Darfur Genocide Highlights Failure Of African Citizens

THE first genocide of the 20th century occurred on African soil with the decimation of the Ovaherero people in Namibia at the hands of European colonialists.

Since February 2003 the west of Sudan has been engulfed in a violent civil war which is fast becoming the first genocide of the 21st century. Oddly, the defining difference between Darfur and the 1904 Herero Genocide is that the first is being perpetuated by an African government on fellow Africans.And if we have to call a moral spade a moral spade, international efforts to curb this war have been at worse despicably minimal, cautious, and have not brought much hope for the helpless people of Darfur.In that connection violent critiques can be directed at the United Nations and other great powers for the rather casual approach they have taken with regard to this imminent apocalypse of a people.More so as Africans, we should be disappointed with the failure of the African Union to act decisively with a problem that is occurring in its own backyard.In fact, if the African Union acted in unison and decisively on Darfur, it could have sent a different message to ordinary Africans and the international community that it was ready to take ownership of African problems and provide solutions thereto.Stating the obvious, if this crisis was occurring in one of the European backyards, international responses would have been urgent and decisive.Be that as it may, I think that there is another worrying aspect to which we haven’t paid much attention.It has essentially to do with the role African citizens have played thus far in giving this issue a voice and a much higher profile on the international scene than is presently the case.We ought to admit that the longer this conflict drags on, the less attention-grabbing it becomes and it has now been effectively demoted to the back-pages of African and international newspapers.And on major international news networks such as CNN, France 24 or the BBC there is a deficit of images and Darfur comes to life only if and when major international actors raise it in their speeches.Admittedly, the image deficit also has to do with visas being denied to journalists by the government of Khartoum.Nonetheless, like many, I believe that the crisis in Darfur cannot afford to be relegated to being one of many issues in international relations given the gravity of the situation.But let me return to a question that I believe is of genuine interest in this column and that concerns the role we have to play as ordinary (and the not so ordinary Africans) in putting pressure on countries and institutions with leverage on the Khartoum government, be it China, the EU, the African Union etc.Such an issue ought to be raised because what is at stake in Darfur is not necessarily the fate of the Government in Khartoum, nor the credibility of the African Union, but most importantly about the lost “citizens” of Darfur.Without doubt African governments have shown in this crisis that their loyalty lies with a government that is in their view legitimately elected.As a consequence, they will engage in endless diplomatic talk without the possibility of sanctions against Khartoum.This is also the position they have taken on Zimbabwe despite the deteriorating conditions of ordinary Zimbabweans at the hands of a regime that has lost its way.But then of course, let me hasten to add there is nothing new in this thinking.I nevertheless find it strange to note that the protest marches against what is happening in Darfur take place in foreign capitals such as Paris, London and New York.Additionally celebrity actors, politicians and intellectuals who try and keep this issue alive in the pubic debate and view come from the United States and Europe.Paradoxically, I was in a way disturbed and moved recently when the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy returned from Darfur and wrote “Choses vues au Darfour” in an article in Le Monde.And this philosopher has since been on television speaking about Darfur.What I found disturbing about this is my conviction that a top African intellectual could have taken ownership of that problem and do what BHL did.Equally so, instead of George Clooney pleading in front of the United Nations for urgent action to be taken in Darfur, it should have been Frank Fredericks, Youssou N’Dour or any other African celebrity with international reach.Well-respected retired and serving politicians could also add their voices to this issue for it to move much higher up the international agenda.This could be done in their countries to put pressure on governments or on a continental or international level.With regard to the protest marches, they could have been and can be organised in African capitals.In short, the silence of African citizens on Darfur is appalling.It is for this reason that I argue that the imminent apocalypse in Darfur does not only highlight the failure of African governments but also the inability of African citizens to mobilise in solidarity with the people of Darfur.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Pantheon Sorbonne, France.Oddly, the defining difference between Darfur and the 1904 Herero Genocide is that the first is being perpetuated by an African government on fellow Africans.And if we have to call a moral spade a moral spade, international efforts to curb this war have been at worse despicably minimal, cautious, and have not brought much hope for the helpless people of Darfur.In that connection violent critiques can be directed at the United Nations and other great powers for the rather casual approach they have taken with regard to this imminent apocalypse of a people.More so as Africans, we should be disappointed with the failure of the African Union to act decisively with a problem that is occurring in its own backyard.In fact, if the African Union acted in unison and decisively on Darfur, it could have sent a different message to ordinary Africans and the international community that it was ready to take ownership of African problems and provide solutions thereto.Stating the obvious, if this crisis was occurring in one of the European backyards, international responses would have been urgent and decisive. Be that as it may, I think that there is another worrying aspect to which we haven’t paid much attention.It has essentially to do with the role African citizens have played thus far in giving this issue a voice and a much higher profile on the international scene than is presently the case.We ought to admit that the longer this conflict drags on, the less attention-grabbing it becomes and it has now been effectively demoted to the back-pages of African and international newspapers.And on major international news networks such as CNN, France 24 or the BBC there is a deficit of images and Darfur comes to life only if and when major international actors raise it in their speeches.Admittedly, the image deficit also has to do with visas being denied to journalists by the government of Khartoum.Nonetheless, like many, I believe that the crisis in Darfur cannot afford to be relegated to being one of many issues in international relations given the gravity of the situation.But let me return to a question that I believe is of genuine interest in this column and that concerns the role we have to play as ordinary (and the not so ordinary Africans) in putting pressure on countries and institutions with leverage on the Khartoum government, be it China, the EU, the African Union etc.Such an issue ought to be raised because what is at stake in Darfur is not necessarily the fate of the Government in Khartoum, nor the credibility of the African Union, but most importantly about the lost “citizens” of Darfur.Without doubt African governments have shown in this crisis that their loyalty lies with a government that is in their view legitimately elected.As a consequence, they will engage in endless diplomatic talk without the possibility of sanctions against Khartoum.This is also the position they have taken on Zimbabwe despite the deteriorating conditions of ordinary Zimbabweans at the hands of a regime that has lost its way.But then of course, let me hasten to add there is nothing new in this thinking.I nevertheless find it strange to note that the protest marches against what is happening in Darfur take place in foreign capitals such as Paris, London and New York.Additionally celebrity actors, politicians and intellectuals who try and keep this issue alive in the pubic debate and view come from the United States and Europe.Paradoxically, I was in a way disturbed and moved recently when the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy returned from Darfur and wrote “Choses vues au Darfour” in an article in Le Monde.And this philosopher has since been on television speaking about Darfur.What I found disturbing about this is my conviction that a top African intellectual could have taken ownership of that problem and do what BHL did.Equally so, instead of George Clooney pleading in front of the United Nations for urgent action to be taken in Darfur, it should have been Frank Fredericks, Youssou N’Dour or any other African celebrity with international reach.Well-respected retired and serving politicians could also add their voices to this issue for it to move much higher up the international agenda.This could be done in their countries to put pressure on governments or on a continental or international level.With regard to the protest marches, they could have been and can be organised in African capitals.In short, the silence of African citizens on Darfur is appalling.It is for this reason that I argue that the imminent apocalypse in Darfur does not only highlight the failure of African governments but also the inability of African citizens to mobilise in solidarity with the people of Darfur. * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Pantheon Sorbonne, France.