Fela's Fury

A Review of Shake Hands With The Devil

2004-08-11T23:09:00.002-07:00

There are three misconceptions about the Rwandan civil war and ensuing genocide that permeate and stain perceptions of the massacres. One is that the slaughter was “senseless” and a veritable melee of bloodthirsty brutes who randomly hacked to death and shot random civilians at checkpoints throughout the country. We underestimate the true brutality of the war if we succumb to such falsities. The Rwandan genocide was highly developed and planned for perhaps a decade or more. Orders came all the way from the top following the death of president Juvenal Habyarimana and the slaughter was arranged via broadcasts on RTLM, the extremist radio station, as well as secret government documents arranged by Habyarimana’s wife. Illiterate farmers may have helped to carry out the genocide, but their orders were coordinated from the top, by former, hard-line government ministers. The anachronistic identity card system was exploited by the genocidaires and used to accelerate the killing. This was not “senseless,” but a calculated, machiavellian genocide that killed with more ruthlessness at one of the most efficient rates in history, second only to the Atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The next mistake the world makes in its analysis of Rwanda is the standard belief that the genocide was inevitable -- that the conflict between Hutu and Tutsi was centuries-old. This, too, is a grave miscalculation. Though physical differences between the two do exist, Hutu and Tutsi got along fine until ethnocentric dogma was injected into Rwandan culture by early social Darwinist explorers, who lauded Tutsis as distinctly un-African, ethnically Ethiopian and descendents of Christ, and the Belgian colonial authorities. The introduction of identity cards that included ethnicity by Belgium exacerbated tensions that were already being stirred by the colonial authorities as a means of consolidating hegemony. Fostering tribalism was a means of dividing the country and pitting the majority Hutu, who comprise 85% of Rwanda, against the traditional rulers of the region – the Tutsi. Three years prior to independence, in 1959, hatred manipulated by the colonial authorities resulted in the overthrow of the largely ceremonial Tutsi monarch, which set in motion the path that culminated in the April 1994 genocide. The revulsion of Tutsis in Rwanda was an artificial construct designed to strengthen colonial rule.

The early violence in nascent independent Rwanda addresses the final solecism – that the violence that mutated out of the hatred was solely committed by Hutu extremists. It was, unfortunately, a two-way street. Massacres that killed thousands of Tutsis between independence and the RPF invasion in 1990 sometimes resulted in reprisal attacks on Hutus by angry and bitter Tutsis. In 1972, in Burundi, Tutsi soldiers massacred 200,000 Hutus. Ethnic violence continued, culminating in the deaths of 300,000 between 1993 and 1994. Though the 1994 genocide provides genuinely solid moral imperative to the observer, it is foolish to ignore the heinous crimes of both sides.

If literature on Rwanda is judged solely by how it addresses these three issues, Romeo Dallaire’s Shake Hands With The Devil fails. That Dallaire was the United Nations commander in Rwanda during the genocide, his book provides priceless insight from a perspective not previously published and is thus an invaluable resource to anyone interested in Rwanda. It is, however, necessary, in any work on the genocide, that proper background be given, and there is only passing mention. Instead, Dallaire provides invaluable information on the immediate run-up to the genocide. At over 500 pages, the book is a detailed supply of information of the year Dallaire spent as head of UNAMIR, filled with emotion and explanations (though no excuses) for the UN’s inaction and, if read alongside a historical work such as Gerard Prunier's The Rwandan Crisis, is a remarkable tool.

Dallaire’s book is well-written, especially considering the subject matter and the author’s ability to suppress an otherwise forgivable emotional slant. In vivid terms, Dallaire describes driving through the streets of Kigali, avoiding drunken bands of Interahamwe and the bodies that litter the streets. At the same time he provides insight into his colleagues’ activities, regaling the reader with stories of missions on which his Ghanaian, Polish and Belgian soldiers were deployed.

The only problem with his insight is that, compared the collection of stories compiled in Gourevitch’s We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, Dallaire’s book lacks a victim’s narrative, although his account of a descent into post-traumatic stress disorder evokes some of the uncomfortable claustrophobia one experiences when reading first-person accounts of the genocide.

Dallaire’s dealings with the woefully incompetent UN and its member states, particularly the United States and France, are at once disturbing, irritating and even funny, in the way the 700 Club is funny. Not once does Dallaire avoid blame for the failure of UNAMIR, although it is blatantly obvious that he gave everything he could to the mission and that fault for the mission’s failure lays squarely on the feet of the UN, who refused to augment the mission or alter the rules of engagement, and the likes of the United States, who had means to intervene and proved it, according to Dallaire, by deploying troops to evacuate expatriates, with ease, but withdrawing them immediately thereafter.

