DARFUR, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HYPOCRISY
“[T]he simplistic characterization – used, for example, by Human Rights Watch – of ‘Arabs’ killing ‘Africans’ doesn’t fit.”
Human Rights Activist Alex de Waal [1]
All wars, and particularly civil wars, lead to human rights violations. Civilians are inevitably caught up in
war and are invariably its primary victims. The conflict in Darfur has been no exception. The Government
of Sudan has admitted that there have been serious abuses of human rights in the course of the Darfur
conflict. [2] The government is also cooperating with a number of UN protection-oriented agencies, with
British funding, in human rights training programmes for Sudanese armed forces and police. The
government has also opened Darfur to human rights investigators. Numerous human rights delegations
and specialists have visited the region. These include the a United Nations High Commission for Human
Rights mission from 24-30 April 2004; the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, Ms Asma Jahangir, who visited for several days in June 2004; the African Human
Rights Commission visited Darfur in July 2004; the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Ms Louise Arbour, and the Secretary-General’s special adviser on the prevention of genocide,
Juan Méndez, 20-24 September 2004; the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Professor
Yakin Ertürk, visited Darfur from 25 September to 2 October 2004; Amnesty International visited Darfur
in September 2004; the five-member United Nations commission of enquiry into allegations of genocide
in November 2004; and so on. All have noted that there were no restrictions placed on their visits.
And, as is so often the case in war, the conflict has been caught up in the propaganda and misinformation
that comes with it and that has certainly characterised previous coverage of Sudan. The Sudanese
government, for example, has claimed that: “Those with their own agendas are trying to give a very sad
view of what is happening. The propaganda in the west is trying to exaggerate what is taking place in
Darfur.” [3] It is, of course, essential that human rights are protected, and that those who violate human
rights are reported on and that action against human rights violators is taken. It is also commendable that
there are dedicated organisations that focus exclusively on human rights issues. Sadly, all too often, many
of the western human rights organisations follow political agendas set by a western elite that through
prejudice or pressure group politics badly serve the developing world. It must also be noted that the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Arbour, undermined her credibility and that of
the United Nations, when in her October 2004 report on Darfur she stated that she had “received no
credible reports of rebel attacks on civilians as such”. [4]
De Waal is right. Much of the human rights reporting on the Darfur crisis, and especially that by Human
Rights Watch, has been simplistic. It has also been inaccurate, unbalanced and in some cases biased. This
is something which has not helped with analysing and by thereby seeking to remedy, what is a complex
situation. Human rights commentators, for example, have not been able to differentiate between the
activities of government paramilitary forces, those of armed nomadic tribes or those of the heavily-armed
criminal gangs that roam Darfur. As a result there have made unrealistic – and indeed impossible –
demands on the Sudanese government. Their continual criticism of the government for not doing things
that are in many instances beyond their control, which adversely colour western international opinion
about Khartoum, merely serves to discredit the western human rights community in the eyes of the
governments and people of much of the developing world. The human rights industry certainly appears to have opted for partisan or lazy analysis of events in Darfur, seemingly unable to resist projecting the
image of government-supported “Arab” – “Janjaweed” – militias attacking “African”, Fur or Zaghawa,
villagers (and in doing so often merely echoing questionable rebel claims).
This has been done despite the scarcity of reliable information. United Nations media sources, for
example, have noted “a lack of accurate information on the conflict” [5] and Reuters has also stated that “it is
hard to independently verify claims by government or rebels in Darfur.” [6] Human rights reports have
consistently reported - and attributed - human rights abuses within Darfur in circumstances in which
independent confirmation of such assertions is impossible. The New York Times, while echoing many of
these allegations of human rights abuses, was candid enough to admit that “it is impossible to travel in
Darfur to verify these claims”. [7] Claims of Khartoum’s control over the “Janjaweed” persist despite
increasing evidence that they are out of control. [8] The absence of verifiable information regarding events in
Darfur was a point raised by Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Reporting to
the UN on her return from Darfur, Ms Arbour noted: “There is a great need on the part of the international
community to improve its capacity to collect, coordinate and analyse information and reports of human
rights violations. This is critical to ensure that we have available empirically-founded concrete data if we
are to counter the rumours and manipulation of information that is rife in Darfur. Such a capacity will be
invaluable to the international community, allowing it to assess trends and further tailor its response to the
crisis. It will be invaluable, too, for the Government of Sudan which clearly feels aggrieved by what it
perceives to be an exaggeration by the international community as to the extent of the crisis.” [9]
Contradictions in claims by human rights organisations about events in Darfur have also led to question
marks about some of the serious allegations that have been made. While Human Rights Watch, for
example, eagerly chose to label the conflict as “ethnic cleansing” [10] and have skirted close to using the
“genocide” label, Amnesty International researchers have said that observers should be “cautious” about
describing clashes as ethnic cleansing. [11] Such labels have also been challenged by the United Nations and
senior aid workers on the ground within Darfur. [12] Nonetheless, the claims of “ethnic cleansing” have
echoed around the world.
