5-14-06, 9:36 am

There is a minor, well-intentioned movement afoot by some left-oriented writers to stop US military or other intervention in the Sudan under the pretext of averting the atrocities in Darfur and other parts of the Sudan. Three writers specifically have taken on the task of discouraging other well-meaning folk who fear that a great tragedy has taken the lives of 400,000 people from believing that it may not stop without some kind of international intervention.

These three writers are Yoshie Furuhashi, editor of Monthly Review's quite good online 'zine,' Joshua Frank, a usually astute critic of US politics, despite frequent sectarian forays into blaming the ultra right’s policies on the political center, and Professor Gary Leupp, whose articles occasionally appear on the indispensable radical online newsletter Dissident Voice.

Each of these writers has criticized recent efforts to draw attention to the atrocities in the Sudan and pressure the administration to take steps to intervene. They have focused criticism on a coalition of secular and religious-oriented groups (of diverse political orientation) called the Save Darfur Coalition, though their ire is aimed much more broadly as well.

Recently this organization held a small demonstration in Washington with the likes of actor George Clooney giving them some Hollywood star power to draw attention.

Many in that coalition urge US military or NATO intervention in the Sudan. Others are more guarded and want the US to increase humanitarian aid directly to refugees and to support UN resolutions on sanctions against the Sudanese government and for sending peacekeeping 'blue helmets' to aid the existing African Union (AU) force of 7,000 soldiers. The former may have a much more amplified message, and, appears to be using more well-meaning people for more devious purposes, according to our three authors.

The current AU mandate (set to expire this fall) is to protect the estimated 1.2 million internally displaced persons living in refugee camps from ongoing violence from Sudanese government-backed militias known as the Janjaweed and other groups, some of whom are rebel factions opposed to the Khartoum government.

Each of these writers is very concerned, as we all should be, about the outcomes of another 'humanitarian' intervention by the US. Frank cites the air strike in 1998 on a pharmaceutical facility in the Sudan and the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia (no additional details provided in either case). Professor Leupp cites both the 1993 Somalia fiasco and the US-backed NATO intervention in Yugoslavia that not only failed to stop atrocities and civil war but also aided in the dissolution of a sovereign nation. Furuhashi accurately characterizes US intervention in humanitarian guise as imperialist.

So what's the problem?

None of these articles help us understand what happened and is happening in Darfur. None even pretend to provide researched background information. None appear to be written with any link to Sudanese people who are living through the crisis or who are actively involved in the struggle for peace and democracy in their country.

For Frank, all his readers really need to know is that '[b]oth sides in the conflict are black, and both sides are Muslim. So, despite what the major news media may say, this isn't an Arab-on-black or Muslim-on-Christian nightmare. And perhaps worst of all, there isn't a good side to be on.'

In his view, the situation is probably hopeless. Is it just a mass orgy of killing, then?

So, 'don't jump on the Save Darfur bandwagon,' he blithely concludes.

Of course, his argument is aimed at discouraging readers from taking an interventionist position, but in the process he discourages them from learning the truth and even advances a few falsehoods. (More on that below.)

Leupp unfortunately takes a similar tack. In one article he admits, 'I haven’t much studied the situation in Darfur.' But he’s going to give his two cents anyway.

He describes genocide in the Sudan as 'alleged' and the effort to raise awareness as a smokescreen 'to divert attention from the ongoing slaughter in Iraq' and 'to depict another targeted Arab regime as so villainous as to require what the neocons call 'regime change.'' Of course 'alleged' is a term a journalist uses to avoid a lawsuit for improperly accusing someone of a committing a crime. It is also a term a sarcastic person uses when suggesting that something is false or a hoax. I doubt Leupp fears a lawsuit. Further, Leupp adds, 'all parties involved are Arabic-speaking black Africans,' though he admits issues of ethnicity in the Sudan are far more complicated than people in the US are likely to understand. And while hundreds of thousands killed is a problem, he implies that getting involved isn't what his readers should do. 'Let those Americans who’ve really studied the situation and wish to assist the struggle of Darfur’s oppressed provide such help as they can,' he says. Is he hinting that he personally isn't interested in learning more? Is he saying, let someone else deal with it?

Can one conclude from Leupp’s remarks anything other than that while he acknowledges a big crime has taken place, he feels his readers needn’t know much about it or do anything about it? Indeed both Frank and Leupp downplay the 'g' word in order to convince their audiences that the crimes do not require international intervention. It isn’t genocide; it’s just systematic mass killing. It’s cool.

Contrary to his own advice about letting other, more knowledgeable individuals handle it, Leupp several days later responds to some readers who disagreed with his first article in another, much longer piece that compares his critics to a character in the popular movie The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. I haven't seen that movie yet, but I am sure his sarcasm is a brilliant display of rhetoric and wit. Unfortunately, if you want to understand what’s happening in the Sudan, you won't a learn a thing.

For her part, Furuhashi dismisses the Save Darfur Coalition out of hand. It is backed by the Christian Right and 'establishment Jews,' she notes. But more than just the Save Darfur Coalition, she implicitly argues that any concern for Darfur aligns you with right-wingers and anti-Arab racist types. So while you get her take on a section of those who support that particular coalition and a particular ill-advised, even imperialist policy of US intervention, you get no details about Darfur, the administration's own history with relation to the issue, or any other kind of insight into what a correct approach for people living in the US to the Darfur issue might be.

To an anonymous critic posting in the Furuhashi article’s 'comments' section who expresses a desire for more nuanced analysis, Furuhashi is satisfied to retort that no one should be fooled into thinking that 'Washington is in the business of stopping killing and saving lives anywhere.' True enough, but is that all we need to know about international action taken to stop atrocities in Darfur?

All of three of these writers seem to have adopted a tactic of obfuscation with regard to the issue to advance the otherwise laudable goal of preventing popular support for a US military or NATO intervention in the Sudan.

So how can you learn more?

For general background on the various movements in the Sudan see here:

For background on crisis of 2003 and 2004 and issues of ethnicity and the basic motives of paramilitaries aligned with the government, see here:

For the Sudanese left's approach to bringing justice for those who have suffered and reconciliation for the country, see here:

For information about the atrocities in the Sudan and the International Criminal Court, see here:

and here:

For interesting perspectives on the relationship of the Bush administration to the Sudanese regime, see here:

and here:

For an assessment of the scope and extent of the atrocities, see here:

(Note: Eric Reeves, the author of the report linked to above, has called elsewhere for NATO intervention, a call that may be well-meaning, but should be rigorously opposed.)

For coverage of a recent human rights report authored by a Sudanese organization with a treatment of the sources of division and violence and recommendations for resolution of violence and reconsciliation, see here:

For a recent statement by the Sudanese Communists on the prospects of foreign intervention, see here:

--Contact Joel Wendland at