Neither the genocidaires, the UN, international community or even the RPF rebel movement are spared blame. Dallaire decries the RPF’s refusal to speed up its advance on Rwanda, as though it could have done more to halt the genocide, which I question. He also rages at Paul Kagame and the RPF leadership for launching attacks on or near UN installations and neutral territory. He writes:

[Kagame] had promised to keep his guns clear of the airport, but not only had some of his rounds fallen on the runway, but the terminal housing the Ghanaian battalion had suffered deliberate artillery and mortar assaults, and we had established that the firing had come from RPF positions.

Dallaire’s thesis is, perhaps, that everyone is to blame. The RPF is far from glorified after they wrest control from the RGF and the UN civilian administrators in Rwanda are (justifiably) characters to be laughed at, frequently demanding swanky cars and accommodations while jetting off to Nairobi, all the time.

The book is a frustrating read. Dallaire struggles to find a way to intervene to stop the killing, but he is prevented from doing so by the lack of equipment provided by the United Nations and the withdrawal of the Belgian soldiers following the deaths of eleven of them at the hands of the RGF early in the genocide. The reader, like Dallaire, becomes effectively and emotionally involved in the story.

By the end of Dallaire’s stay and the end of the book, it becomes apparent that nobody in UNAMIR leaves the mission unscathed. Dallaire recounts, vividly, the story of several Polish military observers, held at gunpoint by Interahamwe, who are forced to witness a massacre in a church:

Methodically and with much bravado and laughter, the militia moved from bench to bench, hacking with machetes. Some people died immediately, while others with terrible wounds begged for their lives or the lives of their children…There was no mercy, no hesitation and no compassion. The priests and the MILOBs, guns at their throats, tears in their eyes, and the screams of the dying in their ears,, pleaded with the gendarmes for the victims. The gendarmes’ reply was to use the rifle barrels to lift the priests’ and MILOBs’ heads so that they could better witness the horror.

I wrote earlier that the book lacks the first person account of the victim, but upon finishing, it is obvious that Dallaire, too, is a victim of the genocide whose wounds have not yet healed, and perhaps never will.

Africa's Strategic Interest Skyrockets

2004-08-10T04:01:00.000-07:00

America-allied Mauritania foils extremist-sponsored coup plot

Rush for natural resources still fuels war in Congo

China Looks To Africa

Arab League Stands Pat While AU Retreats

2004-08-10T03:46:00.000-07:00

- The Arab League meets this week to discuss a unified policy on the Darfur "situation." Thusfar, news from the conference has been grim. The Arab League has refused to apply or support sanctions on Khartoum, and has also requested more time for the Khartoum regime to comply with UN demands. Khartoum's vice president, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha said that "due to logistical problems and limitations we have at the moment, I don't think the time frame is practical." If this is indeed the case, which I doubt, given Sudan's ability to arm, equip and train the Janjaweed in the region with relative ease, then it is Khartoum's doing. The rebellion in Darfur began because of the regime's neglect for Darfur and its people. This has been the case since independence in 1955, practically. When around a million people died of starvation in Darfur in the mid 1980's, it wasn't the Khartoum government that came to the rescue, but rather Qaddafi and the Libyans, who may well prove Darfur's sole, albeit opportunistic, ally in the Arab League meetings

- Bad news continues for Darfur with news that the deployment of the African Union's proposed 2000-strong peacekeeping force has been delayed. Obviously the situations -- the genocides -- in Rwanda and Sudan are different, but the international response to both is strikingly similar. The AU's hesitancy is remarkably similar to the frequently delayed deployment of soldiers and supplies to UNAMIR and UNAMIR 2 in 1994, which cost countless lives. Peacekeeping is not an end, nor is it a particularly helpful means, these days. Success in combatting genocide begins with logistical support and committment from those capable to provide it and ends with enforcement.

Massacres in the Cote d'Ivoire

2004-08-06T20:15:00.000-07:00

Multiple outlets have reported, albeit under the radar, massacres in the Ivory Coast. Unfortunately, with the U.N.'s snail's pace approach to Darfur and a complete absence of coverage of atrocities on Lake Kivu in the DR Congo or against the Anuak tribe in Southwest Ethiopia, this likely is not going to draw the ire of the international community, which is terrible considering these massacres come on the heels of the Ivorian Civil War which has been raging off and on since 2002 and has engulfed the country into a north-south power struggle between loathsome rebel factions and opportunist politicians. The Ivory Coast used to be a symbol of stability for the entire African continent, but as soon as Houphouet-Boigny died, the country's economy plummeted and fear and xenophobia took over. Interesting how this is often the case in France's former colonial and hegemonic holdings.

As ABC reports, both Amnesty International and the U.N. have produced reports of the massacres and the Security Council has even laid down its typical condemnations of the event. But of course, it doesn't demand media attention or a declaration of genocide unless a million people have already been killed.