Human Rights Watch: Questionable Sources, Questionable Reports
There is little doubt that groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have once again
relied upon questionable sources with regard to Darfur. It has also been clear that in some cases their
analysts are partisan and their previous methodology with regard to Sudan has been flawed. Human Rights
Watch’s counsel and Sudan researcher Jemera Rone has, for example, previously eulogised a Sudanese
rebel commander as “thoughtful…curious and intellectual” and with a “respect for the rights of all”. This
was in the face of the rebel commander’s direct and indirect responsibility for massive human rights
violations including the murder, rape or torture of hundreds if not thousands of civilians, many of whom
were women and children. The rebel eulogised by Ms Rone was also directly responsible for the abduction
of thousands of under-age children for use as child soldiers and their transportation to Ethiopia. Nearly
3,000 of these children subsequently died from malnutrition or disease: many more died as child soldiers.
Ms Rone’s eulogy was an astonishing statement for someone supposedly concerned with human rights to
have made and provides a clear insight into the sort of anti-government bias that has coloured key “human rights” reports on Sudan. [13] Many of Human Rights Watch’s claims about Darfur, and much of its analysis,
must be seen in this light.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, Human Rights Watch’s reports have been marked by their lack of focus
on rebel abuses in Darfur. In its April 2004 report, Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan, for
example, Human Rights Watch devotes ten lines within the 49-page publication to rebel violations of
human rights claiming to have had “limited access to information about abuses by JEM and SLA”. All it
reports, for example, is that in November 2003, JEM “apparently” killed 20 civilians in West Darfur and
that in late 2003 the SLA “apparently” killed a prisoner in a police station. HRW also states that both rebel
movements are using child soldiers. [14] What little did appear in this report was stated to have come from
“interviews” in Chad. HRW researchers appear not to have been in touch, even by telephone, with United
Nations officials in Darfur. The UN information network, part of the Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs - and active in Sudan, publicly documented in July 2003, for example, that “SLA
rebels regularly attacked and looted villages, taking food and sometimes killing people…The attacks
present a real threat to people’s food security and livelihoods, by preventing them from planting and
accessing markets to buy food.”. [15] Neither do they appear to have even read BBC news items reporting
that the rebels had murdered nine World Food Programme truck drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an
attack on a relief convoy in October 2003. [16] In the wake of this attack, the United States government asked
the Sudanese government for help with security and access. [17] The following are just a few of the many
publicly-reported instances of rebel human rights abuses – just on aid workers alone – which never made
in into Human Rights Watch’s April 2004 report. In November 2003 the Government accused rebels in
Darfur of killing two of its relief workers and abducting three others in an attack on an aid convoy. [18] One
month later, rebel gunmen killed two other relief workers and abducted three others. [19] Rebels also
kidnapped other relief workers with JEM gunmen admitted abducting five aid workers working for the
Swiss humanitarian group Medair. [20] On 11 February 2004, the Equality and Justice Movement declared its
intention to close down every road within Darfur. Rebel attacks on relief convoys continued. A senior UN
official in Sudan stated in February 2004 that rebels have made it too dangerous to take aid into parts of
Darfur. Aid convoys were still being attacked by armed groups. The spokesman also cited the danger of
landmines.” [21] The Sudanese government repeatedly held the rebels responsible for blocking deliveries of
humanitarian aid in Darfur. [22]
Human Rights Watch’s August 2004 human rights “report”, Empty Promises? Continuing Abuses in
Darfur was even more unbalanced. Its 37 pages contained one sentence alleging a rebel human rights
abuse – the “temporary” abduction of aid workers – who were then returned “unharmed”. This was
