Choking on Genocide in Darfur

By Jawad Ali

There is a genocide going on in Darfur, Sudan. Or maybe there isn’t, says National Public Radio. I heard these doubts expressed on two specials they did on the topic. It is not as if NPR was trying to cover up for the cruel regime in Khartoum. No, that’s not it. They hate Khartoum. The government in Sudan is nasty like Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Then why would they say something like that? Let us see if we can get to the bottom of this reluctance to apply the “genocide” label to Sudan.

The first NPR show focused on Colin Powell’s visit to the region. Powell was in a state of shock and awe about the horrors he had seen. Actually, he had not seen any horrors and seemed very upset that the Sudanese had not shown him the real nasty stuff. The second show brought out a genocide expert from the Holocaust Museum to back up the Secretary to State.

They both said the same bizarre things. Yes, we should kick Sudan’s ass for committing genocide. What Sudan is doing is technically not genocide. The technicalities are too complex for all of us ordinary people, that is why our secret lawyers are hashing it all out behind closed doors.

Did Powell use the word “genocide” or not? This is the question that NPR's Alex Chadwick put to Jill McGivering, BBC’s bimbo on the ground. Readers should follow the links to listen to the exact exchange on inanities. Here is what I wish we had heard, if NPR and BBC had been a little more candid:

BBC: It walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck. It is a duck, by every possible definition. But the UN and the State Department are not calling it a duck.

NPR: Why is that?

BBC: Because the US and the UN have certain obligations to the people of Sudan under the genocide treaties. The purpose of this semantic exercise is to shirk these responsibilities and give a shaft to the people of Sudan.

NPR: So can we talk about the exact definition of genocide and the exact responsibilities that the Mr. Anan and Mr. Powell are trying to ditch.

BBC: Absolutely not. Those are taboo subjects. The role of our two news organizations is to help Mr. Powell get the official word out. “The lawyers are looking at it,” were Mr. Powell’s exact words. We have to fall in line with the reasoning that these things are too complex for governments, the UN and the news media. He sounded a lot like President Clinton getting very precise with the legal definition of a blow job that he may or may not have received.

NPR: These must be Mr. Powell’s private lawyers, since he clearly does not believe in any international rule of the law. Maybe the lawyers belong to our sponsor Archer Daniels Midland. Ha ha.

BBC: Ha ha! Yes, that’s on the long list of questions we were instructed not to ask. Here are a few more examples:

Mr. Powell repeatedly used the words “catastrophe” and “crisis” while avoiding the word “genocide.” Shouldn’t the lawyers be looking closely at those words also before any of us can use them?

When did we start leaving such things up to lawyers anyway? We have invaded entire countries without referring phrases like “axis of evil,” “gassed his own people” and “weapons of mass destruction” to our lawyers.

Do these semantic gymnastics and legal refinements mean that they are going out of their way to assert that Sudan is innocent until proven guilty by lawyers? When did this start happening in international affairs?

NPR: The message is clearly that Sudan is guilty of genocide, even though we will never say so directly. We say “some people” are calling it genocide. These are the same “some people” who have been telling Fox News that John Kerry looks a little French.

BBC: “Some people” would argue that the UN and US had their hands in many genocides of their own, like the recent sanctions on Iraq. Is there a higher authority that we can trot out to make all of this sound sensible and reasonable, somebody like the Pope or God himself?

NPR: Yes, indeed. Tomorrow we bring out Jerry Fowler, director of the Committee on Conscience at the United States Holocaust Museum. He is bigger that both of them.

BBC: What is he going to say?

NPR: Same mindless gibberish as Colin Powell. Were you expecting something else?

BBC: Are you going to call him on the inconsistency?

NPR: Ha ha. You are kidding, right?

He is going to give us the technical definition of genocide. That’s what he does for a living. Then we are going to describe the events in Sudan to match his definition. While our listeners are putting the two together, Mr. Fowler is going to quickly pull Colin Powel’s bait-and-switch and say that technically there is no genocide in Sudan.

BBC: How can you do an entire show on the subject and not bring up the exact technicality that disqualifies Sudan from the genocide label?

NPR: Well for starters we are going to use a very serious and sincere NPR tone of voice. Then we are going to congratulate each other for tackling a very grave issue with utmost seriousness. I wish we had English accents like you guys at BBC.

BBC: What is the Holocaust Museum's definition of genocide?

NPR: It has two parts. The first part is a list of actions that match the stuff we see in Sudan. The second part is about the intention to commit these horrible acts.

BBC: So establishing the intention is half the game. Why?

NPR: If your intention is to fight on the side of evil, then it is clearly genocide. It is OK to commit these same acts if your intention is to fight against evil in a just war. Then these things are called “collateral damage” and “war casualties.” It all depends who has more guns and lawyers in the end.

BBC: Why does the Holocaust Museum need a Committee of Conscience if such things are going to be left up to some secret cabal of lawyers?

NPR: We are not going to ask him that. The word “cabal” is anti-Semitic even if everyone involved is non-Jewish. Why don’t you ask him about Norman Finkelstein and the Holocaust Industry, and see how long BBC stays on the air after that?

BBC: So, what's Mr. Fowler’s final verdict on Sudan?

NPR: They are saying that this is not genocide, but if you squint your eyes just right it looks like genocide from a distance in many ways. The most important thing is that they have clearly come out and said that this thing walks like a duck and talks like a duck. They are also saying that this is not a duck, but this part is not important.

What is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan is genocide.

This is the official MWU! position. No lawyers were involved in drafting it. Don’t let the State Department and the Holocaust Museum throw dust in your eyes.

The reports of atrocities in Sudan are coming from a variety of sources, and we have no reason to doubt them. It would still be prudent to say that it is genocide if the news reports are true, but that would make us sound too much like Mr. Powel and Mr. Fowler. Lord knows that the news media have given us nothing but lies about Sudan in the past. Consider:

1) The right wing Christians had an obsession in recent years to save the souls of slaves in Sudan. The money they spent on buying slaves to free created new spot markets of slaves.

2) Many reasonable people, such as Jimmy Carter, concluded that the only reason that genocidal civil war was still going on after all these years was because the US government actively destroyed all peace efforts between the parties.

3) Bill Clinton destroyed Sudan’s meager medical supplies and bombed innocent people to draw attention away from the witch hunt against his erection.

4) Sudan has petroleum. Rwanda and Burundi have none.

It is possible that the word “genocide” is covered by the same bizarre brand name trademark restrictions that cover the phrase “The Next Hitler.”

Jawad Ali is co-founder and Executive Editor of Muslim WakeUp!