Overview

2004-08-04T21:32:00.000-07:00

Posting has been non-existent for the past few days because I've been trying to power through several books: the excellent (thusfar) and newly-released memoirs of Lt. General Romeo Dallaire's time as UN Force Commander in Rwanda, Shake Hands With The Devil, and Bill Berkeley's journalistic overview of Africa's conflict zones over the past 20 years, The Graves Are Not Yet Full. I'll have reviews of both as soon as I finish them.

Presently, news on the continent is about as bleak as it has been for the past several weeks. The situation in Darfur remains the same. Airdrops began on monday but the Khartoum government is protesting the 30 day deadline set by the woefully inadequate Security Council resolution to disarm the Janjaweed. Bureaucracy will kill the people at risk. The violence has not stopped, and 30 days of the international community twiddling its thumbs waiting for the Khartoum goverment to not comply with the resolution will just result in needless deaths.

Security Council Adopts Weak Darfur Resolution

2004-07-30T13:39:00.000-07:00

The United Nations Security Council, today, passed resolution SC 1556. During debate, the resolution, co-authored by the UK and America, was stripped of any mention of potential sanctions against either the Janjaweed militas or the Khartoum government, proper. The preamble makes no mention of genocide, which was expected given the moral imperative such a statement would force upon the UN.

Worse yet, the operative clauses take little advantage of the Security Council's power. Little, if any, mention of possible international intervention in the crisis is made. Instead, the resolution points to and lauds the African Union mission, which provides only 300 troops and under 100 observers for an area larger than France.

The one demand made by the resolution is the following, neutered, clause:

6. Demands that the Government of Sudan fulfil its commitments to disarm
the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and
their associates who have incited and carried out human rights and international
humanitarian law violations and other atrocities, and further requests the Secretary-
General to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to the Council on the progress
or lack thereof by the Government of Sudan on this matter and expresses its
intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article
41 of the Charter of the United Nations on the Government of Sudan, in the event of
non-compliance;

The Chinese and the French are castrating any possible solution to the genocide to protect their oil interests. A shame, really.

Arab Media Wakes Up

2004-07-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

According to the BBC Monitoring service, three Arab television networks -- al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and LBC Television -- ran brief stories on Darfur today, including one on threats of sanctions by the EU.

DR Congo Roundup

2004-07-27T05:33:00.000-07:00

Things in Congo-Kinshasa go from bad to worse.

A rebel movement in Bukavu thought to be supported by Rwandan president Paul Kagame died down thanks to regional mediation from the likes of South Africa.

Yesterday, Joseph Kabila, son of the late Laurent -- the marxist 'freedom-fighter' who at least had the ousting of Mobutu on his CV -- declared that a coup d'etat launched against him had failed.

Now, the crisis in the east has reached a new high, with fighting in Bukavu intensifying. General Nkunda, the renegade general supported by Kagame had previously captured some key towns along Lake Kivu, in June, violating a ceasefire in the process. Nkunda has justified his assault on the eastern holdings of the Congo by declaring that he's only out to protect the Banyamulenge -- ethnic Tutsis regularly harassed by Interahamwe refugees of Rwanda. In the process of his protective mission, however, thousands have been added to the 3.3 million long list of people killed in the Congolese civil war, and thousands more are currently in jeopardy after fleeing the fighting.

More Terror in Sudan

2004-07-27T05:21:00.000-07:00

According to the Kampala Monitor, the Lord's Resistance Army launched a devastating raid on SPLA-held territory in Southern Sudan that left 40 people, including civilians, dead.

If ever there were a referendum to determine which terrorist group is the world's most loathsome, the LRA, with its support of Islamic fundamentalism in Sudan and Hutu Power butchers in Bunia and Bukavu, would surely get a few votes.

Thankfully, the United States classifies the LRA as a terrorist organization, which has clearly done a lot of good for the thousands murdered and displaced by these maniacs across Central Africa.

Off The Deep End

2004-07-25T00:01:00.000-07:00

According to al-Jazeera, this morning, Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir has accused the International Community of using the Darfur crisis as a means of targeting Islam and the Khartoum regime.

The notion that the world is using Darfur to demonize the Muslim faith is completely nonsensical for the sole reason that the people of Darfur are predominantly (65-75%) Muslim. al-Bashir's argument seems a diversion from the fact that this is a racist war being waged by Sudan's Arab majority against a black African group of peoples.

As the article continues, it addresses Egypt's concerns that the global community is too hard on Sudan. As has been the case for apologists in Kurdistan, Bosnia and Rwanda, Egypt's foreign minnister, Ahmed Abul Ghait, merely declared the situation "complex." Nevermind the figures that 1,000 people a day may be dying in Darfur, that up to 50,000 have already perished or that aid workers are being forced back into Chad by Arab marauders...

