[Reaction] The New Humanitarian Order

The article “The New Humanitarian Order” by Mahmood Mamdani is excerpted from the conclusion of his yet to be released book Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror. This was a fantastic piece that discussed the politicization of the Darfur conflict, the concept of humanitarian intervention, subverting the language of genocide, the International Criminal Court (ICC), law and politics in transitional societies, and survivors justice. I will briefly review each of these discussions followed by some general thoughts on this topic.

Mamadani begins by rightly pointing out that the conflict in Darfur has become unnecessarily politicized and is widely misunderstood in the West. He notes that the conflict in Darfur began as a civil war in 1987-89. He notes that the two key sides of the conflict—the Fur people and the Arabs—both committed crimes against each other. However, when the ICC began to consider this conflict it put the onus of blame on the Arabs. It falsely argued that this was a racialized conflict stoked by the Arabs. In fact, the problems in Darfur were related to resource conflicts and had little to do with ethnic tensions. The three points that drove this conflict were: 1) the colonial system which reorganized Darfur into a series of tribal homelands that designated the largest areas for settled peasant tribes and none for nomadic tribes. 2) Environmental degradation has seen the Sahara Desert expand by 100 kilometers in four decades and reached a critical point in the mid-1980s in that it pushed all tribes of North Darfur—Arab and non-Arab—further south in search of more fertile land. 3) The brutal counterinsurgency by the Bashir regime in 2003-04 in response to an insurgency backed by peasant tribes. Essentially the Darfur conflict stems from a series of internal problems which have pitted some members of society against the state. Even when there was a rise in the death rate of noncombatants from 2003-04 the World Health Organization traced 80 percent of deaths to drought-related diarrhea and only 20 percent to direct violence. So for the ICC to indict President Bashir for being behind this violence is not only the wrong approach but it also doesn’t address the real problems in this conflict. For the ICC to take a politicized action undermines it as an institution and hurts the cause of peace in Darfur.

Mamdani continues by discussing the concept of humanitarian intervention. He rightly notes that the international system that was set up after World War II made state sovereignty essentially inviolable. Humanitarian intervention does not abide by the rule of law and undermines the concept of state sovereignty. Furthermore, which conflicts are dealt with through this venue (e.g. Iraq, Darfur, etc.) often have ulterior motives that are more important than any concern for protection of civilian lives. Humanitarian intervention is a breach to state sovereignty and undermines our Westphalian system. State sovereignty has traditionally been sacrosanct and it is a political concept that is almost universally accepted. Humanitarian intervention does not care for state sovereignty.

So Defenders of humanitarian intervention argue that it is an apolitical concept since the protection of a protection of an innocent “other” is paramount. Furthermore, the concept of humanitarian intervention has been used throughout history to justify intervention to protect vulnerable peoples. For example, Western powers used to intervene in areas under the control of the Ottoman Empire under the guise of protecting minority religious groups. Similar concepts of protection of innocents were used by all the eighteenth and nineteenth century powers to justify their imperial ambitions. Our time is no different. It seems that the generalized “West” would like the right to intervene in other countries whenever the “West” considers a minority group to be in trouble (and is shouldn’t be surprising that resources often make these innocent civilians more important). The cries of “genocide” have been used to galvanize support for humanitarian intervention. However, these calls are almost always politicized and thus undermine the gravity of genocide.

Genocide is defined by extreme violence that targets for annihilation a civilian population that is marked off as different "on grounds of race, ethnicity or religion" from the dominant population. Now genocide has become a term used as a political tool to describe something that has become so reprehensible that action must be taken to stop its continuation. All modern wars are total wars and these wars are typically one of either an insurgency (liberation war), counterinsurgency (suppression of civil war or of rebel/revolutionary movements), or an inter-state war. Many civilians necessarily die in these conflicts and there are numerous crimes committed by all sides in modern conflicts. However, raising the specter of genocide in a particular country is used to justify the other type of war, i.e. humanitarian intervention. With the onset of the War on Terror, the concept of intervention as a positive idea to prevent genocide has gained traction even though indiscriminate bombings have been a hallmark of this war that has left thousands of civilians dead. So the term genocide is used to rationalize the illegal violation of state sovereignty. But to use the term genocide to describe the conflict in Darfur is not only incorrect but it also obfuscates the facts on the ground. This is unacceptable and the ICC has reinforced this misperception.

The ICC has become a politicized organization that indicts some individuals (such as Bashir) and ignores others (such as President Bush) that commit crimes. The ICC appears to be going after targets that are of interest to Western powers but does not pass judgment uniformly. This will ultimately undermine this institution and make it increasingly irrelevant.

The right approach to resolving difficult conflicts is through principled diplomacy and the flexible application of law in transitional societies. Justice for victims has to be put in context within the reconstitution of the society. Human rights abuses need to be dealt with but not necessarily through punitive justice. The example of South African and its Truth and Reconciliation movement is an excellent case in point. By absolving perpetrators of their crimes by demanding an open detailing of their crimes was an excellent way to resolve Apartheid-era injustices. This flexible model of justice brought stability and reconciliation to South Africa, not continued violence and retribution. As Mamdani noted, “Nuremberg may have been the paradigm for victors’ justice but South Africa’s post-apartheid transition is the paradigm for survivors’ justice.

