من مواقع التواصل .. هل هذا التصريح لعمر قمرالدين أو كلام بس

Prison ferme pour le président de l'Arche de Zoé et sa compagne
Eric Breteau et Emilie Lelouch ont été condamnés pour une tentative d'exfiltration en 2007 vers la France d'une centaine d'enfants présentés comme des orphelins du Darfour.
Le Monde avec AFP et Reuters Publié le 12 février 2013 à 14h59 - Mis à jour le 12 février 2013 à 18h18
Temps de Lecture 2 min.
Partage

Partager sur Facebook

Envoyer par e-mail

Partager sur Messenger
Plus d’options
Eric Breteau et Emilie Lelouch, les deux fondateurs de l'organisation L'Arche de Zoé, le 24 décembre 2007 à N'Djamena.
Eric Breteau et Emilie Lelouch, les deux fondateurs de l'organisation L'Arche de Zoé, le 24 décembre 2007 à N'Djamena. AFP/PASCAL GUYOT
Le président de l'Arche de Zoé et sa compagne, poursuivis pour une tentative d'exfiltration en 2007 vers la France d'une centaine d'enfants présentés comme des orphelins du Darfour, ont été condamnés mardi 12 février à trois ans de prison, dont deux fermes, par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris. Les deux animateurs de l'organisation caritative ont également été condamnés à payer chacun une amende de 50 000 euros et à l'interdiction définitive d'exercer toute profession d'accueil, d'hébergement ou de placement de min

U.N. Criticism Angers Charities Buying Sudan Slaves' Release
By Paul Lewis
March 12, 1999

See the article in its original context from March 12, 1999, Section A, Page 7Buy Reprints
VIEW ON TIMESMACHINE
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
Private charities that are buying freedom for enslaved children and young women in Sudan, have reacted angrily to recent criticism of them from Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund.

''It is very difficult to understand why Unicef should say our activities are intolerable,'' said John Eibner head of Christian Solidarity International, of Zurich, which since 1995 has bought and set free 5,942 Sudanese children, spending about $50 a child.

''What is intolerable is to leave these women and children in the hands of brutal captors,'' said Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group in Boston, which helps raise money to support Christian Solidarity.

At a news briefing in Geneva in early February, a Unicef spokeswoman, Marie Heuzer, described the slave redemption program as ''intolerable'' after Christian Solidarity raised the topic by appealing to Secretary General Kofi Annan to condemn slavery in Sudan and to create a special program to trace and free enslaved women and children.
Today, a Unicef spokesman, Peter Crowley, said the agency still has ''genuine concerns'' about buying freedom for children, adding that they were shared by some human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch.

He said that buying back slaves did not offer ''a lasting solution'' to the problem, which he said can only come through bringing about an end to Sudan's on-again, off-again 30-year-old civil war pitting the Muslim north of the country against the Christian and animist south.

The children were also being returned to villages that remain in the war zone and were subject to future slave raids.

Another objection was one of principal, he said, because the buy-back program implicitly accepts that human beings may be bought and sold. This could also encourage slave-taking for profit.

Mr. Crowley argued that buying freedom does nothing to change the underlying ''social attitudes'' of a people who are used to owning slaves and regard doing so as perfectly normal.
Unicef has also contended that redeeming slaves for money helped prolong the civil war by giving combatants extra cash for buying arms and ammunition. But Christian Solidarity insists it pays for the slave it buys with Sudanese pounds to avoid introducing dollars into the region because they could be used for purchasing arms.

Human Rights Watch emphasized that its own position on the slave buying issue is ''nuanced.''

Reed Brody, the organization's Advocacy Director, agreed that buying back slaves creates a ''real danger of fueling a market in human beings'' in a country as desperately poor as Sudan.

He called slavery there a ''very troubling issue'' but said that the real challenge it raises is that of finding an end to a long war which he said neither side can ever hope to win.

Mr. Brody pointed out that human-rights organizations and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have long been calling for international monitors to be sent to Sudan to trace children taken into slavery and secure their liberation. But no action has been taken.

In a 1996 report on slavery in north Africa, a representative of the Human Rights Commission accused Sudan's Government forces of regularly abducting and transferring women and children from southern conflict zones to the north, where they disappeared.

And it is also Christian Solidarity International that supports the SPLA who are known "slave" traders themselves. For years CSI has called for international support of the SPLA
after it has been documented by the US State Department and human rights organizations that the group was abducting young boys and women in the South
and forcing them to labor, among other things.

And why, if the conflict is an "us" against "them"; "Arab" vs. "Black"; "Muslim" vs. "Christian" affair, have over 2 million Black southerners fled into the North, into Khartoum, for refuge from the civil war؟ Surely 2 million "Black Christian Southerners" would not willingly run into the arms of the evil " Arab Muslim Northerners". And lastly why does the presence of 12,000 to 15,000 Sudanese in forced labor camps trump the loss of 2,000,000 Sudanese altogether in the civil war؟ Which is the larger problem؟ The war or "slavery"؟ Which is the cause and which is the effect؟ In our estimation, "slavery" can't end unless the Civil War ends. Why isn't this position being taken by those who want a spotlight placed on the Sudan now؟

To say the least, we find their position disingenuous and hypocritical. The same group that treats ex-slaves in America with such callousness is now the best friend of "slaves" in the Sudan؟ With friends like that, we wonder, who needs enemies؟

Is it not peculiar how White conservatives are making Sudanese "slavery" a litmus test for reparations advocates؟ What is their real motive؟

One question, that no one in the mainstream media is asking, is why is it so easy to purchase a slave in Sudan in the first place؟ CSI and other groups who are arranging these slave purchases are largely bringing people into the Sudan from SPLA-controlled areas. Where, we ask, are these slaves, then, being purchased - in the north or the south؟ If the slaves are being "redeemed" in the South, in rebel-controlled areas, then what does that reveal؟ Furthermore, as the White conservatives in America are so fond of reminding reparations supporters in this country of the culpability of fellow Blacks in the American slave trade, Blacks in the South must be selling other Blacks in the South or, Blacks in the South must be selling other Blacks to slaveholders in the North. According to the superficial dichotomy constructed by CSI and their anti-slavery coalition, that would mean that "Black Southern Christians" are selling other "Black Southern Christians". If we follow the line of reasoning used by White conservatives in this country to oppose reparations, then we can no longer see the evils of slavery as being perpetrated by only the evil " Arab Muslim North".

These same White conservatives who have been surprisingly successful at winning a few friends from among the Black civil rights movement aren't telling the whole story.

Are they really for the end of slavery in the Sudan, or are they for something else, like, perhaps, putting and end to the spread of Islam throughout Africa, or dividing the Sudan in half - like England once wanted.

If the coalition for ending "slavery" really seeks the former and not the latter, then they must begin answering some hard questions about the SPLA and the manner in which they have depicted the Sudanese civil war.

Anything short of a full disclosure on that front reveals the colonialism, imperialism and the Crusades mentality that many are beginning to suspect is at the root of the movement to end "slavery" in the Sudan.