Save Darfur Coalition: Misses the Point

The Save Darfur Coalition continues to view the war in Darfur from a narrow Arab v African perspective and as a result fails to really grasp the complexities of the situation. Animated by ideology, Christian zeal or a sense of humanitarianism, most of the people associated with the Save Darfur Coalition have simply placed the crisis within the optic of the  anti-Arabism and Islamophobia that gripped the US after 9/11. What they have failed to grasp most of all is that the victims of the Darfur crisis are 1. Muslims themselves; 2. have seen themselves as Arabized and a part of the wider Arab world for some centuries and following from this point; 3. see themselves as Sudanese. Since America is permeated by the politics of race and by racism, the American Save the Darfur Coalition cannot understand a conflict between putative Arabs and Africans without the war being about being Arab or African.

So, if the war is not about being Arab or African, what is it about? This is a complex question and a question partially answered by studies such as Flint and De Waal (2007), Daly (2007) and Mamdani (2009). While these studies allude to the problem of the Sudan’s failed politics and failing state, none of them go far enough in laying the balance of the blame for events in Darfur on the incapacity of the Sudanese state and the problems that accrue from a state that is ineffective and from a government that is unable to act except in the interests of a narrow ruling elite. Sudan’s economic crisis began with independence and became even worse after the global recession of the 1970s. By the 1980s, Sudan was a major defaulter of loan repayments and was only propped up by the US and the IMF because of its strategic importance in fighting communism in Africa. With the end of the cold war and the rise of an anti-US Islamist government in the 1990s, Sudan’s economic crisis worsened and Sudan was, and remains, the only country expelled from the IMF for non-compliance. In the 1990s, the Sudan was a basket-case and the state fell into complete ruin. The result of this was that the people of Darfur received very little from the Sudanese government and in 2003 rebelled in the hope of securing access to some state resources and funds. The rebellion turned into a civil war and the civil war turned into a humanitarian crisis.

So, from this brief outline it is clear that the best way to deal with the crisis in the Sudan is to assist in rebuilding the capacity of the Sudanese state, especially in Darfur where access to medical care, education and employment are urgently required. This would require the assistance of international financial institutions and the members of the G8/G20. What then does the Save Darfur Coalition recommend for ending the crisis in Darfur?

“Save Darfur Coalition Asks G-20 Not to Forgive Sudan’s Debt”

Who would benefit from such a move? The people of Darfur or International creditors and the IMF? We all want the crisis in Darfur to come to an end and for people to be able to return to their homes and to be able to start to rebuild their lives. The most effective way to achieve this is by investing in a strong and stable Sudanese state that can provide its population with employment, education, health care and security. The Save Darfur Coalition and other organisations of similar ilk have missed the point all together on Darfur, and cannot come to terms with the reality that the best way of resolving the crisis is by rebuilding Sudan and not by punishing the Sudanese which only end up punishing the people of Darfur because after all Darfur is a part of the Sudan. Until Save Darfur see this basic fact they will never really understand what the crisis in Darfur is truly about or how to resolve it.

Noah Bassil

The Pervasiveness of Race

Whilst the following news story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/21/henry-louis-gates-jr-arrest-harvard) is not directly related to the Middle East I have decided to post it anyway because of a recent debate about racism and as it provides a convenient excuse to revisit the topic on this site. What this short news story suggests is that even though institutional and legally enforced racism is less pervasive today than in previous eras where the slave trade and European colonialism produced racist doctrines premised on the superiority of the white race, there is still a resilience to racial stereotyping and more subtle forms of racism in the US, at least. I would argue that subtle and insidious forms of racism remain pervasive in the modern world more widely than just in the US . The harsh reality is that racism is as pervasive internationally as it was a century or so ago when W.E.B. Du Bois suggested that the issue of race relations would be a defining motif of the twentieth century. The events of the twentieth century have shown us how prescient Du Bois was and how relevant his comments remain as we enter into a new millennium. Today, racial differences (ethnic and religious differences as well) continue to shape the world we live in.

