Darfur And The Politics Of The Left’s Indifference
Above the thousand thousands buried here.
I am every old man here shot dead.
I am every child here shot dead.
Nothing in me will ever forget this.
That's from the poem Babi Yar, by Yevgeny Yevtushenko. It was 65 years ago today that the Jews of Kiev began to assemble under orders at the intersection of Melnikovsky and Dokhturov streets. From there they were taken in large groups to a ravine called Babi Yar, where they were instructed to take off their clothes and lie down on the pile of corpses already filling the ravine, in order to be shot. It took two days to kill 34,000 Jews in this way.
What has been happening in Darfur over the past two years is more or less the same thing, several times over. In today’s commemoration of the slaughter at Babi Yar, Terry Davis, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, observed: We must draw lessons from the past and apply them to the future. Babi Yar and the Holocaust were not crimes committed by outlaws or madmen – they were planned by politicians, they were prepared by bureaucrats, and they were carried out by soldiers.
In the case of Darfur, it is quite clear that the world is not drawing lessons from the past. And among the nations of the the world, Canada is perhaps particularly culpable, because Canada is uniquely positioned among the United Nations’ member states to put in motion a multilateral initiative that would end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, which the UN calls the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.
But Canada is not seizing this opportunity. Why?
It’s a long story, which I try to tell in my column today. A lot of it’s got to do with the election of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives last January. The previous Liberal government had to be shamed into paying attention, and when the Conservatives were elected it was back to square one. But a key factor is also the strange silence of the Canadian left - among political activists, the “antiwar” movement, and social-justice advocates. In some cases, it’s not just silence, but outright and explicit opposition to any military intervention at all.
And dainty ladies in Brussels frills,
Squealing, poke their parasols into my face.
Clement Apaak, the 36-year-old founder of Canadian Students for Darfur, started mobilizing campus support for a robust Canadian response as soon as it became obvious that the corrupt Islamist regime in Khartoum was arming Janjaweed militias to slaughter Darfur’s civilians.
Apaak describes a disturbing indifference to the Darfur slaughter that involves “some level of racial undertones” in all developed countries, but it’s the indifference within the Canada’s “activist” left that Apaak says he finds especially galling. It’s a key reason why the effort to mobilize public support for meaningful action on Darfur has failed to gain any real traction in Canada.
“I consider myself centre-left, and I have been very active and vocal on a lot of issues, but I have to admit I have been very disappointed about the blatant silence of the left on this issue,” Apaak told me.
He blames a knee-jerk antipathy to the current United States administration, which is widely regarded as being hostile to the regime in Khartoum. Then there’s the irrational suspicions about the involvement of Jewish organizations in raising public awareness about the Darfur genocide - an irrationality that has been cunningly exploited by Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir, a proponent of the delusional theory that world Jewry intends to “redraw the region…in order to protect the Israelis, to guarantee the Israeli security”.
The silence on Canada’s left is of a type that Mohamed Haroun, president of the Darfur Association of Canada, has also noticed among the religious leadership of Canada’s Muslims. Most of the dead Darfuris are Muslims who also happen to be black.
“If you can find out why the left has been so silent about this," Apaak said, "I would like to know.”
Some insights into the the left’s silence on Darfur, and silence about the slaughter of Muslims generally, can be found here. Follow Gadi's links.
There is also this documentary, which Shalom Lappin brought to my attention yesterday. It features Shalom's views, along with the views of other Euston Group members such as Norman Geras and Alan Johnson. There is also the dedicated Eric Reeves to pay attention to.
Today, Bill O'Neill gets straight to the point of our responsibiity to protect Darfur here.
Incidentally, the photograph that accompanies this post is of Mihad Hamid, a one-year-old girl whose mother was killed while attempting to escape an attack from helicopter gunships and Janjaweed marauders on a Darfuri village. That’s a bullet in Mihad’s back. She is believed to have died within hours of the photograph being taken.
The story of that photograph, and of the brave photographer who took it, is here.
The "Internationale," let it
thunder
when the last anti-Semite on earth
is buried forever.
Remember Babi Yar. On to Darfur.
9 Comments:
Perhaps the silence on the part of the left regarding Darfur is because there are a number of complexities to the situation.
For example, the atrocities are not being committed by only one side. And during the last rounds of negotiations, the promise of further potential international intervention may have actually derailed the peace process when rebel groups refused to come to a deal, possibly because they felt that they would benefit more should the west intervene.
Also, the conflict doesn't fit into the nice two-sided morality play that many westerners are comfortable with. One of the rebel factions recently switched sides and is fighting on the government's side. And despite much effort to classify the conflict as Arab vs non-Arab, non-black vs black, and/or Muslim vs non-Muslim, none of those familiar models fits this conflict, which leaves many at a loss as to what should be done to end it.
One concern over military intervention a la The Responsibility to Protect is that should western military forces intevene, it makes an already complex conflict far more complex ("Oh boy, here come the crusaders again."), and the peacekeepers might well end up being targeted by all sides. Think Somalia on steroids.
On top of all that, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is likely causing many to rethink the concept of knee-jerk humanitarian intervention as a fairly naive notion. More's the pity.
Having said all that, Harper's policy on Darfur is shameful — we should have troops and equipment ready to go.
The other day, I was reading a pretty good article (I think it was by Alan Johnosn, but that might be way off) that speculated that the reason for the Sudanese government's reluctance to allow UN troops in was fear of being captured and prosecuted for war crimes/atrocities. Point being that guaranteeing that this would not happen might go a long way to the Sudanese approving a humanitarian force.
Anyone else spot that article? I haven't been able to find it since.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It is complex, but the genocide, yes genocide, that is happening in Darfur right now is coming from the Janjaweed with the authorization of the government in Khartoum, and it must be stopped now, before it becomes a genocide of historic proportions.
As a leftist myself, I am extremely disappointed with the lack of attention this issue receives from the left. It is my opinion that my generation will be marked by how it responds to this crisis, or fails to. They were right to oppose the war in Iraq (I was very involved in that), but very wrong not to make a stand on this.
I have to admit that I'm confused by the assertion that teh left is silent on Darfur when the federal NDP has been making quite a bit of noise about it.
I know you get a kick out of turning my crank, but really. . .
I'm sorry you feel that way, Terry. If that's an accurate assessment of your opinion of my comments, I'll stop commenting here. However, my intent is to honestly comment on your posts, not to turn your crank.
You left me utterly confused about whether you were confused, what you were confused about, or whether you were just being confusing.
Well, at risk of further crank-turning, or at risk of more pointing out of the bleeding obvious, the NDP is in the forefront of the left in Canada. One would even say that by far the majority of Canadian leftists are represented by that party. The others that you are being critical of could be said to be marginal to that ideology, at best.
Yet the crux of your posting (and article) is that "the left" is silent on Darfur, or actively opposed to intervention.
My source of confusion is that your contention reads as though the left is silent on Darfur, except for the vast majority of the left.
Possibly I should start reading "the left" as "the fringe left."
hey guys, how's life in the confusion lane today? maybe you could put your turn signals on :)
DPU and Dirk here described very succinctly the complexity of the situation. I almost hear the discussions in UN, with Muslim countries, Russians and Chinese (each protecting its own interests and/or dirty deeds).
Which boils down essentially to "do nothing" decision, successfully carried out by UN for so many years.
http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2006/09/and-you-thought-cold-war-is-over.html
It is sometimes frustrating to be a cynic.
Post a Comment
<< Home