Global Indifference

Written by

in

One segment of Peter Tatchell’s piece on Darfur (excerpted at Harry’s Place) rings false for me:

If these massacres were happening to white people in Surrey or Sweden, you can be sure there would be swift intervention to halt the killing. One cannot help wonder whether the global indifference to the slaughter in Darfur has anything to do with the fact that the victims are black.

This is such a tired line. The most significant feature, surely, is that the killings are taking place in an avowedly Islamist state. If there was a Christian, or secular, regime in Khartoum – and certainly if it was Western-backed – the uproar from the Muslim world would be deafening, and the Left would have mobilised in force by now in countless demonstrations and conferences. As it is, any feasible ending to the suffering – in terms of UN action – is opposed by Khartoum as neo-colonialism, and would almost certainly be greeted by violent condemnation across the Muslim world as yet another crusade by the West against Islam. Muslims being killed is only a problem if the perpetrators are non-Muslims.

For much of the Western Left Darfur simply doesn’t push the right anti-American buttons. Mind you, I see from the comments to Tatchell’s article that strenuous efforts are being made to incorporate Darfur into a more familiar story:

The UN fact-finding commssion that exhaustively investigated the situation in Darfur, as opposed to pulling things out of your bum as you are doing, explicitly stated that there was NO GENOCIDE and gave several reasons why this was not so.

It said yes, most of the rights violations were committed by the government forces but these were committed in the context of counterinsurgency warfare, such as the far more egregrious atrocities being committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not with any sort of genocidal intent.

The reason for the suffering in Darfur is the Western-armed and -financed insurgency whose only purpose is to grab Sudan’s vast oil wealth away from China and hand it to Chevron.

The insurgency in the south, fomented by US christian evangelists in Uganda, started for the same reason. As soon as Khartoum solved that, the US started one in Darfur and another one in the north, with French and Israeli help, using Chad and Eritrea for training and supply bases.

Phew – it is the West’s fault, after all.

Comments

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    It’s hard not to admire Tatchell for his courage concerning Mugabe, and hard not to despise him for virtually everything else.

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    “Despise” is a bit strong, isn’t it? I may not always agree with him, but I certainly don’t despise him. He certainly gets up a lot of peoples’ noses though – the comments on his article (at the Comment-is-free site, not Harry’s) are extraordinary in their contempt. As well as the one I quoted above, check out the one from “Terl” (comment no. 216082). And of course Dsquared is in there – “profoundest bullshit”.

  3. Cyrus Avatar

    So the southern Sudanese started an insurgency just because American evangelists told them to. How racist is that?

  4. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Fair point, MH: they despise, I demur from, you don’t always agree with.

  5. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    “The reason for the suffering in Darfur is the Western-armed and -financed insurgency whose only purpose is to grab Sudan’s vast oil wealth away from China and hand it to Chevron.”
    If China is supporting the regime in Khartoum because of its oil from Sudan, then why isn’t China an imperialist nation? Certainly, if you substituted “US” for “China”, then … oh, forget it.

  6. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    China’s always been an Imperialist nation: the boss was called Emperor, wasn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *