John Whitehead's Commentary

"It is never right to do wrong or to requite wrong with wrong, or when we suffer evil to defend ourselves by doing evil in return." -- Socrates

A recent expose by the Los Angeles Times (April 29, 2005) reveals that the Bush Administration has forged a close alliance with the Sudanese government, ostensibly for the sake of procuring intelligence on terrorism suspects. (The Sudan also has oil reserves that are of interest to the U.S., as well.) In exchange for information on the identities and whereabouts of terrorists who once found refuge in Sudan, the U.S. may consider lifting its economic sanctions against the African country. However, Sudan's track record as a state sponsor of terrorism and its lenient attitude toward the genocide that has been taking place in Darfur (three provinces in western Sudan), make it a poor ally for any country. This is especially true for one such as the United States that claims to champion justice and human rights.

There are some who would suggest that America should do anything necessary to win this war on terror--even if it means turning a blind eye to the injustices occurring in Darfur and allying ourselves with a nation whose interests have repeatedly led it to work against us. Yet the situation in Darfur demands a moral response, not an expedient one.

Reportedly, when President George W. Bush first read reports of former-President Clinton's indifference to the genocide that left roughly 800,000 dead in Rwanda, he scribbled "not on my watch" in the margins. Yet despite Bush's pledge, genocide is once again taking place, this time in the Sudan, which has become infamous for its large-scale human rights violations. Admittedly, President Bush has responded to the crisis in the Sudan better than Clinton did to the Rwandan genocide. However, better in this case is simply not good enough.

The conflict in Darfur has been building for many years, as long as the non-Arab farmers and the Arab nomadic herders have been fighting. But it was only in the 1980s with the introduction of automatic weapons that the disagreements became overtly violent. The fighting was heightened in February 2003 when two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), rose against the Khartoum, Sudan's government. They accused the government of supporting the attempts of the Arab militias, called the Janjaweed, to ethnically cleanse the lands of the African farmers. Currently, the United States is the only country to condemn these actions as genocide.

In 1948, the United Nations drafted an international definition of genocide in the hopes of preventing another Holocaust. The convention determined that "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." If the UN declares a group guilty of genocide, member countries are bound to act. Strangely enough, however, in February 2005, the UN reported that the Khartoum were not guilty of committing genocide. They instead found that crimes against humanity and war crimes were taking place in Darfur.

The UN Commission's report stated that there is "killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape, and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement... it is clear that most attacks were deliberately and indiscriminately directed against civilians." Despite all this, the UN still did not deem the atrocities to be genocide. If the UN were to call it genocide, they would then be forced to act. (Coincidentally, China is Sudan's largest foreign investor and has veto power in the UN's Security Council. If the UN sanctions the Khartoum, then China will likely respond by using its veto.)

The UN recommended sending the case to the International Criminal Court. However, President Bush is vehemently opposed to the ICC. He argues that if the ICC is given power, U.S. officials may one day be forced to appear before it. Bush's opposition has momentarily left the situation at a stalemate. Although Bush has recommended prosecuting the Khartoum under a court associated with the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, creating this tribunal could take another year. Reportedly, 10,000 people are killed in Darfur every month; Bush's tribunal could cost the lives of 120,000 more.

While President Bush should be commended for being the first to speak out against the genocide that is taking place in Darfur, his words have yet to lead to any meaningful action. According to John Prendergast, who served at the National Security Council during Clinton's second term, "We have not taken adequate measures given the enormity of the crimes because we don't want to directly confront Sudan [on Darfur] when it is cooperating on terrorism."

Instead, President Bush is sending mixed messages to Sudan and the rest of the world. Incredibly, as reported by the New York Times (May 3, 2005), the Bush Administration recently voiced its opposition to the Darfur Accountability Act. This would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's army from strafing villages.

At the same time, in a recent letter to the Sudanese government calling for steps to end the conflict in Darfur, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed the administration's hopes of establishing a "fruitful relationship" and continuing our "close cooperation" on terrorism.

Hoping to remind the President of his commitment not to allow genocide to take place on his watch, the Save Darfur Coalition (www.savedarfur.org) has issued green plastic bracelets that read "Not on My Watch--Save Darfur." Yet it is not so much a matter of remembering to do the right thing as it is of prioritizing.

The days and hours are counting down to the end of Bush's second term in office. It is not enough to denounce what is happening in Darfur as evil; we must do something about it. Whether or not that means supporting the UN's International Crimes Court or some other course of action, the United States cannot simply sit by and allow people to be slaughtered.

Indeed, President Bush would do well to reflect on a saying by President John F. Kennedy: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

The time to act is now.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.