باحث باوكسفورد: لقد ضُخمت قضية دارفور.. و"الابادة الجماعية" ليست كما تبـدو..

انقذوا دارفور Save Darfur لعبت دورا محوريا في تضخيم صراع دارفور

الجزيرة نت

حث الباحث بجامعة أوكسفورد مارك غوستافسون المسؤولين الأميركيين وناشطي حقوق الإنسان إن كانوا يريدون تحسين الوضع في منطقة دارفور السودانية، على الاعتراف بوجود تغيير كبير في حجم وطبيعة العنف هناك، والتوقف عن وصف ما يجري بالإبادة الجماعية، ووقف السعي لمعاقبة الحكومة السودانية وحدها.

وأكد الباحث الذي يعد رسالة دكتوراه حول التوجهات السياسية بالسودان, على أن جهود الأطراف التي تحاول المساعدة في رفع المعاناة عن أهل دارفور يجب أن تنصب اليوم على تمويل العملية السلمية وعودة المشردين البالغ عددهم مليونين إلى قراهم ومدنهم.

وأبرز في مقاله الذي نشرته صحيفة كريستيان ساينس مونتور الأميركية كون صراع دارفور أسيئ فهمه بصورة قل مثيلها في العصر الحديث.

واتهم حركة "أنقذوا دارفور" بلعب دور محوري في تضخيم ما جرى بهذا الإقليم من قتل واغتصاب وتشريد, مما جعل الصراع في دارفور يلفه سوء الفهم بشكل ربما لم يشهده صراع مثيل في العصر الحديث.

وقال إن نشطاء "أنقذوا دارفور" اتخذوا من الإثارة وسيلة لتوسيع عدد أعضائهم بما سمح لحركتهم بأن تصبح إحدى أكبر الحركات الناشطة بالولايات المتحدة الأميركية في التاريخ الحديث.

فقد ضخموا عدد الإصابات, وزعموا أن مئات الآلاف من الدارفوريين قد قتلوا, وهو ما عزز نجاح حملة العلاقات العامة التي شنوها لكنه أضر بمن هم في أمس الحاجة لتقديم يد المساعدة. وما حاولت هذه الحركة طمسه هو الحقيقة الجلية بأن غالبية ضحايا هذا الصراع تضرروا نتيجة الأمراض وسوء التغذية لا الإبادة الجماعية.

كما ظل الكثير من نشطاء هذه الحركة يحرفون حقيقة طبيعة العنف في دارفور، ويعلنون أن الحكومة السودانية والقبائل العربية "الشريرة" المتحالفة معها هي المسؤولة عن جل ما يشهده الإقليم من إراقة للدماء إن لم يكن كله.

وقد سخرت الحركة لذلك إعلاناتها ورسائلها الإخبارية ومواقعها على الإنترنت التي ما فتئت تستخدم عبارة "إبادة جماعية" لوصف ما يجري في دارفور.

ولا شك أن جرائم فظيعة قد ارتكبت في هذا الإقليم، لكن المسؤولية عنها لا تقتصر على الحكومة وإنما تشمل كذلك الحركات المتمردة.

غير أن استخدام عبارة "الإبادة الجماعية" وإلصاقها بطرف واحد دون غيره أدى إلى تجاهل الطرف الآخر.

واليوم أيضا لا يزال سوء الفهم يلف الوضع في دارفور، إذ أن جل ما يشهده من عنف هو في الواقع بسبب ما يقوم به قطاع الطرق والخارجون على القانون وكذلك بسبب الاقتتال الداخلي بين الحركات المتمردة نفسها.

وحسب تقرير للجنة الأمم المتحدة والوحدة الأفريقية العاملة بدارفور (يوناميد) فإن 16 شخصا الذين قتلوا بهذا الإقليم خلال يونيو/ حزيران الماضي لم يكن مقتل أي منهم مرتبطا بالصراع بين القوات الحكومية السودانية وبين الجماعات المتمردة.