So much for Islamic unity -- blacks need not apply. An excellent editorial for the Wall Street Journal by the Tunisian journalist and muckracker Kamel Labidi, several weeks ago, addressed the silence on Darfur of the Arab press and Arabic religious figures. The Darfur policy of Egypt, long thought of as a "moderate" Arab regime, serves as unlikely confirmation of Labidi's thesis: This is a racist war, and the Arab World wants no part in ending it.

Appeasement

2004-07-21T17:41:00.000-07:00

From the AFP, French FM to Darfur next week as part of Africa trip.

Blair Considers British Troop Involvement

2004-07-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

British PM Tony Blair has requested plans from the Foreign Office for the deployment of British ground troops to Darfur.

This isn't a guarantee of British military involvement in Sudan. Given the barrage of criticism Blair received regarding Iraq, deploying troops will be difficult, but not impossible. Other plans for Darfur include the use of soldiers to assist in the deployment of aid and to support the AU force of 300.

Blair has intervened, militarily, six times since first being elected in 1997. Notably, he sent troops to Sierra Leone, amid criticism from the far-left harping about a new colonialism and "scramble for Africa" as rationale for British involvement. Blair silenced those critics, however, as the British troops helped to end a vicious ten year civil war that the UN refused to deal with. British troops left Sierra Leone, contrary to the predictions of the far-left, in bulk in 2002, leaving a legacy that culminated, two months ago, in the opening of a war crimes tribunal against the rebel RUF movement.

Blair's dedication to delineating the situation in Darfur, if it accomplishes nothing else, should help to energize the United States and Britain's global allies to act and consider the deployment of resources or troops to protect the victims of genocide.

Another Example of Africa's Importance

2004-07-20T23:25:00.000-07:00

Uranium at Congo mine may be terror threat...

Khartoum Does It Again

2004-07-20T23:04:00.000-07:00

The Khartoum government is demanding that Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs), or refugees spread across Sudan's western frontier, return to their destroyed and infertile villages. The UN, gutless enough to try to remain on Khartoum's good side, prefaces the article by noting that its author's perspective doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the United Nations. The article, though, alludes to a report that the Sudanese government has prepared relocation plans for the hundreds of thousands of IDPs stranded in Sudan. This is eerily reminiscent of Mengistu's forced relocation of Oromos, Tigreans and Eritreans in 1980s Ethiopia, which resulted in the deaths of millions via famine and wanton slaughter at the hands of government troops and East German secret police, although the people of Darfur have already been forcibly removed from their villages, once, by the Janjaweed.

The worst part about Khartoum's plan, besides forcibly moving people back into decrepit and unsafe villages, is the government's failure, thusfar, to protect the refugees and the Fur people from the Janjaweed and its failure to ensure the general security and health of a people its fought to maintain control of.

Nigeria Update

2004-07-20T22:20:00.000-07:00

Aside from the ongoing violence around Port Harcourt, several reports have emerged detailing the Nigerian mobile police unit's penchant for extrajudicial executions, as well as Obasanjo's recent anti-labor reforms.

Regarding both, the development of protest movements and specialized organizations in the human rights and labor sectors has helped limit,somewhat, the abuses by Nigerian criminal authorities and the central government. In spite of the mobilization of Nigerians, though, these abuses continue at an alarming rate, and attacks against Nigerians' labor rights (which in turn indicts foreign companies operating in Nigeria) and their civil liberties is far more telling a sign of Nigeria's development than the positive movements.

Bogged Down

2004-07-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

Human Rights Watch "has obtained documents" (full report) that link the Khartoum government to the Janjaweed, while the Beeb has the governments dismissal of said documents.

Make up your own mind, but take into account the following:

HRW's fact-checking resources are second to none in the human rights NGO sector and the organization is lauded for its restraint in writing reports. Further, its reports are far and away the most comprehensive of their kind.

The Khartoum government is Arab-dominated. The Fur people are Muslim, though not Arab. The Janjaweed is an Arab militia. Given the revolts of the JEM and the SLA, is that not reason enough to suspect collusion between the government and the Janjaweed?

The rejection of the report by Sudanese foreign minister, Mustafa Ismail was essentially an ad hominem dismissal of the report, proper, and not a substantive rejection of the report's claims. He said, ""It is easy to go to a typist and put a [letter] heading," and simply elaborated that the Khartoum government did not arm the Janjaweed. It's a bizarre way to deny a 10 page report full of sources.

Further, the report contains references to government documents ordering supplies to and orders for "knights" and"Mujahideen." Witnesses to the initial ethnic cleansing also report seeing Sudanese government aircraft launching airstrikes against villages coordinated to the Janjaweed attacks.