Australian Academic Boycott.

While the call for a boycott of Israeli academics in Australia is not a new one the following statement is an indication of the renewed vigour for such action in the wake of the Gaza attack. Ali Abunimah explains, in a recent article, that the time is ripe to pressure Israel to end the brutality of its occupation. In this Mission Statement  Australia joins other countries in an “unprecedented expression of support for boycott, divestment and sanctions from major trade unions in Italy, Canada and New Zealand”.

Mission statement: Australian Academic Boycott of Israel

We are an Australian campaign focused specifically on a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions.

We do so because we support the call made by Palestinian civil society to join the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. This was delineated by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI http://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm) in the following statement:

A silence that speaks volumes about the injustice

Even Israeli jurists have nothing to say:

The 41,000 attorneys in the State of Israel are entrusted with protecting its image as a lawful state, and this large and grand army has once again strayed from its function. There is a deep suspicion throughout the world that Israel carried out a series of war crimes, and the jurists of our country are holding their peace.
….
Do they not know that disproportionately harming a civilian population, supply convoys and medical crews, the use of white phosphorus in the midst of population centers and indiscriminate bombings are considered war crimes? What is their response to their enraged colleagues around the world? Are they convinced that Israel carried out these crimes or not? In both instances, their voice is vital and their silence is abominable.

Israel: Whose Democracy?

Josef Federman from Associated Press reports  “Israel bans Arab parties from coming elections”

So much for the claim that Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy. One-fifth of Israel’s population are Arabs. There is no evidence that they would all vote for Arab parties but this recent move is clearly designed to deny Arabs a voice of their own in Israeli politics. In this respect, Israel is not that different from Egypt which denies some oppositional political parties from engaging in the electoral process.(you can also read more here at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html)

Anti-War News reports that “Israel indicts Two Journalists for Reporting Start of Gaza Invasion”

Not much room for a free press in Israel either. And the rule of law seems to be an anachronism in Israel as the government and the military have ignored a Supreme Court decision to allow eight foreign journalists into Gaza.

On a related but different matter, I recently received an email which was sent to try and convince me that Israel was a beacon of light in a region of degeneration and primitive tribal conflict (ironic really at this moment that Zionists are making such claims) complete with a photo of Albert Einstein . I am well aware that Albert Einstein was Jewish but also that he was no Zionist and since his death in 1955 Israeli and non-Israeli Zionists have made every effort to attach his name and his legacy to a Jewish only Israel. Other Jewish people have fought to remind people of Einstein’s antipathy to Zionism. Just as a reminder of Einstein’s position on Zionism, at this time of heightened pro-Israeli propaganda, read Albert Einstein’s forewarning of the dangers of Zionism sixty years ago at: http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm

Israel: When is a Rogue State not a Rogue State.

In an earlier post JBayeh quoting from Saree Makdisi revealed that the language and philosophy that the Israeli state projects outwards is very different from the language and philosophy of state employed internally. The spokespeople for the Israeli government and military knowingly spin the realities of their policies in a way that promotes Israel as an internationally responsible member of the “community of states” while engaging in a litany of abuses and crimes against the Palestinians that flagrantly contravene international norms and international laws.

However, somehow the Israeli state is still able to effectively promote itself as a “responsible” and upright member of the international system. For example, last week Mark Regev (spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel and an advisor on foreign press and public affairs) appeared on the 7:30 Report where he said all the right things about human rights and minimizing civilian casualties in Gaza which was only middy challenged by the interviewer Scott Bevan. When Regev  uttered a most incredible statement that “we want to cooperate with the United Nations, as I just said we have a good relationship with the United Nations”  Bevan  launched no objections despite a long history of Israeli transgressions against the UN, international law and international public opinion. Interestingly, just to add insult to injury in regards to the acceptance of the Israeli projection of itself as having a “good international standing”, only yesterday, the 10 January, the UN decided to return to Gaza because it had received assurances, not from Hamas, but from Israel that UN humanitarian workers would not be fired on. And yet in this context, it is Hamas which is still demonized by the “western” media and politicians who still portray Israel as the moral victim. The following is a brief and incomplete list of Israel’s violations of international law, their failure to comply with UN resolutions and the consistent Israeli disregard for international conventions that characterises Israel’s relationship with the international system.