sourced to the United Nations. The organisation’s excuse was that it had not been able to get visas for
government-controlled areas of Sudan, and therefore was not able to report on rebel abuses. The
disingenuousness of this line is breathtaking. Human Rights Watch has constantly relied upon secondhand
or previously published news items for the bulk of its “reporting” on human rights in Sudan. Indeed
the only rebel human rights abuse they cited in Empty Promises? Continuing Abuses in Darfur was
sourced to the United Nations. As can be seen from the very small sample outlined above, there are
numerous well-documented human rights abuses – including many sourced by the United Nations – which
Human Rights Watch could easily have included in its reports. That they chose not to do so is telling
evidence of the organisation’s clear bias and hence unreliability with regard to human rights reporting and
analysis. It was also perhaps unsurprising that Human Rights Watch chose to use British journalist Julie Flint as a
researcher. Ms Flint, although presenting herself as an “independent journalist” when speaking before the
American Senate’s foreign relations committee, is a long-time anti-Sudan activist. [23] Ms Flint’s testimony
was predictably light with regard to rebel abuses. She did, however, admit that rebel attacks on
government targets “took heavy civilian casualties”. She mentioned that rebels had abducted humanitarian
aid workers but did not cite any of the numerous instances of their murder. She stuck to the official
position that, despite having been provided with a “list of ceasefire violations and attacks on villages” by
the government and other groups in Darfur, they were unable to investigate them because they had not
visited government-held areas. This has not, however, prevented HRW from reporting as fact other
alleged, government abuses within government-held areas. Ms Flint drew heavily upon her guided tour, by
rebels, through a rebel-controlled area of Darfur. Ms Flint and Human Rights Watch did admit that “It
is…difficult to ascertain what exactly is happening in a place the size of Darfur.” It is all the more difficult
to ascertain what is happening if one ignores numerous well-documented accounts by journalists, United
Nations workers and other non-governmental sources.
Interestingly, it is also worth noting that, although Human Rights Watch’s main Sudan researcher Jemera
Rone went on record to criticise the credibility of Eric Reeves, Flint has no such reservations. She accepts
Reeves’ claim of 400,000 deaths in Darfur, describing them as “a serious analysis of mortality” in
Darfur. [24] This despite the fact that Human Rights Watch works with the World Health Organisation figure
of 70,000. [25] Unusually for a supposed human rights researcher, Flint has also acted as an apologist for
rebel war crimes, stating that rebel human rights abuses, including the murder of aid workers, were the
responsibility of “rogue rebel commanders”. [26] In short, Ms Flint provides a telling example of the sort of
partisan anti-government activist who so often double-up as “independent”, supposedly objective, human
rights workers
Not only has Human Rights Watch been economical with certain facts, it has totally misrepresented
others. Its Sudan report for 2003, for example, stated that Sudan “had backed out of peace talks sponsored
by Chad”. [27] It is somewhat difficult to reconcile Human Rights Watch’s claim with that of the official
Chadian Government peace mediator who went on record in December 2003 to state: “There has been a
breakdown in negotiations because of unacceptable rebel demands. The talks have been suspended: it’s a
failure.” [28] This is only one of many mistakes and omissions on the part of Human Rights Watch – but is
certainly one of its most significant in the slant it put on a crucial aspect of the Darfur crisis. The same
2003 section claimed that Khartoum was “trying to use southern militias, previously used against the
SPLA, to fight in Darfur.” This is another particularly off-the-wall claim and has not been mentioned once
outside of this particular annual report.
Amnesty International and Darfur
Amnesty International’s reporting on Darfur has been similarly flawed. In its February 2004 report,
Darfur: “Too Many People Killed for No Reason”, Amnesty International stated that it “had received
very little information regarding killing of civilians by the armed opposition the SLA and the JEM”.
