THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902
Position Statement
Regarding Sanctions, Divestment, and Military Intervention against
The Republic of Sudan
(Originally drafted in April-May 2006)
The Peace and Justice Foundation is opposed to a Divestment Campaign, the imposition of additional Sanctions, and Military Intervention against the Republic of Sudan for the following reasons:
1. Sanctions have repeatedly proven to have far greater impact on the innocent populations of targeted countries. Case in point: Iraq. According to Richard Garfield, professor of Clinical International Nursing at Columbia University, and chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health Association, “on a conservative estimate,” there were “300,000 excess deaths” of children under age five in Iraq during the sanctions regime imposed by the US. (Other analysts place the number at about a half million.)
2. Imposition of additional sanctions on the Sudan would slow down the pace of development, and greatly exacerbate the humanitarian crisis that already exists in that country. A recent report published in the April 25, 2005, edition of the New York Times (In Africa, Guns Aren't the Only Killers, by Marc Lacey), aptly notes the following: “In recent months, aid workers have begun providing a clearer picture of exactly why so many Africans die when conflict flares. Studies of two different war zones, by Physicians for Human Rights and by the International Rescue Committee, concluded separately that the major blame lies with the conditions created by wars in extremely fragile societies.”
One of the main factors described in the aforementioned report is the deadly consequence of “Flight.” Poor people are driven from their homes into hostile environments – i.e., deep into the forests or across deserts. Consequently, fields that once fed families lie fallow; livestock die; relatives and neighbors who depend on each other become separated. When people return to their homes, villages have often been razed, and the critically important social network of neighbors and health workers, and people to trade with, the thin fibers that knit lives together for survival may have been irreparably torn.
Another factor is “Disease.” Case in point: the Congo. Fighting in the Congo – which has been described as the deadliest conflict since World War II, claiming an estimated 3.8 million lives since 1998 - has also been described as “an amalgam of rebel insurgencies, tribal rivalries, competition for resources and just plain butchery without a cause.” Four mortality studies conducted over a five year period in the Congo, by the International Rescue Committee, estimates that 31,000 people die every month from causes connected to the conflict, most of them from preventable and treatable disease. Less than two percent (2%) of the deaths were caused directly by violence.
3. A divestment campaign, coupled with a heightened regime of sanctions, would be counter-productive to resolving the overall conflict in the Sudan, as it would fail to address the root causes of the much publicized crisis in Darfur and the reported growing unrest in the eastern part of the country.
4. It is our sincere belief that an Iraq (or even Kosova) styled military intervention would be catastrophic for that entire region of Africa.
Regarding Genocide
The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, released in Geneva on January 25, 2005, came back with a finding of “no genocide,” and proceeded to note the following:
“The roots of the present conflict in Darfur are complex. In addition to the tribal feuds resulting from desertification, the availability of modern weapons, and the other factors noted above, deep layers relating to identity, governance, and the emergence of armed rebel groups which enjoy popular support amongst certain tribes are playing a major role in shaping the current crisis.”
The report further noted that human rights violations, constituting “crimes against humanity,” have been committed in Darfur by belligerents “on both sides.”
Generally speaking, responsibility for the ongoing crisis in the Darfur region has yet to be honestly assessed in an even-handed fashion. Unless and until this occurs, genuine resolution will be impossible - because those Sudanese factions (i.e. rebel groups), who are favored by powerful international interests, will not feel compelled to come to the table of negotiation with sincere intentions toward resolution. (This reality has been shown repeatedly over the past three years.)
It is also important to note that The Peace And Justice Foundation has concluded - through our own independent investigation and careful research on the issue - that FIVE FACTIONS have been operating on the battlefields of Darfur: (1) rebel militias and their allies, (2) government forces and its allies, (3) non-aligned militias who have organized to protect family and property, (4) non-aligned opportunistic “Janjaweed” who are indigenous to Darfur, and (5) opportunistic non-Sudanese militias who have come across porous borders to take advantage of the security vacuum in Darfur. (These non-Sudanese militias can also be characterized as “Janjaweed”).
Any good faith effort on the part of the international community to help Sudan resolve this crisis must factor these realities into the equation.
Recommendations
The Peace And Justice Foundation has consistently maintained that the most appropriate and effective response to the Darfur crisis (from the international community), would be the following:
(a) Provide the African Union with sufficient resources, logistical support, and a full peacekeeping mandate (and endeavor to enlist most of the peacekeeping forces from Muslim populated countries);
(b) Place equal pressure toward resolution on all sides of the Darfur conflict;
(c) Pressure the governments who have made “humanitarian assistance” pledges to the people of Darfur, to fulfill the pledges made.
(d) Endeavor to correctly understand, and educate others, on the FACTS behind this unfortunate crisis, and then strive to exert the appropriate pressure on the powers-that-be for a just and effective resolution.
The number one FACT is this: at its core, the crisis in Darfur is nothing more than a tribal-based political struggle for power and control of the Sudan. Foreign interests are involved because of Islam, the Sudan’s strategic importance, and its enormous natural wealth. In short, the crisis provides a convenient cover for a number of sinister agendas. Among these is the convenient propaganda tool that it affords warmongers in the so-called “war against terrorism.” (It helps to tarnish the image of Islam and committed Muslims around the world.)
It also represents a very cunning, subliminal attempt on the part of zionists, evangelicals and political neo-cons to: (a) generate hostility toward Arabs or Arab-looking people; (b) divide and confuse the African American community on African affairs; and (c) encourage the African-American community to come down on the wrong side of the never-ending Arab-Israeli conflict (or to remain aloof from it)!
To better understand the Darfur crisis – from what many might consider a more neutral source - we encourage the reader to revisit (and reflect deeply upon) the five major points made by Emily Wax, East Africa bureau chief for The Washington Post newspaper on April 23, 2006 (in a report titled “Five Truths About Darfur”): (1) Nearly everyone is Muslim; (2) Everyone is black; (3) It’s all about politics; (4) This conflict is international; (5) The “genocide” label made it worse.
Information is power! Let us educate ourselves (and others) on what the real issues are, and then, in good conscience, act accordingly.
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Director of Operations
Telephone: (301) 762-9162
E-mail: peacethrujustice@aol.com