وعليه فإذا كان المسؤولون الأميركيون ونشطاء حركة "أنفذوا دارفور" جادين في محاولة المساعدة في حل هذا الصراع, فعليهم أن يعترفوا أولا بالتغييرات الكبيرة التي طرأت على حجم وطبيعة العنف بدارفور.
المصدر

The 'genocide' in Darfur isn't what it seems

By Marc Gustafson*


Oxford, England - The "Save Darfur" movement is one of the largest American activist movements in recent history.

It emerged in the summer of 2004 in reaction to an issue that had little impact on the lives of average Americans: a year-old civil war in Darfur. Horrific stories of rape, murder, and genocide began to appear in US newspapers and define Darfur. Millions were moved by these accounts and organized a movement to stop the violence.

In the next five years, however, the war in Darfur became one of the most misunderstood conflicts in recent history.

That's because the activist campaigns mischaracterized and sensationalized it in order to grow the movement. Such distortion helped the PR effort, but it arguably hurt the very people who needed help.

Activists inflated casualty rates, often claiming that hundreds of thousands of Darfurians have been "killed." What they tended to leave out was that the majority of the casualties occurred as a result of disease and malnutrition ( stemming from war).

Differentiating between those may seem insignificant in the shadow of the horrific acts of war crimes in Darfur, but ignoring these categorizations has led many activists to put pressure on the US government to fund violence-prevention plans and international peacekeeping troops, often in lieu of providing humanitarian aid and funds for peacemaking.

The Save Darfur Coalition has been particularly effective in using its scores of followers to pressure policymakers. They have hired lobbyists in Washington to draft legislation and pressure politicians to focus their efforts on violence prevention and UN troop deployment.

Before these lobbyists were hired, the US had sent a total of $1.01 billion dollars to Darfur. Of this, $839 million (83 percent) was allocated to refugee camps and humanitarian assistance, while $175 million (17 percent) was directed to fund peacekeeping activities. These numbers show that Washington was initially more focused on providing humanitarian aid than peacekeeping.

From 2006 until 2008, when the Save Darfur Coalition and many other groups began to pressure the government, the allocation of US funds shifted dramatically from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping, presumably due to the influence of the lobbyists and public pressure campaigns.

Of the $2.01 billion that was spent, $1.03 billion (51.3 percent) was spent on humanitarian aid, while $980 million (48.7 percent) was spent on funding peacekeeping missions, a significant shift toward peacekeeping.

In the end, these proportional changes were problematic because, as many casualty surveys show, the number of people who were "killed" in Darfur declined significantly after the April 8 cease-fire of 2004, while the rate of those who were dying of disease and malnutrition remained high.

Had the Darfur activists not advocated for a reallocation of funds, more lives would probably have been saved.

Many activists have also mischaracterized the nature of the violence in Darfur, intimating that the government of Sudan and rogue Arab tribes have been responsible for most, if not all, of the bloodshed. "Save Darfur" advertisements, newsletters, and websites frequently use the term "ongoing genocide" to describe the conflict.

The term "genocide" was originally used to provide a sense of gravity so that international governments and institutions would respond more rapidly to the conflict.

Despite the good intentions of activists, the popularity of the word "genocide" posed many unanticipated problems and it distorted the balance of culpability and innocence.

Using the term "genocide" implies that there is a unidirectional crime taking place. To be clear, horrible crimes have been committed, but the perpetrators aren't as clear-cut as the term would make it seem.

The government of Sudan has killed many people and is responsible for war crimes in Darfur, but the rebel insurgents bear some responsibility, too. When the United Nations conducted its International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, it found that many of the rebel groups engaged in "serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law."

By using the word "genocide," and attaching the term to only one side of the conflict, the opposite side is easily ignored.

In Darfur, the use of the term "genocide" has allowed the rebel groups to slip under the radar and commit crimes against humanity without the rest of the world taking notice. Had "genocide" not been the focus, activist campaigns might have challenged the rebel groups and checked their criminal acts.

