Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on October 05, 2004 at 02:09:36: EST (-5 GMT)

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES CHALLENGES U.S. DARFUR GENOCIDE CLAIM

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 4 October 2004

"It suited various governments to talk it all up, but they don't seem to
have thought about the consequences. I have no idea what Colin Powell's
game is, but to call it genocide and then effectively say, 'Oh, shucks,
but we are not going to do anything about that genocide' undermines the
very word 'genocide'."

Darfur aid worker on American claims of "genocide". (1)

American Political Opportunism Exposed

Attempts by the Bush Administration to exaggerate the extent of the
crisis in Sudan's Darfur province have come under increasing fire from
the humanitarian aid community and other commentators. (2)

Certain facts are clear. In February 2003, two armed groups, the 'Sudan
Liberation Army' and the 'Justice and Equality Movement', began a low
intensity conflict against the Government of Sudan in the western
Sudanese region of Darfur. These rebel groups launched attacks on
government garrisons and civilians in the area. The government responded
vigorously and the conflict spiralled out of control causing a growing
humanitarian crisis. (3) Thousands of people have died and more than a
million civilians have been displaced as a result of the conflict.
Darfur is home to some 80 tribes and ethnic groups divided between
nomads and sedentary communities, and the war has seen considerable
inter-tribal conflict. A ceasefire agreement was signed in April 2004.
(4)

In August 2004, the United States Congress unanimously adopted a
resolution labelling the situation in Darfur as genocide. (5) On
September 9, American Secretary of State Colin Powell in turn declared
before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, "[that] genocide has taken
place and may still be continuing in Darfur". These declarations echoed
attempts to compare events in Darfur with Rwanda in 1994. Observers
almost immediately claimed that the American "genocide" declaration had
more to do with the US elections than the reality of events in Darfur.
(6)

Any objective assessment of these American positions, given the
astonishing degree of propaganda that has characterised the Sudanese
conflict and particularly American-Sudanese relations, is difficult.
Pressure group politics, especially within the United States, have
distorted many international perceptions of Sudan. (7) An objective
assessment is, nevertheless, essential. One absolutely neutral source,
perhaps the only one, by which to examine American claims of genocide in
Darfur, however, is the international humanitarian organisation,
Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF). (8)

Médecins Sans Frontières is an exceptionally credible observer in this
respect for two reasons. Firstly, MSF was amongst the first humanitarian
groups to establish a presence in Darfur as the conflict unfolded. MSF
is very heavily involved in the provision of medical and emergency
services in all three of the states that make up Darfur, deploying two
thousand staff. (9) It has been actively assisting 250,000 people
displaced by fighting throughout the region. (10) It was therefore able
very early on to form a particularly well-informed opinion with regard
to claims that genocide was being carried out in Darfur. By comparison,
Washington's "genocide" determination was based upon access to one
thousand refugees living in refugee camps in Chad, with unanswered
questions about the feasibility of impartial translation,
sensationalism, political bias and rebel pressure within refugee camps.
The US claim was made on the basis of fleeting, and in comparison,
momentary access to approximately one percent of the total number of
people to which MSF has had regular, sustained access over several
months. Secondly, MSF's reputation is quite simply beyond reproach.
Médecins Sans Frontières was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in
1999. It has also received numerous other awards recognising its
outstanding humanitarian work throughout the world. (11)

Dr Mercedes Taty, MSF's deputy emergency director, was an early observer
of the situation in Darfur. Dr Taty worked for some time 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." Dr Taty was
also asked if the "ethnic cleansing" label was appropriate for events in
Darfur. She said: "That is not necessarily accurate. There are several
different tribes and clans and families and not all of them are
persecuted or executed just for the sake of their tribe." (12)

In June 2004, MSF President Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol, following visits to
MSF projects in Darfur, clearly challenged claims of genocide in Darfur:
"The word genocide has been used, but it creates confusion. The
situation is severe enough to be described for what it is - a mass
repression campaign against civilians. Civilians were targeted and a
large segment of them were killed. Since Médecins Sans Frontières
started working in Darfur in December 2003, teams have not witnessed the
intention to kill all individuals of a particular group. We have
information about massacres, but never any attempt to eliminate all the
members of a specific group." (13) In July 2004, Dr Bradol stated that
the use of the term genocide was inappropriate: "Our teams have not seen
evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group.
We have received reports of massacres, but not of attempts to
specifically eliminate all the members of a group". (14)

Dr Bradol subsequently described the August and September American
declarations of genocide in Darfur as "obvious political opportunism".
(15) Dr Bradol has noted that there are several weak links in the
genocide claim. He finds claims that "Arab" militias are seeking to
destroy "African" tribes questionable, stating that "the concept of
race, discarded many decades ago with regard to biology" is irrelevant
and "dangerous" and has been used "outside of its historical context".
Dr Bradol has also noted that "Public expressions of an intent to
destroy a group of humans are no more apparent than the existence of
distinct races. There are no signs of this either in speeches by the
Sudanese dictatorship or in the countries' laws. To sum up: though we
might suppose the intent is real, there has been no outward show of
intent to destroy a group of humans, and defining the group of victims
necessitates using a category that has, for good reason, been rendered
illegitimate for many years." (16)

Dr Bradol sees a geopolitical motivation to the American move: "In the
ten years from Rwanda to Sudan, what changed is the perception by the
United States of the threats posed to its national security and
strategic interests. And the Sudanese regime, while not at the top,
figures prominently on the list of the nation's enemies drawn up by the
Bush administration." (17) Dr Bradol notes that claims of genocide have
"met with great success among human rights organizations and
humanitarian groups. The source of this enchantment is, in the end, just
as political in nature as the unanimous vote by the US Congress." (18)

Dr Bradol's intervention has been deeply significant. Both Bradol and
Médecins Sans Frontières are simply beyond question in the authority
with which they speak on the issue of genocide. He headed MSF's programs
in Rwanda in 1994, and spent several weeks assisting the surgical team
that struggled to remain in Kigali during the genocide. He has very firm
views on genocide, the Rwandan genocide and its implications for the
humanitarian aid movement: "The genocide itself tore to shreds the
humanitarian movement's famous neutrality. Even when emergency aid saves
lives, it cannot justify neutrality when faced with a political movement
determined to exterminate an entire group of human beings. The only way
to oppose such a movement is to call for armed intervention against the
aggressors. That is what MSF did in June 1994 with its call, 'Doctors
can't stop genocide.' Genocide is that exceptional situation in which,
contrary to the rule prohibiting participation in hostilities, the
humanitarian movement declares support for military intervention.
Unfortunately, an international military intervention against the
genocide never came to pass and the Rwandan Patriotic Front did not win
its military victory until after the vast majority of victims were
killed." (19) Indeed, in 1994 Dr Bradol actively sought American and
international military intervention to end the Rwandan genocide. (20) He
has pointed out that Rwanda and Darfur are "highly dissimilar". (21)

Dr Bradol's point about US strategic interests, rather than reality,
dictating what it deemed to be "genocide" has also been made elsewhere.
Richard Dicker, a Human Rights Watch expert on international law, has
pointed out Washington's history of its politicisation of responses to
"genocide": "In the case of the crisis in Kosovo, the use of the term
was encouraged by Washington to justify military intervention; in the
case of Rwanda, when there was no readiness to intervene, its use was
discouraged". (22)

In his book 'Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th Century', former secretary-
general of Médecins Sans Frontières Alain Destexhe says: "Genocide is
distinguishable from all other crimes by the motivation behind it.
Genocide is a crime on a different scale to all other crimes against
humanity and implies an intention to completely exterminate the chosen
group. Genocide is therefore both the gravest and greatest of the crimes
against humanity." Mr Destexhe, however, believes the word genocide has
fallen victim to "a sort of verbal inflation...". He has pointed out
that the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming
"dangerously commonplace". (23) Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr
Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, has echoed
Destexhe's concerns: "Those who should use the word genocide never let
it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it
into a validation of every kind of victimhood." (24)

Washington's ploy must be seen for what it is. That the United States
Administration has sought to use claims of "genocide" in Darfur for
crass and electoral political reasons is clear. In crying wolf on
"genocide" the Bush Administration has not only undoubtedly banalised
the concept of genocide, it has enflamed an already fraught situation in
Darfur. In the wake of Washington's claim radical Islamists in Sudan
have attempted a military coup, and the anti-government Islamist rebels
in Darfur broke off peace talks aimed at settling the conflict. There is
also no doubt that Washington will seek to push its "genocide"
declaration upon the international community, inevitably causing strains
once again within its European allies and the European Union.

The courage of Médecins Sans Frontières in directly challenging
Washington's propaganda is clear.