Zogby on Rahm Emanuel

I’m reprinting below an e-mail I got from the Arab American Institute.  It’s a thoughtful article by James Zogby about how the Arab world should interpret Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel.

Washington Watch
November 17, 2008

Lessons That Should Be Learned

Dr. James J. Zogby (c)
President
Arab American Institute

On November 5th, my office sent an email to tens of thousands of our members and contacts congratulating President-elect Barack Obama. In our message, we noted the historic transformation his victory represented and commended the thousands of Arab Americans who participated in this winning campaign.

The initial and near universal response was heartwarming, with many sharing moving anecdotes of their campaign experiences, their reactions to the victory, and their hopes for change.

One day and one announcement later, the tide turned.

With the naming of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, the euphoria of some, not all, turned to despair. The emails and calls to my office were both troubled and troubling because much of the reaction was based on misinformation and because of what the entire episode revealed about the larger political dynamics involved.

Obama and the Middle East, part II: Emanuel redux

In the early 1990s, my best friend Joel and I both moved out the apartment we shared in New York’s West Village.  He was a photographer and artist, and I was a bit lost and trying to figure out what to do with my life.  I moved to Saudi Arabia to live with my parents and teach at a Saudi girls’ school, while Joel moved to Israel and joined the Israeli army, a first step towards gaining Israeli citizenship.  I was politically naive then, though I was vaguely aware of the way the Israeli state treated Palestinians because my father had told me about the time he traveled from Jordan to Israel and, crossing the Allenby Bridge, decided to go through the side of the checkpoint reserved for Arabs, instead of going through the tourist side.  My dad told me about how he saw first hand the way the soldiers verbally and physically abused Palestinians, while on the other side it was all welcoming cheer.  “Welcome to Israel! Have a great visit!  Want to stay on a kibbutz?”

So I didn’t think much of Joel’s decision to move to Israel and join the Israeli army, but I didn’t see it as a young man’s political statement; I saw it as a longing to simultaneously inject some military discipline into his bohemian life, escape the reach of his parents, and find his imagined roots (though none of his relatives were Israeli and as an Ashkenazi Jew he traced his heritage back to Eastern Europe).

Since there were no direct phone lines between Saudi Arabia and Israel, we really had to work hard to be able to talk to each other on the phone, but through some strange procedures that I don’t even remember, we somehow managed.  I remember once I called him and I asked him how his attempt to learn Hebrew was going.  He told me that it was going well, and that he was even learning some Arabic.  I asked him what he had learned.  He said, in Arabic, “Show me your identity card!” and “put your hands up!” and “Drop to the ground!”

“Is that all you’ve learned?” I asked him.  “You haven’t made any Palestinian friends?  You just order them around?”  Yes, he told me.  The only Arabs he knew were some dirty cheating people who ran a hummus shop in Jerusalem. They weren’t the sort that he wanted to hang out with.

I thought of this incident when I read about Rahm Emanuel’s repudiation of the remarks his father made to an Israeli newspaper when it asked the senior Emanuel about his son’s likely influence on American foreign policy in the Middle East.   News outlets are widely reporting that the elder Emanuel said to the Israeli newspaper Ma’Ariv, “Obviously he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.” 

Obama and the Middle East

Well, the US election is over and Senator Barack Obama has prevailed. Many people all over the world have let out a deep sigh of relief that the man who sang the words ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ when asked about how to deal with the putative “nuclear standoff” with Iran is not going to the White House. What more, Sarah Palin will not be in Washington either, which while an equally huge relief, will not please Alaska’s long suffering Moose population.