Rebels Walk Out Of Darfur Talks

2004-07-17T23:20:00.000-07:00

The Justice and Equality movement (JEM), one of the primary groups rebelling against the authority of the Sudanese government in darfur, has abandoned peace talks with the Khartoum regime because of its failure to accept JEM demands.

Hopefully, this doesn't cast bad light on JEM or their cause. JEM was completely within its rights to walk out as their demands -- international inquiry into genocide, justice for those who committed atrocities, withdrawal of troops, disarmament of Janjaweed militia, release of POW's, easy passage of aid without harassment and an independent venue for future talks -- were completely within reason.

As far as I'm concerned, the Khartoum regime would have got off lightly had they accepted JEM's terms. As it stands, talk of intervention is gathering pace in DC and New York, suggesting that armed intervention is a greater possibility than it had been several weeks ago.

Darfur Update

2004-07-16T11:39:00.000-07:00

The BBC has developments

John Kerry calls it genocide, so why won't the UN follow suit?

South Africa + US Reach Free Trade Deal

2004-07-15T00:50:00.000-07:00

President Bush has signed the AGOGA act, which extends "duty-free and quota-free" trade in the United States to 37 sub-Saharan African countries.

Though free-trade acts could help Africa grow out of the trend of subsistence farming and widespread poverty, there is nothing to suggest that this particular act won't curb corruption or poverty. Bush is quoted as saying,

[Party Nations] are setting an important example for the entire continent, demonstrating that governments that respect individual rights and encourage the development of their markets are more likely to grow economically and achieve political stability.

The problem is that there is nothing in the act that guarantees worker's rights and such. Free trade is fine, and it could benefit Africa greatly, but only if it is also fair.

Piety and Petty Larceny

2004-07-15T00:40:00.000-07:00

I've spent some time on this bully pulpit criticizing the role organized religion, specifically Islam and Christianity, plays in Africa, but some welcome developments are being made by both progressive and traditional sects. First, in South Africa, the South African Council of Churches is acting as the primary critic of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church, ever the target of harrassment and persecution in Arab Sudan, is also helping to lead the protest against the genocide in Darfur. The Church has also led a march on on Washington, protesting Western inaction.

Failure

2004-07-15T00:19:00.000-07:00

NPR had a disturbing report on the state of East Timor two years after the country's independence from Indonesia. The report sparks a lot of potential parallels with what could happen when Southern Sudan is up for a referendum on autonomy, several years from now.

Basically, the main problems in East Timor are strikingly similar to those problems affecting any country in sub-Saharan Africa, and they're probably the problems that would affect any nascent country, anywhere in the world. Half of East Timor is living off $.50 or less a day, and much of the population lives off subsistence farming. Even worse, many foreign donors, who account for much of the paltry Timorese budget, are threatening to cease aid if East Timor fails to demonstrate its ability to be self sufficient. That's all well and good except that, East Timor has some oil reserves that currently fall within the stretched maritime boundaries of Australia, which refuses to budge, equating any alteration in the maritime boundary to the United States ceding Texas to Mexico.

Australia thus opts to keep East Timor on international life support. If any part of Sudan is granted autonomy or independence, will the Chinese and French oil interests siphon oil or other resources from the newly free and dirt poor regions, as Western interests in Katanga did following the independence of the Congo in 1960? This business with East Timor sets a bad precedent and is bad news to any new states in Africa that develop out of present turmoil.

Rangel Arrested

2004-07-14T13:09:00.000-07:00

Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had an editorial in the New York Daily News, yesterday, explaining why he got arrested protesting the genocide in Sudan. He even used the term, 'genocide,' which follows a welcome trend of members of congress using the term.

I always hesitate to support direct action protests, because if the IMF/World Bank and the various Iraq demonstrations are anything to go by, the odds of senseless violence and vandalism are quite high. I don't want recognition of the Sudan crisis to be based on a few idiots throwing bricks in windows.

Anyway, Rangel simply blocked the doors to the Sudanese embassy in D.C, and wouldn't budge. Fair enough, though I don't think the move really accomplished much. Rangel writes that he was protesting "the point that sanctions and travel restrictions will not alleviate this crisis," which does, in a sense, make this a sensible display of civil disobedience. Had I participated, I probably would have done the same. Rangel progresses nicely, with this rationale:

We've spent almost $200 billion on the Iraq war. There's no reason the international community can't find the $350 million the UN needs to ship aid to Sudan. Surely, saving a million lives is worth more than the $89 million the U.S. has committed so far. Let's declare the situation the genocide that it is. We have to avert what threatens to become one of history's greatest catastrophes. What's happening is an atrocity, a crime and a sin. There can be no more excuses.