Notes
1 "US 'Hyping' Darfur Genocide Fears", 'The Observer' (London), 3
October 2004.
2 See, for example, "US 'Hyping' Darfur Genocide Fears", 'The
Observer' (London), 3 October 2004, and "The Bush Administration, Darfur
and 'Genocide': Placing Votes before Peace in Sudan", Mediamonitors,
September 2004, http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/9580
3 See "Sudan: One Million At 'Imminent Risk' in Darfur, Says US
Government", News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks,
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 3 March 2004.
4 See "Sudan government, Darfur rebels sign ceasefire deal", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 9 April 2004.
5 It is not the first time that the US Congress has made these
sorts of claims. On 17 June 1999, for example, the U.S. House of
Representatives approved a resolution condemning the Sudanese government
"for its genocidal war in southern Sudan". The measure, House Concurrent
Resolution 75, passed by a vote of 416 to 1, claimed that the Sudanese
government was "deliberately and systematically committing genocide in
southern Sudan" stating that an estimated 1.9 million Sudanese have died
of war-related causes and that "Millions have been displaced from their
homes" (See, for example, "U.S. House Passes First Sudan Measure in Six
Years; Calls War 'Genocidal' and Urges Stronger U.S. Peace Efforts",
Press Release by US Committee for Refugees, Washington-DC, 16 June
1999).
6 See, for example, "The Bush Administration, Darfur and
'Genocide': Placing Votes before Peace in Sudan", Mediamonitors,
September 2004, http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/9580
7 See, for example, David Hoile, "Images of Sudan: Case Studies in
Propaganda and Misinformation", The European-Sudanese Public Affairs
Council, London, 2003.
8 Médecins Sans Frontières was established in 1971 by a group of
French doctors as the first non-military, non-governmental organisation
to specialise in emergency medical assistance. Most of the founders
worked for the Red Cross in Biafra between 1968 and 1970.
9 See, for example, MSF's own briefing: "Médecins Sans Frontières
has been working in Darfur since December 2003. Today, 90 international
volunteers and nearly 2,000 Sudanese staff provide medical and
nutritional care in areas with more than 400,000 displaced people.
Medical teams conduct medical consultations and hospitalisation, treat
victims of violence, care for severely and moderately malnourished
children, and provide water, blankets, feeding and other essential items
in Mornay, Zalinge, Nyertiti, Kerenik, El Genina, Garsila, Deleig,
Mukjar, Bindisi, and Um Kher in West Darfur State; Kalma Camp near Nyala
and Kass in South Darfur State; and Kebkabiya in North Darfur State. MSF
also continues to assess areas throughout Darfur. Additional teams
provide assistance to Sudanese who have sought refuge in Chad in Adre,
Birak and Tine, Iriba and Guereda." ("We are looking at a second
catastrophe", Darfur feature article on MSF Australia Website,
http://www.msf.org.au/tw-feature/045twf.html).
10 See, for example, "The Health of Hundreds of Thousands of
Displaced People Worsens Dramatically in Darfur", Press Release by
Médecins Sans Frontières (USA), New York, 28 April 2004.
11 Médecins Sans Frontières has received, amongst others, the
following international awards for their activities: 1999, The Nobel
Peace Prize; 1998, the Conrad Hilton Prize; 1997, Prix International -
Primo Levi; 1997, Prix International Sebetiater; 1996, Prix
International pour la Paix et l'Action Humanitaire; 1997, Indira Gandhi
Prize; 1996, Prix Seoul pour la Paix; 1993, the European Parliament's
Prix pour la liberte de l'Esprit Prix Sakharov, 1993, the United Nations
High Commission for Refugees' Nansen Medal; 1992, the Council of
Europe's Prix Europeen des Droits de l'Homme.
12 "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.
13 "We are looking at a second catastrophe", Darfur feature article
on MSF Australia Website, http://www.msf.org.au/tw-feature/045twf.html
14 "Thousands Die as World Defines Genocide", 'The Financial Times'
(London), 6 July 2004. See also, Bradol's views in "France Calls on
Sudan to Forcibly Disarm Darfur Militias", News Article by Agence France
Presse, 7 July 2004.
15 "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol,
28 September 2004, available at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website,
www.msfuae.ae
16 "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol,
28 September 2004, available at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website,
www.msfuae.ae
17 "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol,
28 September 2004, available at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website,
www.msfuae.ae
18 "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol,
28 September 2004, available at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website,
www.msfuae.ae
19 Interview available on the Médecins Sans Frontières (USA)
website.
20 In Dr Bradol's own words: "In June of 1994 I met with Donald
Steinberg, a member of the National Security Council. I had been in
Kigali, and had gone [to Washington] for the purpose of requesting that
the United States make armored vehicles available to UN blue helmets to
ensure the security of wounded persons threatened with extermination as
they were being evacuated. At this time my interlocutor was convinced
that genocide was in progress against Rwandan Tutsis, but refused to use
the term. In fact, using the term genocide would have entailed a legal
obligation to intervene on the part of nations who signed the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The American debacle in Somalia in 1993 had led the United States to
decide to limit its foreign military interventions strictly in defense
of its vital interests. Acting to put an end to the extermination of
Rwandans didn't fit within that framework." (See, "From One Genocide to
Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol, 28 September 2004, available
at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website, www.msfuae.ae).
21 "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol,
28 September 2004, available at Médecins Sans Frontières (UAE) website,
www.msfuae.ae
22 "Thousands Die as World Defines Genocide", 'The Financial Times'
(London), 6 July 2004.
23 "Defining Genocide", News Article by BBC News, 30 June 2004.
24 "Defining Genocide", News Article by BBC News, 30 June 2004.