For example, Eritrea, Chad, and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement were the principal funders of the rebel groups in Darfur. They were and are also allies and aid recipients of the US government, which means they could have easily been pressured to cut their lifelines to the rebel groups.

Today, the situation in Darfur continues to be mischaracterized. Most of the ongoing violence can be attributed to banditry, lawlessness, and fighting between rebel groups. According to the latest United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) report, 16 fatalities were recorded for the month of June and none of them was linked to the conflict between Sudanese forces and the rebel groups.

The conflict in Darfur has not met the 1,000 casualties per year threshold that most political scientists consider necessary for a conflict to be categorized as a "civil war" since last year.

Despite these changes, many continue to argue that the government of Sudan is waging a large-scale assault on Darfur. The terms "ongoing genocide" and "war in Darfur" are still used frequently in activist literature and advertisements, which has left the American people believing that not much has changed in Darfur.

President Obama himself has recently used the word "genocide" to refer to the current situation. Similarly, the State Department and the US ambassador to the UN distanced themselves from the US presidential envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, who dared to suggest that the genocide in Darfur was over.

If they wish to help ameliorate the conflict, officials in Washington and activists alike must recognize that there have been big changes in the scale and nature of the violence in Darfur.

Instead of focusing on military intervention or the punishment of only one participant in the conflict (the Sudanese government), efforts should be directed toward funding the peacemaking process and the safe return of more than 2 million displaced refugees.



* Marc Gustafson is a Marshall Scholar and doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford. He is currently writing his dissertation on political trends in Sudan.

The 'genocide' in Darfur isn't what it seems

Activist hype, though well-intentioned may have misdirected funds that could have saved lives
By Marc Gustafson
from the August 19, 2009 edition

Oxford, England - The "Save Darfur" movement is one of the largest American activist movements in recent history

It emerged in the summer of 2004 in reaction to an issue that had little impact on the lives of average Americans: a year-old civil war in Darfur. Horrific stories of rape, murder, and genocide began to appear in US newspapers and define Darfur. Millions were moved by these accounts and organized a movement to stop the violence

In the next five years, however, the war in Darfur became one of the most misunderstood conflicts in recent history

That's because the activist campaigns mischaracterized and sensationalized it in order to grow the movement. Such distortion helped the PR effort, but it arguably hurt the very people who needed help

Activists inflated casualty rates, often claiming that hundreds of thousands of Darfurians have been "killed." What they tended to leave out was that the majority of the casualties occurred as a result of disease and malnutrition ( stemming from war)

Differentiating between those may seem insignificant in the shadow of the horrific acts of war crimes in Darfur, but ignoring these categorizations has led many activists to put pressure on the US government to fund violence-prevention plans and international peacekeeping troops, often in lieu of providing humanitarian aid and funds for peacemaking

The Save Darfur Coalition has been particularly effective in using its scores of followers to pressure policymakers. They have hired lobbyists in Washington to draft legislation and pressure politicians to focus their efforts on violence prevention and UN troop deployment

Before these lobbyists were hired, the US had sent a total of $1.01 billion dollars to Darfur. Of this, $839 million (83 percent) was allocated to refugee camps and humanitarian assistance, while $175 million (17 percent) was directed to fund peacekeeping activities. These numbers show that Washington was initially more focused on providing humanitarian aid than peacekeeping

From 2006 until 2008, when the Save Darfur Coalition and many other groups began to pressure the government, the allocation of US funds shifted dramatically from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping, presumably due to the influence of the lobbyists and public pressure campaigns

Of the $2.01 billion that was spent, $1.03 billion (51.3 percent) was spent on humanitarian aid, while $980 million (48.7 percent) was spent on funding peacekeeping missions, a significant shift toward peacekeeping

In the end, these proportional changes were problematic because, as many casualty surveys show, the number of people who were "killed" in Darfur declined significantly after the April 8 cease-fire of 2004, while the rate of those who were dying of disease and malnutrition remained high

Had the Darfur activists not advocated for a reallocation of funds, more lives would probably have been saved