Anyway, since this is a Middle East blog, I will set aside my other thoughts on Barak Obama and focus the point of this brief post on exploring the question of what Obama’s election might mean for the Middle East. The commentary regarding US foreign policy toward the Middle East  will take shape over the next few days but here a few pieces to get things started. Colin Hallinan, “Terminating the National Security State: A New Foreign Policy” in CounterPunch provides a useful list of suggestions of how to shift US foreign policy in the Middle East towards a more constructive relationship. Hallinan speaks to Obama in the hope that an Obama administration will be open to change. Hallinan’s optimism in Obama might come mainly from the fact that Obama is not Bush or McCain but there is very little Obama has said on the Middle East that would suggest a shift in US attitude. This is why Steven Zunes in “Barack in the Middle East” is more circumspect that Hallinan, expecting that the contours of US policy toward the Middle East will not change, but does expect that Obama will move beyond the crude militarism of the Bush “regime”.

Zunes considers Obama just as Hawkish in regards to Israel-Palestine and that the unqualified, uncritical, unreserved support of Israel’s Middle East policy will probably remain a part of Obama’s platform on the Middle East. Obama explained  during a speech he gave on race relations earlier this year that it was wrong for Rev. Jeremiah Wright to have a view that “sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam”. Criticism of Israel, or US support for Israel, remains a taboo subject in US politics.

This election campaign has clearly shown once more that in the US questioning Israel and US support for Israel is perceived by candidates as political suicide, and no-one ever willingly commits political suicide . A Washington Post editorial from June 7, 2008 makes the point that in terms of the Middle East Barack Obama is clearly, in policy terms, far from radical. Obama’s policies on the Middle East as put forward by the Washington Post, especially on key issues such as Israel-Palestine and Iran could have been written by Benjamin Netanyanu.  Overall, it seems that there is a belief that Obama is a man of change and that his hard-line position on Israel and Iran issues was just political strategy and not long held conviction. Certainly, the Zionist lobby in the US have expressed this fear as demonstrated in their solid support and campaigning for John McCain, fears that are expressed in pieces such as “Barack Obama and Israel” by Ed Lansky of American Thinker.

Over the next few days we will be able to gauge the sentiment from the Middle East, especially from Israel and Iran which will give us a clearer picture of how the press and people of the Middle East see the election of Obama as US president. The concern now is that the Bush administration realising time is up and that the Democrats will take over soon decide to launch a strike against Iran, an option John Bolton predicted might be on the Bush agenda if Obama defeats McCain. If sanity prevails and Bush just bides his time, maybe, just maybe, Obama can demonstrate what constructive dialogue and negotiation can achieve. Its been a long time since we have be able to use the phrase constructive dialogue (and sanity) in the same sentence as US foreign policy to the Middle East, but maybe this is the beginning of a shift in this direction. Even if there is no transformation in US foreign policy during a Obama presidency, we can still believe in and speculate on change, at least for a little while.

Noah Bassil

The UAE: Paris of the East?

It seems from this short piece in the SMH/Guardian that the Emirates is remaking itself in the image of the “West”. But this attachment to western-centricism is at the cost of emphasising the rich historical culture of Arabia and its surrounds. The Gulf has also had a longer historical connection with both the east, India, Persia and China, and with the East African coastline, than with Western Europe. The effort shown by the rulers of the Emirates to replicate the “west” in Arabia is most unfortunate, not because the best of western culture is not impressive, but that it ignores the richness of the eastern and African culture achievements and also those of the Americas and the Pacific. Most of all it belies the claim made in the article by Sheikh Mohammed that the planned projects will help “interconencted global understanding” as a project of truly global projections would provide space for attractions that represent the cultural achievements from all around the world. I can’t help but see the project of westernising the Emirates as part of the reaction of some Islamic elites to the “clash of civilizations” discourse and the aggressive assault on non-western culture by neo-conservatives in the US and elsewhere. Looking forward to some debate regarding this, even if this is not an entry about Israel.

Noah Bassil