretend
they were returning from bondage". (7) 'The Independent on Sunday'
reported that it was able to "reveal that 'redemption' has often been a
carefully orchestrated fraud". (8) 'The Irish Times' reported:
"According to aid workers, missionaries, and even the rebel movement
that facilitates it, slave redemption in Sudan is often an elaborate
scam." (9)

The Latest Sensationalist Claim - "Genocide" in Darfur

The international media has carried a number of reports alleging
"genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur. This has been despite the
fact that such claims have been challenged by seasoned aid workers with
hands-on experience of events within Darfur. Once such observer is Dr
Mercedes Taty, the deputy emergency director of the world-renowned
Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders). Dr Taty has worked
with 12 expatriate doctors and 300 Sudanese nationals in field hospitals
set up in the towns of Mornay, El Genina and Zalinge in the heart of the
Darfur emergency. Asked if comparisons between events in Darfur and
Rwanda were justified, her answer was blunt: "I don't think that we
should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict. Not at
all. This can be a semantic discussion, but nevertheless, there is no
systematic target - targeting one ethnic group or another one. It
doesn't mean either that the situation in Sudan isn't extremely serious
by itself." (10)

The international media's coverage of the Darfur conflict has been self-
evidently lacklustre. The very dynamics of the conflict have not even
been adequately analysed or reported. Most coverage has taken at face
value rebel claims that they are fighting against underdevelopment and
marginalisation in Darfur. The simple fact is that the insurgency is, at
least in large part, the brainchild of the Islamist radical leader Dr
Hasan al-Turabi. Dr Turabi has openly admitted his support for the
rebellion: "We support the cause, no doubt about it...we have relations
with some of the leadership." (11) He has also admitted that 30 members
of his party have been arrested for their involvement in the insurgency.
(12) Turabi's name, and the Islamist involvement, is noticeably absent
from all reporting.

That many news reports have accepted rebel propaganda is unsurprising.
Much of the reporting has been done by journalists who were taken on
guided tours by the rebels in Darfur. (13) Only one of these journalists
subsequently contacted the government of Sudan stating that he wished to
visit government areas to give the government's position. That the
reporting by these journalists in large part reflected claims made by
the rebels is self-evident. This despite the fact that, as also noted by
Reuters, "it is hard to independently verify claims by government or
rebels in Darfur." (14) It is also clear that some of these journalists
are long-time anti-Sudan activists, such as Julie Flint, who have
previously made several questionable claims about events in Sudan. (15)

The media would once again appear to have gone for the sensationalist
story in Sudan - at the expense of professionalism. Andrew Buckoke, a
British foreign correspondent who has written for 'The Guardian', 'The
Economist', 'The Observer', 'The Financial Times' and 'The Times', has
provided an insight into the mindset - even on non-controversial issues
- which should be borne in mind when reading claims of "genocide" and
"ethnic cleansing" in Darfur. He cited the example of the
sensationalistic coverage of the floods in Sudan in August 1988.
Torrential rain on the headwaters of both the White Nile and Blue Nile
had resulted in intense press prediction and speculation that Khartoum
"would disappear under a gigantic whirlpool". (16) Buckoke was sent to
cover this impending disaster and found there was none to report on:
"The Nile never did burst its banks, nor was any significant damage due
to the downpour evident in central Khartoum". (17) This, however, did
not stop the story "still being taken very seriously in the outside
world," and Buckoke "was rebuked by a telex demanding more drama and
detail". Despite there being a non-event, "the floods were the biggest
story out of black Africa". (18) Buckoke questioned the international
coverage: "How did the coverage...get so distorted and imbalanced, as
they so often do when Africa is involved?" (19) He also noted that "the
whole story was out of control. Journalists, aid agency workers, the
government and donors had been caught from the beginning in a self-
sustaining spiral of exaggeration." (20)

Conclusion

It is obvious that Andrew Buckoke's use of the term "self-sustaining
spiral of exaggeration" applies equally to sensationalistic claims of
"genocide" in Darfur. What has happened there is bad enough.
Nevertheless, given the expected story-line set by editors it would be a
brave journalist indeed who returned from a week of milling around in
the sands of Chad or along the border with Sudan without filing some
sort of story of "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". This does not, of
course, in any way excuse the unprofessional way in which Sudan
continues to be covered by many journalists. Given the track record of
questionable claims about Sudan, one would expect professional
journalists to take a much more cautious approach to events in Darfur.

