Previous posts on the Darfur Crisis in Sudan. LINK

Last Thursday, I watched this documentary titled Darfur: On Our Watch. I found it very frustrating as I watched the how this war has been going on for almost 8 years, and yet so little has been done about it. The UN, which has been having countless meetings about Darfur all this time, has been able to produce very little work towards bringing the conflict to a close. The major reason up until 2006 was the role China has to play in the decision-making process.

According to the documentary, China has invested a lot into the oil industry in the Sudan. The Sudanese government gets payment for the oil, while the Chinese gov't sends engineers and developers to go to the Sudan to excavate oil. More importantly, the Chinese gov't supplies weapons and arms to the Sudanese military (who in turn supply weapons and arms to militias like the Janjaweed). This is why China has opposed UN efforts - however weak they were - to intervene in the Darfur Crisis.

Another roadblock, and this is a major one, is the definition of genocide. Some claim that what is happening in Darfur is genocide, while others are saying it's tribal warfare. The definition is this: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." From what I've read, the beginnings of the conflict may have been motivated by the animosity between tribal interests. However, at this juncture, when you have one group who consider themselves to be Arabs slaughtering and raping people who consider themselves to be Africans, then it is one ethnic group against another. Then, it is genocide.

At the end of this documentary, I got this message, and perhaps it's a confirmation rather than a declaration: Help hasn't been given to the people of Darfur because they are black. If they were white or if they looked European, member countries of the UN would not have had such a hard time deciding on how to act. They would have acted a lot sooner to put a stop to it. For example, Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia. The US acted very quickly. The US got a lot of support very quickly. This time, it was not as easy and I do believe that skin colour has a huge role to play in stalling the decision-making process. The result is that over hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, raped, maimed and displaced since 2002 when the conflict erupted.

What annoys me is that this issue has not be discussed very much, if at all, in the Chinese media.



http://www.answers.com/genocide?cat=biz-fin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3613953.stm

Canada will send troops to Darfur?

It was the fruit of nine months of work by Prime Minister Paul Martin and officials from the defence department, the foreign affairs department and the Canadian International Development Agency.

The initiative stressed that Canada's activities in Darfur are based on the so-called "3D approach," which combines diplomatic activity, development and humanitarian aid, and support for improving the security situation through defence and police involvement.
-Graham Fraser, The Toronto Star, May 8, 2005.

When I first heard about this, some media said that Martin agreed to this because he wanted Kilgour's vote, a man who is an independent MP. Could this be true? Or, is it really the result of almost a year's amount of work by the Cdn. gov't to devise a plan to help the people of Darfur?

I think it's a bit of both. About a year ago, Canada had started appealing to other Western gov'ts that they should all join in with the UN and the African Union to resolve the genocide that is happening in Darfur. Nothing came out of that, and Canada's representatives were clearly frustrated. It seems like they've finally found some tangible way of making a contribution.

At the same time, Martin's gov't needs all the support it can get. If this is truly the motive behind it, then I will have to take comfort in knowing that Martin decided to provide some aid to a cause that is truly worthy.

Re-post

This entry first appeared in the May 16, 2005 entry.

Prof. Eric Reeves on "The Sunday Edition," CBC Radio One

On the drive to church on Sunday morning, Bro and I were listening to The Sunday Edition broadcast. It featured an interview with English Lit. Prof. Eric Reeves about the genocide that is going on in Darfur, Sudan. At one point, Michael Enright, the host, asked Prof. Reeves if Darfur is the next Rwanda in the making. Prof. Reeves responded in a way that really made my heart ache. He said, and I paraphrase:

Darfur is Rwanda in slow motion. It's as if the Gods of History decided to give us another chance, a chance to redeem ourselves for our neglect of what happened in Rwanda. It's as if they said, "we'll give you as much time as you need, and this time there should be no excuse not taking action."

Our second chance is passing us by, and do we even notice it?

http://www.sudanreeves.org/

Prof. Eric Reeves on "The Sunday Edition," CBC Radio One

On the drive to church on Sunday morning, Bro and I were listening to The Sunday Edition broadcast. It featured an interview with English Lit. Prof. Eric Reeves about the genocide that is going on in Darfur, Sudan. At one point, Michael Enright, the host, asked Prof. Reeves if Darfur is the next Rwanda in the making. Prof. Reeves responded in a way that really made my heart ache. He said, and I paraphrase:

Darfur is Rwanda in slow motion. It's as if the Gods of History decided to give us another chance, a chance to redeem ourselves for our neglect of what happened in Rwanda. It's as if they said, "we'll give you as much time as you need, and this time there should be no excuse not taking action."

Our second chance is passing us by, and do we even notice it?