A piercing glimpse into reality, courtesy of a genocidaire

Over the past three years, I have heard many - equally hollow, disingenous, and (morbidly) laughably incoherent - explanations given by the Government of Sudan as to what was occurring in Darfur and why it did not constitute genocide. The Khartoum architects of the genocide have persistently denied the reality of the mass murder and displacement carried out at their behest and using their military force, attempting to pass it off as an internal problem, "tribal warfare," or at most simply a maintenance of the peace in the face of an illegal insurrection. They have sought to obscure the nature of both the perpetrators (falsely equating the Janjaweed and the rebels at one point - see my first post) and the victims (including trying to convince one tribe, the Jebel Misseriya, traditionally considered "non-Arab," that they were indeed "Arab;" see "To Save Darfur," International Crisis Group, 17 March 2006, p. 7) and have successfully resisted any meaningful interference by the international community, despite the patently clear falsehood of practically any government description of the situation in Darfur. The recognition, of the US, Germany, and others, that Darfur is indeed the home to a genocide, and even the UN's belabored identification of the crisis as "tantamount to genocide," indicates that most of the rest of the world has seen through Khartoum's lies; our failure to act and continued deference to a genocidal regime is thus made all the more appalling. Never before though, have I encounted such a biting defense of the Sudanese genocide as that recently proffered by Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol (a Southerner who, acting as no more than a tool of the elite Khartoum ruling clique's genocidal aims, has convinced me almost more than anything that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Government of National Unity are mere mirages concealing a continuation of the brutal status quo). Answering a question about the characterization of the Darfur conflict as genocide, Akol, in addition to spouting ridiculous deflective rhetoric such as asking why US intervention in Vietnam was not called genocide, took a sharp stab at the rest of the world's paralysis in the face of genocide. He remarkably turned logic on its head to assert that "...genocide requires international intervention. So why did they not intervene?" ("Sudan is committed to deploy UN forces in Darfur - FM," Sudan Tribune, 9 May 2006) Despite its supremely flawed logic, this statement nonetheless should reverberate loudly in our consciences. If Khartoum can use our inaction to justify its genocide, how can be absolve ourselves of complicity? Moreover, how can we not see through this tactic, for to take advantage of our guilt is to admit that intervention has indeed been required. Akol, as much as I hold him in utter disdain for his duplicity and deception, presciently asked that question that I cannot answer: "Why did they not intervene?"
In the same interview, Akol, perhaps through naïve diplomacy or perhaps through sheer brazen contempt (I am inclined to lean toward the latter, though the former might also be present), voiced very clearly reasons that the world should not trust his government to implement the terms of the Abuja peace accord. He belittled the recent sanctions imposed on Janjaweed chief Musa Hilal, lying through his teeth about Khartoum's support for him by deemphasizing Hilal's role to one in which "Musa Hilal might own some camels and I do not know where he travels to warrant banning him" (Ibid.) He furthermore scorned the possible effectiveness of sanctions, threatening their ability to be implemented, and confidently asserted the immunity of top government officials from any international retribution. Such hubris indicates either supreme naïveté or a chiseled understanding of the ultimate weakness of the international community's resolve. Unfortunately the latter is likely a much greater motivating factor, one that all Khartoum leaders seem to have internalized; they recognize that they - until the international community demonstrates some muster - will be able to continue their actions will wholescale impunity, a fact that does not bode well for the prospects of implementing the DPA. He further demonstrated his willingness to make threats in the same sentence as his professed commitment to peace, warning that "[i]mposing sanctions threatens only the parties that refused and refuse to sign the peace agreement" (Ibid.). Akol also rejected the prospect of individual financial compensations for those who have suffered from the genocide, dismissing claims that the government, in compensating Northerners forced to relocate from the construction of a damn but not support victims of genocide, callously cares for some of its people less than palm trees, with an offhand dismissal of such "emotional talk." Perhaps Mr. Akol should take a trip to the IDP camps in the west of his country, flooded with over 2 and a half million Sudanese civilians, and listen to their "emotional talk."