Many activists have also mischaracterized the nature of the violence in Darfur, intimating that the government of Sudan and rogue Arab tribes have been responsible for most, if not all, of the bloodshed. "Save Darfur" advertisements, newsletters, and websites frequently use the term "ongoing genocide" to describe the conflict

The term "genocide" was originally used to provide a sense of gravity so that international governments and institutions would respond more rapidly to the conflict

Despite the good intentions of activists, the popularity of the word "genocide" posed many unanticipated problems and it distorted the balance of culpability and innocence

Using the term "genocide" implies that there is a unidirectional crime taking place. To be clear, horrible crimes have been committed, but the perpetrators aren't as clear-cut as the term would make it seem

The government of Sudan has killed many people and is responsible for war crimes in Darfur, but the rebel insurgents bear some responsibility, too. When the United Nations conducted its International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, it found that many of the rebel groups engaged in "serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law "

By using the word "genocide," and attaching the term to only one side of the conflict, the opposite side is easily ignored

In Darfur, the use of the term "genocide" has allowed the rebel groups to slip under the radar and commit crimes against humanity without the rest of the world taking notice. Had "genocide" not been the focus, activist campaigns might have challenged the rebel groups and checked their criminal acts

For example, Eritrea, Chad, and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement were the principal funders of the rebel groups in Darfur. They were and are also allies and aid recipients of the US government, which means they could have easily been pressured to cut their lifelines to the rebel groups

Today, the situation in Darfur continues to be mischaracterized. Most of the ongoing violence can be attributed to banditry, lawlessness, and fighting between rebel groups. According to the latest United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) report, 16 fatalities were recorded for the month of June and none of them was linked to the conflict between Sudanese forces and the rebel groups

The conflict in Darfur has not met the 1,000 casualties per year threshold that most political scientists consider necessary for a conflict to be categorized as a "civil war" since last year

Despite these changes, many continue to argue that the government of Sudan is waging a large-scale assault on Darfur. The terms "ongoing genocide" and "war in Darfur" are still used frequently in activist literature and advertisements, which has left the American people believing that not much has changed in Darfur

President Obama himself has recently used the word "genocide" to refer to the current situation. Similarly, the State Department and the US ambassador to the UN distanced themselves from the US presidential envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, who dared to suggest that the genocide in Darfur was over

If they wish to help ameliorate the conflict, officials in Washington and activists alike must recognize that there have been big changes in the scale and nature of the violence in Darfur

Instead of focusing on military intervention or the punishment of only one participant in the conflict (the Sudanese government), efforts should be directed toward funding the peacemaking process and the safe return of more than 2 million displaced refugees


Marc Gustafson is a Marshall Scholar and doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford. He is currently writing his dissertation on political trends in Sudan

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0819/p09s02-coop.html[/LEFT]


الأستاذة الفاضلة فدوي الشريف

رمضان كريم...

أعلاة ستجدين المقال الأصلي والذي نقلت الجزيرة بعضه مترجما بالعربية
وحقيقة الأمر أنني قرأته بالأنجليزية قبل أيام ولم أعره إهتماما لسببين:

الأول: هو أن هذا الباحث قدم أطروحته لنيل الدكتوراة عن "توجهات السياسة السودانية" ولم ينالها بعد ولم ينشر بحثه العلمي

والثاني: أنه وكباحث نقلت عنه كرستيان مونيتر خبرية وليس بحث علمي ولم يستند كاتب المقال - طالب الدكتوراة - لأي مصادر علمية...
بل لم يشر إلي مصدر معلوماته وأرقامه الغريبة

وقد جائني إحساس بأن هذا الطالب "طالب من الله" وليس طالب دكتوراة من جامعة عريقة مثل أوكسفور والتي بها أكبر مركز لأبحاث اللاجئين
والنازحين في العالم... كما بها أكبر مراكز الحرب والسلام وحل الصراعات والنزاعات في العالم

أرجو من القراء الكرام عدم إعارة هذا الموضوع أهمية حتى تتاح لنا مصادره


ولك جزيل الشكر والتقدير....