Amnesty qualified its position by stating that “in some cases, the armed political groups appear to have put the lives of civilians at risk”. [29] This despite having mentioned in the same report that the United
Nations had reported regular rebel attacks upon, and looting of, villages and the killing of civilians.
Amnesty International would appear to share the Human Rights Watch methodology of turning a blind
eye to independent, publicly-documented accounts of rebel human rights abuses.
All of Amnesty International’s publications on Darfur have been unbalanced and misleading. In
Amnesty’s “Sudan Crisis – Background”, it accepts, at face value, the usual rationale for the initiation of
violence in Darfur, that the rebels began the war as a result of “marginalisation and underdevelopment of
the region”. [30] In its April 2004 report, Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in
Darfur, Amnesty does not once mention rebel human rights abuses. [31] In its lengthy 2004 report, Arming
the Perpetrators of Grave Abuses in Darfur, Amnesty devotes three sentences to the rebels. While
calling for an end to any supply of weapons, and vehicles, to the government, it is silent with regard to
supply of weapons – by Eritrea and others for example – to the rebels. [32] And, in its December 2004 Open
Letter to All Members of the Security Council, Amnesty does not mention the rebels once. [33] Any
semblance to objectivity and quality research that Amnesty International may once have tried to claim
with regard to its work on Sudan was in any instance starkly contradicted by allowing discredited out-andout
propagandists and apologists for rebel human rights abuses such as Eric Reeves to write on Sudan in
their publications. [34]
It is also worth noting that previous Amnesty International reports on Sudan in general have been flawed
by deeply questionable methodology. Key reports have been largely reliant on newspaper reporting –
often utilising second- and third-hand newspaper accounts by partisan journalists. In these reports
Amnesty International’s lack of professionalism was also been manifested by its turning a blind eye to
independent, reputable, first-hand accounts of rebel use of child soldiers and the daily bombardment of
towns. It chose instead to publish claims made by rebel commanders. [35]
As so often has been the case in their reporting of Sudan, the reliability of the assertions of groups like
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International should not be taken at face value.
The Hypocrisy of the Human Rights Industry on Darfur
In addition to often overt bias, and factual inaccuracies, on the part of human rights groups, there has also
been considerable hypocrisy with regard to Darfur. While claiming that the Arab “Janjaweed” raiders are
sponsored by the government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International ignore the fact that the
government has regularly taken very firm action against “Arab” tribesmen who have attacked “African”
communities. In April 2003, for example, Sudanese courts sentenced 24 Arab armed bandits to death for
their involvement in the murder of 35 African villagers in attacks on pastoralist villages. Judge Mukhtar
Ibrahim Adam described the attacks as “barbaric and savage conduct” reminiscent of “the dark ages”. [36] In
the same month, 44 tribesmen were killed, and 22 injured, in a tribal clash between Arab and Massaleit
tribes in West Darfur. Police units contained the violence. [37] In a further example of the government’s firm
stance, in October 2003, 14 other Arab tribesmen were also sentenced to death for the murder of non-Arab
villagers during attacks and arson within villages in south Darfur state. [38] There is also abundant evidence
of the sorts of lawlessness that has plagued Darfur, including considerable “Arab” on “Arab” violence. In one incident alone in May 2002 50 Arab tribesmen were killed in such clashes between the Arab tribes. [39]
(Would this qualify as “Janjaweed” on “Janjaweed” violence?) A special criminal court sentenced 86
Arab tribesmen to death for involvement in the murder of other Arab tribesmen.
The stance of the human rights industry on criminal violence in Darfur has been contradictory. Amnesty
International, for example, has previously criticised government inaction in responding to the violence and
banditry in the region. In February 2003 Amnesty International stated that “government responses to
armed clashes have been ineffective”. [40] Amnesty has then condemned the government for taking measures
to restore order, such as arresting tribesmen suspected of involvement in violence. [41] The scale of the
violence had led to Khartoum introducing special measures. Yet these have also been criticised by
Amnesty International. They, for example, have condemned the special criminal courts created by
presidential decree to deal with offences such as murder, armed robbery, arson and the smuggling of
weapons., and the firm sentences these courts have subsequently handed down. [42] And at the same time
these measures are being taken against the very Arab tribesmen that it is alleged the government is
supporting militarily.