The problem I have with Representative Rangel's comments is his apparent determination to have a "multinational" force implanted in Darfur. But, if the Chinese and the French are preoccupied with oil deals in Sudan, how is the Security Council going to authorize such a force? Wasting time with futile diplomacy only costs more lives, and if it gets to the point where only one country (maybe the United States, maybe not) is willing to intervene, then so be it. Multilateralism can take a backseat to genuine humanitarianism.

The Other Genocide

2004-07-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

The New Republic, this week, has an in-depth article on the criminally underreported refugee crisis/genocide/ethnic cleansing (depending on your tastes or bias) going on in Ethiopia. The offensive against the Anuak tribe of Southwestern Ethiopia differs from the genocide in Darfur because it is being executed not by a paramilitary or proxy militia, but rather by the Ethiopian military. The Anuak crisis also owns the cynical irony of sending refugees into Sudan. Doug McGill writes,

The recently formed Pochalla refugee camp is in Sudan, but it is not in Darfur, in the country's west, where humanitarian officials say the worst genocide since Rwanda is presently underway. Rather, Pochalla, in southeastern Sudan, is filled with refugees of the Anuak tribe of Ethiopia, who claim to have fled attacks on their villages led by the Ethiopian army. According to the United Nations, some 8,500 Anuak refugees descended upon this traditional Anuak village, just across the border from Ethiopia, in the early months of this year, more than doubling its population and straining its resources beyond the breaking point. A nearby riverbed has run dry, people are drinking from road ruts and eating leaves, and they whisper in the muted register of oppressive hunger.

A trend evident in both Darfur and Ethiopia is that, so long as governments meet one Western standard or, as long as they seek to improve one problem in their respective countries, other crises can be ignored. In the case of Darfur, the Khartoum government's engagement of the SPLA in peace talks almost makes the Darfur genocide acceptable or, at the very least, a pothole on the road to modernization to Western observers. For Ethiopia, as McGill makes abundantly clear, Ethiopia's 'economic development policies' under prime minister Meles Zenawi allow observers to overlook a horrendous human rights record and an impending mass death that is separate from an already brewing mass Ethiopian famine that McGill reports is putting 7.2 million Ethiopians at risk for starvation.

According to McGill, 10% of the Anuak population of 100,000 are currently refugees in Sudan and Kenya. 1200 are already presumed dead at the hands of the Ethiopian military. Following a protocol strikingly similar to the actions of the Janjaweed in Darfur, McGill reports that...

...Through April, the refugees say, Ethiopian troops carried out scorched-earth raids on a dozen Anuak villages, where tukuls were burned along with seed stock, farmers and herders were shot, and women were raped and taken as sex slaves. It's difficult to verify these accounts, coming as they do from isolated villages without telephones, electricity, or running water. The fact that roughly two-thirds of the Pochalla refugees are not from Gambella, but rather from small villages in the state, however, suggests that something bad--bad enough to make people walk days through the bush to reach this camp--did happen.

The camps to which refugees are flocking are on par with the terrible conditions of camps in Chad and the Sudan-Chad border and a possible cause of the government's onslaught strikes a similarity to another country. According to McGill, the discovery of oil in the region inhabited by the Anuak may have sparked the aggression as an effort to keep the Anuak from controlling reserves, the way various Nigerian administrations have used strong arm tactics to keep the Ogoni people from controlling reserves in Ogoni-land.

The worst part about what is happening in Ethiopia is the complete lack of reporting in the mainstream media. Even groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have little or no information to provide on the current conditions of the Anuak tribe. Advocacy groups must strive to allocate resources to the Anuak crisis, despite the recent escalation of violence in Darfur.

Darfur: A Primer

2004-07-12T05:08:00.000-07:00

What has astonished me about the Darfur genocide, recently, is the complete lack of historical background provided by the media. Robert D. Kaplan, a contributor to the New Republic and the Atlantic Monthly among other periodicals and newspapers, wrote a book 15 years ago, Surrender Or Starve, detailing the famines and wars of Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan during the 1980's hey day of Nimeiri, Siad Barre and Mengistu. The book has a new edition with a new chapter about independent Eritrea but, more importantly, Kaplan provides some interesting background on Darfur and its role in Sudanese history:

Darfur was the last unconquered part of Sudan and had resisted all foreign invaders, including the French based in present-day Chad, until May 1916, when an Anglo-Egyptian force of more than two thousand troops backed by airplanes finally defeated the Fur tribespeople of Sultan Ali Dinar...Afterward, the British gave the local tribal chief complete control of internal affairs. "It was a government within a government," recalled the present sultan, Abdul Rahman...Even today, the people of Darfur harbor little loyalty toward Khartoum.

Thus, the crisis in Darfur isn't a recent development. Tensions have brewed since the colonial era and there also exists a precedent for self-governance or, at the very least, regional autonomy.

Millions (yes, millions) also starved to death in the 80s in Darfur, setting another urgent precedent for today's crisis. The Janjaweed also didn't appear to have a presence in Darfur, at the time, which makes action in the current debacle all the more imperative. In a rather macabre foreshadowing, Kaplan interviews a Western diplomat who says, "The people of Akron, Ohio, care more about the people of Darfur than do the people in Khartoum." Further on, a government commissioner of Darfur is interviewed and claims, "No umbilical cord links us with the central government."

While millions of dollars worth of American food aid poured into the horn of Africa and Sudan, little found its way to Darfur, where roads were in such a sorry state that it could take three days to voyage 100 miles in the rainy season, and the present conditions probably aren't much better.

Darfur, as alluded to by the interest of France in the colonial era, played an important strategic role in Colonel Qaddafi's plan for regional hegemony. Of the aid that Darfur did get in the 1980s, most of it came from Libya:

...A Libyan relief convoy of forty-three trucks and trailers, escorted by Libyan soldiers, rolled into the Darfur capital of El Fasher with an undisclosed number of weapons hidden beneath sacks of grain and dried milk powder. Around the same time, tribal chiefs from other parts of Darfur and adjacent Kordofan were being invited to Tripoli as guests of Colonel Gaddafi. There was nothing inspired about Gaddafi's designs on western Sudan, a forward base for his ill-fated adventure in Chad and a place from which to outflank Egypt.

Another contributing factor to Darfur's steady decay may then be its loss of importance to a wisened-up Libya. With Qaddafi's aid dissipated, the Khartoum government failed to make up the difference and, for the last fifteen years or so, the neglect brewed to culminate in the current round of revolt and genocide.

HIV Addendum

2004-07-12T04:58:00.000-07:00

Though I admire Fela, greatly, he suffered from the same shortcomings as many African leaders, today, by ignoring Africa's impending AIDS crisis and, by most accounts, he succumbed to HIV related illness. Still, nobody's perfect, and Fela's downfall serves as a perfect reminder of that, so he serves as a good segue into some developments in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

The BBC has an interesting report, this morning, on the failures in dealing with the crisis, not of the United States, but of the United Nations and the global community. I don't mean to demonize the Bush administration's approach to HIV in Africa, especially when the global community is equally, if not more culpable.

I'm all for realism in the health sector, but when 25 million people, nearly 2/3 the number of those globally infected, suffer from HIV in Africa, shouldn't it be imperative that the global community mobilize to secure drugs for at least three million?

Lange, in the report, criticizes a distinct lack of planning and funding, though, which is, indeed, most worrying.

Change

2004-07-12T04:44:00.000-07:00

I discovered, while scavenging the internet for other blogs specializing in Africa, that there is already a "BlogAfrica" out there, so I gave my own title a brief, two second, thought and came out with "Fela's Fury." The title references the Nigerian Afrobeat innovator and political gadfly, Fela Anikulapo Kuti (ne Fela Ransome Kuti), who endured decades of torture, wrongful prosecution and imprisonment at the hands of Nigerian authorities, which also killed Fela's mother and eventually contributed to Fela's premature demise in 1997. Fela rejected colonialism and the excesses of the postcolonial rulers, equally, and provided a welcome middle ground between Botha and Mobutu. He criticized Islam and Christianity for contributing to the rape of African culture and he denounced corruption from European companies based in Nigeria and the Nigerian establishment, itself. His brilliance was, in essence, his fair judgment of African progress in the post-colonial world and the gauntlet of Cold War Africa.

For more: Fela Project

Bush & HIV

2004-07-11T00:30:00.000-07:00

The Guardian has an editorial, this morning, about Bush's shortcomings in the American response to HIV in Africa. The editorial helps confirm my fears that Bush is extending his woefully unsuccessful and Christian-right funded ABC -- abstinence, being faithful, condoms -- approach across the Atlantic to sub-Saharan Africa.

Promoting abstinence is fine, but when it carries undertones of foolish religiosity, and it doesn't even work in the United States, in the first place, why implant it as policy in the world's AIDS hot zone? Peter Gill writes,

References to condoms - for decades heavily promoted in the US drive for population control in the developing world - make clear that they are to play a marginal role. They can be distributed 'near areas where high-risk behaviour takes place' such as brothels, but they are not to be promoted for the general population, which should receive 'a clear message that the best means of preventing HIV/Aids is to avoid risk altogether'.

