Now this looks interesting. Prunier’s book on Rwanda was great (as far as this non-expert could tell). Here’s the publisher’s blurb:
In mid-2004 the Darfur crisis in Western Sudan forced itself onto the center stage of world affairs. Arab Janjaweed militias, who support the Khartoum government, have engaged in a campaign of violence against the residents of Western Sudan. A formerly obscure �tribal conflict� in the heart of Africa has escalated into the first genocide of the twenty-first century. In sharp contrast to official reaction to the Rwandan massacres, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the situation in Darfur a �genocide� in September 2004. Its characteristics�Arabism, Islamism, famine as a weapon of war, mass rape, international obfuscation, and a refusal to look evil squarely in the face�reflect many of the problems of the global South in general and of Africa in particular.Journalistic explanations of the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe have been given to hurried generalizations and inaccuracies: the genocide has been portrayed as an ethnic clash marked by Arab-on-African violence, with the Janjaweed militias under strict government control, but neither of these impressions is strictly true. Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide explains what lies behind the conflict, how it came about, why it should not be oversimplified, and why it is so relevant to the future of the continent.
G�rard Prunier sets out the ethnopolitical makeup of the Sudan and explains why the Darfur rebellion is regarded as a key threat to Arab power in the country�much more so than secessionism in the Christian South. This, he argues, accounts for the government�s deployment of �exemplary violence� by the Janjaweed militias in order to intimidate other African Muslims into subservience. As the world watches; governments decide if, when, and how to intervene; and international organizations struggle to distribute aid, the knowledge in Prunier�s book will provide crucial assistance.
Dan Kauffman | 01-Sep-05 at 7:47 am | Permalink
Excellant post but I do differ with
“Gérard Prunier sets out the ethnopolitical makeup of the Sudan and explains why the Darfur rebellion is regarded as a key threat to Arab power in the country—much more so than secessionism in the Christian South. This, he argues, accounts for the government’s deployment of “exemplary violence” by the Janjaweed militias in order to intimidate other African Muslims into subservience.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26672
The Southern Sudanese genocide was responsible for between 1 and 3 million deaths and it STILL has not risen above the horizon in the public’s eye or the media,
It was by the actual statement of the Sudanese Government Jihad in its original meaning.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26672
Sudan’s holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.
“The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high,” he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front, according to Sudan’s official SUNA news agency. “We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001587
All Sudanese I met scoffed at the notion that anything beyond Khartoum’s rhetoric had changed since Sept. 11. Rather, they warned that their government had interpreted Washington’s willingness to engage as a green light to carry on the regime’s decade-old jihad against Christians and other non-Muslims in the country’s south. Indeed, on Oct. 4, Sudanese Vice President Ali Uthman Taha declared, “The jihad is our way and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high.”
Sudanese I interviewed indicated that in the wake of the World Trade Center attack, most Iraqi, Iranian, Pakistani and Palestinian residents of Sudanese terrorist training camps merely migrated south to government garrison towns where they would be out of sight of Khartoum-based diplomats and journalists. Former members of the military indicated that the Sudanese government still maintains chemical weapons stockpiles (allegedly acquired with Iraqi assistance) at the Juba airport, its stronghold in the far south of the country. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, Sudan not only provided a safe-haven for al Qaeda, but it also gave one to Iraqis working to develop chemical weapons, outside the view of U.N. weapons inspectors.
PS being part American Indian I at times resent that while Chrisians and Muslims are mentioned often the Animist Pagan Africans are forgotten, they experienced the same genocide.
But good sourcing. Good philosophical viewpoint goes on my blogroll
Chris | 01-Sep-05 at 9:02 am | Permalink
Ah, interesting point. I was thinking more of Prunier’s past book, which I thought good, than of the actual claims he makes in his current one.
Dan Kauffman | 01-Sep-05 at 9:35 am | Permalink
It’s a sore point with me I have been hammering on Discussion boards about Sudan for some years before I even started Blogging, now suddenly Dafur is all the rage. Better late than never though.
I must try to take a look at the book you mention, when time permits, I read and write about 20 to 40 hours a week it seems like now.
peter | 01-Sep-05 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
The topic is interesting but I have to say the publishers’ blurb really puts me off. Is it really true that islamism and arabism are now part of a “problem” in the global south? I find it offensive to put them in the same category with things like famine-as-a-weapon and mass rape.
And that bit about refusing to look evil squarely in the face strikes me as inappropriate as well insofar as it suggests it is a most notably a problem of those fucked-up southerners and not something rampant within western foreign policy as well.
peter | 01-Sep-05 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
And what’s the deal with quoting colin powell? Does his statement prove anything other than that it is now convenient for the US powers-that-be to recognize a genocide? I mean are we really supposed to take a liar’s word as evidence that the situation must be serious? If I see someone quoting Colin Powell’s opinion as evidence of anything I have to assume the person is a bit thick.
Chris | 01-Sep-05 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
Yes, yes, all points well taken. I quoted the publisher’s blurb just to give a general idea of the book, which I know nothing else about, except that I thought highly of the author’s previous book. To be honest, I sort of skimmed the blurb pretty quickly, since I usually just assume that they won’t give much more than a very general sense of the book.