The fact is that scores of Sudanese soldiers and policemen have been killed in tribal clashes and while
trying to apprehend those suspected, including “Janjaweed”, of criminal acts. (Even Amnesty International
admits to as much in its more objective moments.[43] Many more Sudanese policemen have also been
murdered by rebels, often while carrying out their job of protecting internally displaced peoples.
Rebel Human Rights Abuses
One of the reasons for the international community’s distorted picture of the Darfur crisis – with the
resultant flawed analysis and demands that have ensued – is the under-reporting of the activities of the
rebel movements. Having by and large ignored large-scale rebel human rights abuses in the course of
2003, human rights groups are now belatedly starting to document their activities. Even the SLA has had
to admit to human rights abuses, accepting in early December 2004, for example, that it had been involved
in attacks on civilians, kidnappings and obstructing aid workers. [44]
Almost eighteen months after they first began, Human Rights Watch is now conceding that rebel attacks
on towns in early 2003 resulted in considerable loss of civilian life. Even Julie Flint had to admit, in June
2004, that “heavy civilian casualties” were caused during these attacks. She admitted that the April 2003
attack on al-Fasher “resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians”. [45] In its November 2004 report, in a
section entitled “Attacks on Civilians”, Human Rights admitted that “the rebel movements have been
responsible for direct attacks on civilian objects in violation of international humanitarian law, and for
causing deaths and injuries to civilians.”
Rebel human rights abuses have followed a pattern. They have included systematic attacks on nomadic
communities and the destruction of numerous Arab villages. They have included the murder, wounding,
and abduction of civilians and the rape of women. These attacks on civilians have continued despite the
rebels having signed several internationally-mediated ceasefire agreements, including the November 2004
Abuja protocol. In early December 2004, for example, the governor of North Darfur, Osman Yusuf Kibir,
accused rebels of attacking villages and raping women. [46] In January 2005, the government reported that rebels had destroyed eight villages and killed many civilians in attacks in South Darfur. [47] Rebels have also
carried out hundreds of armed robberies throughout Darfur, and in so doing killing many civilians. They
have also been involved in the theft of thousands of head of livestock – the very lifeblood of many of
Darfur’s tribal communities. The Sudan Liberation Army have also murdered several aid workers, foreign
and Sudanese, and abducted scores of others. They have also attacked and looted dozens of relief convoys
carrying food aid to Darfur’s displaced communities. The rebels have also recruited and armed child
soldiers. Newspapers and human rights organisations have provided some glimpses into the scale of rebel
abuses.
An Incomplete Picture
Another way in which the human rights industry has distorted perceptions of events in Darfur is through
often incomplete or inaccurate analysis of events in Darfur and Sudan. The overriding goal for anyone
concerned about human rights should be to end the conflict that is leading to human rights abuses. Merely
focusing upon the symptoms and not the cause is an inadequate response. In this respect, however, the
human rights groups have been very disappointing. Amnesty International, for example, takes rebel claims
about their motivation at face value, asserting without reservation that the Darfur rebels “took up arms in
February 2003 to protest at what they perceive as the lack of government protection of the settled
population against attacks by nomads and the underdevelopment and marginalisation of Darfur”. Human
Rights Watch unquestioningly echoes the stated rebel position when it claims “Both rebel groups were
formally created in early 2003 in response to the perceived political marginalization and chronic
underdevelopment of Darfur”. [48] Amnesty International would appear to be unaware, and certainly have
not noted in their publications, the view of Sudan’s premier human rights activist, Ghazi Suleiman, about
the Islamist dimension to the conflict. In so doing, the simplistic analysis of groups such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch merely serves to advance rebel propaganda and misinform those
observers who may rely upon those organisations for accurate information on this issue.
Unbalanced, misleading and incomplete reporting, coupled with equally misleading or simply inaccurate
analysis, by human rights groups confuses and misinforms international perceptions of the conflict. The
human rights industry has sadly been party to all these failings in its reporting on Sudan. While all too
often taken at face value in a handful of Western capitals, such flawed reporting gravely undermines the
credibility of organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in the rest of the
word.
Footnotes
|
 |
|