Notes

1 "Sudanese Plant 'Not Built for Weapons'", 'The Observer'
(London), 30 August 1998.
2 "Sudan Rebels Accuse Government of Using Chemical Weapons", News
Article by Reuters, 30 July 1999.
3 See, "Sudan 'Chemical' Attack on Rebels", News Article by BBC
Online News, 31 July 1999; "Sudan Denies 'Chemical' Attack", News
Article by BBC Online News, 1 August 1999; "UN Teams Investigate Sudan
Gas Attack", News Article by BBC Online News, 5 August 1999; "UN
Investigates 'Chemical' Attack", News Article by BBC Online News, 5
August 1999; and "Warning On Sudanese 'Chemical Attack'", News Article
by BBC Online News, 23 August 1999.
4 "Note for the Spokesman of the Secretary-General on Sudan", Note
delivered by the United Nations Resident Coordinator, Mr Philippe Borel,
to the Sudanese Foreign Ministry, 17 October 1999. The on-site
inspection by United Nations medical teams had also found no evidence to
support the claims made by Norwegian Peoples Aid: see, "UN: No Evidence
of Serious Symptoms in Alleged Chemical Attack", News Article by CNS, 13
August 1999.
5 Richard Miniter, "The False Promise of Slave Redemption", 'The
Atlantic Monthly', July 1999.
6 "The Great Slave Scam", 'The Irish Times', 23 February 2002;
"Scam in Sudan - An Elaborate Hoax Involving Fake African Slaves and
Less-than-Honest Interpreters is Duping Concerned Westerners", 'The
Independent on Sunday' (London), 24 February 2002; "Ripping Off Slave
'Redeemers': Rebels Exploit Westerners' Efforts to Buy Emancipation for
Sudanese", 'The Washington Post', 26 February 2002; "Sudan Rip-Offs Over
Phony Slaves", 'International Herald Tribune', 27 February 2002. "Slave
Redemption" has also been extensively questioned. See, for example,
Richard Miniter, "The False Promise of Slave Redemption", 'The Atlantic
Monthly', July 1999; 'The Reality of Slave Redemption', European-
Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, March 2001; 'The Use of
Intertribal Raiding as "Slavery" Propaganda in Sudan: A Statement of
Concern to Mrs Mary Robinson, The United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights', European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, March
2001, all available at www.espac.org. Christian Solidarity
International's Sudan activities have long been seriously questioned.
See, for example, 'Time to Speak out on Christian Solidarity
International and Sudan: An Open Letter to Anti-Slavery International',
European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, June 2001; 'Prejudiced
and Discredited: Christian Solidarity International and Sudan',
European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, 2000, available at
www.espac.org; David Hoile, 'Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion:
Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related Practices', The Sudan
Foundation, London, March 1997.
7 "Ripping Off Slave 'Redeemers': Rebels Exploit Westerners'
Efforts to Buy Emancipation for Sudanese", 'The Washington Post', 26
February 2002.
8 "Scam in Sudan An Elaborate Hoax Involving Fake African Slaves
and Less-than-Honest Interpreters is Duping Concerned Westerners", 'The
Independent on Sunday' (London), 24 February 2002.
9 "The Great Slave Scam", 'The Irish Times', 23 February 2002.
10 "Violence in the Sudan Displaces Nearly 1 Million. An Aid Worker
Describes the Gravity of the Humanitarian Crisis", News Article by
MSNBC, 16 April 2004.
11 "Peace Still Some Way Off in Sudan", 'Middle East International'
(London), 8 January 2004.
12 "Al-Turabi Denounces US Role in Peace Process", News Article by
'Al-Hayat' (London), 26 January 2004.
13 See, for example, "Sudan. A Triumph Marred by Terror", 'The
Economist', 29 May 2004; 'The Sunday Telegraph' (London), 16 May 2004;
"Inside Sudan's Rebel Army", Philip Cox, BBC 'Focus On Africa', 5 April
2004. Cox also appeared on "Inside Africa: Battle for Sudan's Western
Darfur Region", Report by CNN, 17 April 2004.
14 "Pressure Seen as Key to Ending Sudan's Western War", News
Article by Reuters, 28 January 2004.
15 See, for example, 'Questionable Sources, Questionable
Journalism: The Observer and Sudan', The British-Sudanese Public Affairs
Council, London, May 2000.
16 Andrew Buckoke, 'Fishing in Africa: A Guide to War and
Corruption', Picador, London, 1992, p.42.
17 Ibid., p.44.
18 Ibid., p.43.
19 Ibid., p.44.
20 Ibid., p.44.