Chad's supporting rebels in Sudan, and Sudan's supporting rebels in Chad. No wonder there is a humanitarian crisis and human rights violations. Arabs, Muslims, and Africans recognize that. That doesn't mean that they see it as genocide. In fact, a proper response to a genocide isn't peace negotiations; a proper response to a civil/regional war can be.
> One reason the fight in Sudan is called a genocide is that it is motivated by skin-color.
Again, there is no consensus on that. Take a look at this: <blockquote>2 Everyone is black
Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab.
Sudan melds African and Arab identities. As Arabs began to dominate the government in the past century and gave jobs to members of Arab tribes, being Arab became a political advantage; some tribes adopted that label regardless of their ethnic affiliation. More recently, rebels have described themselves as Africans fighting an Arab government. Ethnic slurs used by both sides in recent atrocities have riven communities that once lived together and intermarried.
"Black Americans who come to Darfur always say, 'So where are the Arabs? Why do all these people look black?' " said Mahjoub Mohamed Saleh, editor of Sudan's independent Al-Ayam newspaper. "The bottom line is that tribes have intermarried forever in Darfur. Men even have one so-called Arab wife and one so-called African. Tribes started labeling themselves this way several decades ago for political reasons. Who knows what the real bloodlines are in Darfur?" (Emily Wax, "5 Truths About Darfur," 23 April 2006; Page B03, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101752.html>)</blockquote>
> One positive note. I discovered when I surfed the al-jazeera site that the
> government had agreed to an AU brokered peace this Sunday.
Yes, and the rebels rejected that one. Since then, Washington revised the draft peace proposal more to the rebels' liking:
<blockquote>A proposal drafted by the United States and Britain to help end the war in Sudan's Darfur region meets key rebel demands and could set the stage for a peace accord, a rebel negotiator said Thursday.
A rebel negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity because the parties involved had been asked not to reveal details of the proposal, said it called for thousands of rebels to be integrated into Sudanese security forces. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060504-1128-darfurtalks.html></blockquote>
In truth, no one in Sudan or Washington _really_ thinks that the Sudanese government has committed genocide. (Talk of genocide is just politics.) If they did, it would be odd to be haggling over whether to integrate rebels in Sudanese security forces.
In any case, it looks like Washington is changing gears -- very smart of Bush, for once!
Jordan says: "Unless you say that 'There is no genocide in Iraq' -- which is certainly not what you said."
I'm asking those who think that there is genocide in Sudan if they also think there is genocide in Iraq. In neither case, there is no evidence of intent that you mentioned.
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>