Darfur Disgrace

The Scotsman continues its exemplary coverage of Darfur with this piece entitled “Darfur disgrace ought not to win votes for Labour”:

Last week, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, generously conceded that although some voters have misgivings about the Iraq war, many would vote Labour because of its stand on Darfur.

This comes as a surprise to pressure groups who have urged the British government to take a more robust line with the Sudanese regime. At best Mr Straw and Chris Mullin, his Africa Minister, have disappointed human rights and faith groups. Critics believe the Foreign Office places Sudan’s southern peace deal (and its oil reserves) ahead of Darfur. Meanwhile, the United Nations estimates 300,000 have died as a consequence of the war in Darfur.

Mr Mullin and Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Overseas Development, may not know it, but they are mimicking Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind a decade ago.

Mr Mullin portrays the National Islamic Front government of Sudan as our partner in the search for peace in Darfur, rather than the architect of a massive military campaign to expel millions of black Africans from its soil.

In his public pronouncements Mr Mullin assigns the Khartoum regime the role of persuading the Janjaweed militia to stop the killing, while every respectable non-governmental organisation in the region reports that Khartoum funds, supplies and assists the Janjaweed. In contrast, the Americans say genocide is occurring in Darfur and the Sudanese government is largely responsible.

In October 2004, when Tony Blair visited the National Islamic Front junta in Khartoum, he announced he had extracted several promises from them, giving them three months to end the slaughter. Seven months later Khartoum continues to kill its own citizens.

Shortly after Mr Blair’s trip, Conservative MP Andrew Robathan asked Mr Mullin why Blair had taken tea with them when “the truth is that the Sudanese government have armed and supported the Janjaweed”.

Mr Mullin responded condescendingly, “I’m afraid that, in diplomacy, it is sometimes necessary to meet governments with whom we do not see eye to eye on all matters.”

Some MPs were dismayed by Mr Mullin’s tone, given that Britain presumably does not see “eye to eye” with Khartoum on the lack of free speech or elections in Sudan, the deaths of two million southern Sudanese, the imposition of extreme Sharia law on Christians, sheltering Osama bin Laden for five years, slavery and the mutilation of virtually every eight-year-old girl.

When briefing reporters, Mr Mullin says Darfur’s tiny rebel forces are equally responsible for civilian deaths as Khartoum’s huge military machine and its Janjaweed proxies. He produces no evidence, and he fails to point out that the vast majority of the killings in Darfur took place in 2003 and 2004, when Khartoum ethnically cleansed the region of two and a half million black Africans, using its airpower and the Janjaweed.

Perhaps Straw was being ironic: those who objected to Labour’s robust stand on Iraq should be pleased that some British traditions live on, and in the right circumstances we can appease with the best of them. Or perhaps not.