الزميل والاستاذ الفاضل محمد يس
الله أكرم ، وجعلنا وأياكم من المقبولين ان شاءالله


شكراً لك ، ومداخلتك بها شئ من الموضوعية ،

حتى نعرف قيمة الرجل ..!!
هذا للمجمتع الدولي..
أما بالداخل فالكثير منا يعرف أنه "الابادة الجماعية" كانت أكذوبة..
نعم الأخطاء والتجاوزات وجرائم حرب..كل هذا حدث
ولكن ابادة عرقية بمعناها المعروف..لم تحدث..

على كل حال أذهب لما ذهبت اليه أنت وأزيد عليه..
أن الزمن قد مضى فعلاً على مثل هذه الاكتشافات!!

من الصعب في الحقيقة أن تغير مثل هذه الشهادات شيئاً ، حتى لو أتت من شخصيات أكثر أقناعاً من طالب الدكتوراة المذكور في مقالة C S Monitor هذا..

تحياتي.

الاخت الكريمة فدوى

رمضان كريم تصوموي وتفطري على خير..

إذا تجاوزنا تأكيدات الأخ بعدم علمية الرسالة ةتجاوزنا كل ما نشر حولها..ماذا يعني لك اعتراف الرئيس البشير بارتكاب جريمة قتل 10 ألف دارفوري (فقط)..؟؟!!.

الاستاذ ابواحمد

تقبل الله منا ومنكم ، ورمضان كريم

Quote: ماذا يعني لك اعتراف الرئيس

نحن لا نتكلم عن جرائم الحرب أو غيرها
هذه مسألة قد تم تجاوزها منذ وقت طويل

الكلام هنا عن "الابادة الجماعية"..التهمة التي رفضتها المحكمة الجنائية نفسها
والفرق شاسع بينهما ،
فمنذ أن نطقها كولن باول في ذلك الخطاب المشؤم أمام مجلس الأمن قبل 5 سنوات والى الان ما يزال يلوكها بعض المناضلين في عواصم أوروبا

وتحياتي لك استاذنا

الزميل محمد يس

عملت بحث بالاسم وحقيقة وجدت هذا الرابط المثير في الاسفل..

موضوع منشور في مدونة باسم كاتب المقالة التي نحن بصددها Marc Gustafson

يتحدث عن كتاب اسمه Scramble for Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA لكتاب اسماؤهم ستيف فيك و كيفين فنك
وعنوان مقالته ..Ulterior Motives for Intervention in Darfur? أو " الدوافع الخفية للتدخل في دارفور؟"




ويستعرض الكتاب الذي يؤيد نظرية المؤامرة على السودان من خلال وجود دوافع خفية للجماعات الامريكية الناشطة في دارفوروهي دعم مخططات السياسة الخارجية التي تعادي السودان.
وقد تم الرد عليه في الصفحة ولكنه دافع عن فكرته موافقاً الكتاب

الرابـط

.

فدوي

رمضان كريم. قلتي/

Quote: أما بالداخل فالكثير منا يعرف أنه "الابادة الجماعية" كانت أكذوبة.. نعم الأخطاء والتجاوزات وجرائم حرب..كل هذا حدث ولكن ابادة عرقية بمعناها المعروف..لم تحدث..

كدي خلينا في قرارات ال ICC التي ستأتي بكل مرتكب جريمة بدارفور. و هاهو البشير ينتظر طعن اوكامبو في موضوع الابادة الجماعية .


بعدين من انت لكي تحددي ان الابادة الجماعية بدارفور كانت عبارة عن اكذوبة؟.

الاخلاق تستدعي في شهر رمضان الدعوة لاولئك الضحايا في معسكرات نزوحهم و لجوءهم بأن يعودوا الي ديارهم و ان يحفظهم الله من كل شرور الاسلاميين من نفاق و كذب و قتل و تهجير .

لتصحيح خطأ املائي

يكفي ان الحكومة السودانية اعترفت بابادة عشرة الف في دارفور