Overall this is an excellent article worth considering and I’m looking forward to reading the book. Distinguishing between crimes against humanity and genocide is important and conflict prevention should be employed at all levels to prevent war. The issue of genocide is grave and innocent civilians need protection. However, dropping bombs and indictments often hurts civilians more than it protects them.

[Book Review] I Am America (And So Can You!)

I am a fan of Stephen Colbert and I try to watch his show anytime I get a chance. Reading I Am America (And So Can You!) felt very much like watching an episode of his self-titled show. It was a quick read meant to entertain and poke jest at what America has become.

Essentially, the book reads like an infomercial. It is an idiot’s guide to life according to Stephen Colbert. He breaks up the book into three segments: one on childhood, another on adolescence and the final on maturity. Interspersed throughout the book are small tangents written in the margins that add to the feel that this book was written in a stream-of-conscience style which mimics his show perfectly. While reading, I often had the feeling that Colbert himself was speaking to me as I peered into his faux reality. Each section of this book has its moments and, as the whole, it provided a cheap thrill ride and commentary on the state of our society.

In his childhood segment, I had my biggest laugh when he was talking about religions. Of course he made the typical spiel about how Jesus is the way to go but he went on to critique the fallacies and inadequacies of all non-Christian religions. When he came to Islam, he wrote (p. 60): “Islam is a great and true religion revealed in the Holy Koran which was dictated by the angel Gabriel to the final prophet Mohammed, Blessing and Peace Be Upon Him.” He followed this up with a footnote that said the exact same thing. This point was hilarious on multiple levels. First, if you juxtapose how he talked about Islam with any of the other religions mentioned (e.g. he really has a good time with Hinduism concept of reincarnation and humorously describes the idiocies of Scientology) the matter-of-fact description of Islam just begs for a laugh. But if you also follow his show, he always goes out of his way to show deference to Islam in a way that is meant to lampoon the seriousness of the religion. Why? Because anytime Islam is perceived to be slighted by someone, riots erupt and protests occur. His humor is in his non-humor. That is he is showing the lighter side to how serious Muslims take their religion and I applaud him for this. Humor is indeed a needed remedy, particularly for Muslims in this day and age.

In his adolescence segment, I thought the funniest part was when he “sold” the naming rights of his chapter on sports to different corporations. Of course he was playing on a number of themes, namely how closely tied sports and corporations are and the fact that sports is used essentially as a huge advertising medium with consumers. By selling everything to the highest bidder this chapter exemplified what sports in America are really about, i.e. the bottom-line.

His final segment on maturity was very typical Colbert. His discussion of science began with his oft-quoted statement that “reality has a well-known liberal bias”. He lampoons the politicization of science in a not-so-subtle manner that would be sure to rile up those who take actions based on their “gut” instincts or are staunch believers in Creationism. The jokes seem to almost write themselves.

I would say this book should be treated like McDonalds: it’s cheap, quick, and not so satisfying. The book was just like a Colbert episode but provided a comprehensive discussion on issues that he likes to discuss. Frankly, I know that the book sold well but I doubt many people actually read it. But I think that is the point. We Americans are willing to buy any popular piece of crap as long as it provides some quick entertainment. After all, isn’t that the American Dream?

-Nausherwan Hafeez, 11-16-08

Criticize Obama? You’re a Racist!

Ralph Nader finally caught a break and the mainstream media is actually covering him. Unfortunately it is for a statement that touched on the the polarizing issue of race. The reaction to his remark indicates that we may see the issue of race being brought up anytime someone is critical of Barack Obama.

The controversy began when Nader said in an interview with Fox News on Election Day that “[Obama’s choice] is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.” There was a huge outcry of indignation against Nader for not only making these remarks, but also for refusing to retract them. However, one should consider his point before rushing to crucify him. He argued that Obama would be an Uncle Tom if he used the Presidency to continue Washington’s support for corporate interests over the interests of the people. To illustrate the gravity of the situation he invoked the memory of Uncle Tom. The response by the media was to focus entirely on the Uncle Tom remark and not the substance of Nader’s criticism. Nader did not call Obama an Uncle Tom; rather, he said he had the choice to become either an Uncle Tom or Uncle Sam depending on his policy actions. This point—regardless of how ineloquently he made it—is worth considering. However, his substance has been obscured in favor of just calling Nader a racist.

The bigger issue here is not whether Ralph Nader is a racist, but whether or not criticism of Obama can remain independent of racial issues. What if the race card is played when Obama tries to push for a controversial act? Will his detractors be labeled closet racists? This tactic has been seen before with Zionists who rebut any criticism of Israel with charges of “anti-Semitism”. Will supporters of Obama resort to this strategy? Only time will tell.

The reaction to Nader is indicative of how profoundly sensitive issues of race continue to be in this country. Let us hope that we will enjoy the right to be critical of Obama without being dubbed racists.