I'm not going to deify Clinton's Africa policy, and I hold his administration partly responsible for the Rwandan genocide, but at least he got AIDS prevention in Africa, right. Preaching abstinence above all else in Africa is, to me, an insult to the intelligence of Africans. Not to mention, treating AIDS prevention with a faith-based bent is incredibly foolish when it's scientific knowledge that those at risk for AIDS/HIV in Africa lack. AIDS in Africa isn't solely an issue of moronic heathens fucking around, especially when governments like Mbeki's and Mugabe's imbue in their people nonsense like this.

Obasanjo Revisited

2004-07-11T00:26:00.000-07:00

For those who think my criticism of Obasanjo to be harsh, read...

...And Powell's Response

2004-07-10T17:16:00.000-07:00

Available here, Secretary Powell's response to the report amounted to little more than a defense of the current Administration's Africa policy. Nothing was said regarding specific criticisms made by the CSIS, which is a shame. Powell, speaking on the 8th of July (after the 48 hour ultimatum to the al-Bashir government expired without a whimper), remarked on his talks with the Sudanese government in his show of appeasement to the al-Bashir regime, failing to make a point that al-Bashir and his cronies have thusfar failed to follow up their end of the bargain.

On HIV, the $865,000,000 committed to Africa by Tobias seems miniscule after you read the CSIS report, although Powell hopes to have total funding to Africa reach $5 billion in two or three fiscal years.

Still, apart from commenting on the Liberia reconstruction, very little, if anything, was said regarding direct American action in Africa, the need for which, I feel, was the prevailing theme of the CSIS report.

The CSIS Africa Report...

2004-07-10T15:52:00.000-07:00

Excerpts of the report were released, yesterday, following Colin Powell's remarks on the panel's recommendations. In general, I think the report raises some good points and makes some good recommendations, but there are some aspects that were worryingly omitted by the authors.

On A New American Energy Policy And Capital Market Development In Africa

First among the recommendations in just about every field is the addition of advisors and agencies to the State Department bureaucracy. This strikes me as developing new organizations to which the Bush administration (or, the Kerry administration, perhaps) can pass the blame when things go wrong, and they will, when it is recommended that the US engage the likes of Nigeria and Angola for energy partnerships. Most worrying is the recommendations for US Policy toward Nigeria, because there are many and strike me as foolish. Regarding energy, the panel suggests that the US

encourage current plans for implementation of a reformist economic plan, reimplementation of an anticorruption commission, and reforms at the natural resource ministry by showcasing these reforms at the 2004 G-8 summit or the 2004 World Bank/IMF Meetings.

Obasanjo has had two opportunities as head of state to sort out corruption, both political and economic, in Nigeria. As head of the military junta during his first 'term', he allowed the Nigerian oil interests to become corrupted and prevented the Ogoni people, who typically reside in areas full of petroleum, from properly capitalizing on the potential wealth that existed within their territory. Quickly, the 'big men,' who so often take economic control in Africa, took over Nigerian oil, while poverty grew in Lagos and across the country. When Obasanjo reinvented his image in the late 90's to become 'president' of Nigeria, he pledged to reduce the fuel shortages that developed out of Nigeria's petroleum corruption. Still, Nigeria, with the 7th biggest petroleum supply in the world, maintains a substantial foreign debt and endures regular fuel shortages. Obasanjo speaks with conviction about destroying the corruption that prevents Nigeria from becoming a global energy force, but little has changed since he was inaugurated in 1999. The man simply cannot be engaged and must be ousted, as Nigerian Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka suggests, before Nigeria can become a reliable energy power broker.

Still, save Nigeria, the panel makes some good recommendations regarding the support of energy markets in Chad, Cameroon, Sao Tome & Principe and Equatorial Guinea by providing expertise and advice. Corruption exists in these countries, though it's not nearly as crippling and widespread as it is in Nigeria.

But, what has gone hand in hand with corruption in Nigeria, is involvement by American and European business interests. Privatized assistance toward other developing markets in Africa should be approached quite carefully, if the involvement of Chevron, ITT, among others in Nigeria is anything to go by.

On Post-Conflict Sudan, Terrorism and Peacekeeping

Due to the timing of the report's release, any mention of Darfur is a glaring absentee. Still, the panel makes some solid suggestions on the back of a proposed referendum for the autonomy of Southern Sudan, six years from now. Reconstruction and multi lateral involvement are rightly made top priorities, but what is missing is a stern statement declaring neither of the two parties -- the Sudanese government and the SPLA/M -- are particularly legitimate voices of the Sudanese people, north or south. The shortcomings and crimes of the Sudanese government are obvious and well reported, which often makes John Garang's SPLA some angelic rebel movement, when it is anything but. Particularly over the last ten years, the SPLA has made a habit of pitting tribe against tribe in the south, while committing war crimes and human rights abuses, and conscripting children into its fighting force. The challenge for the United States will be to find someone other than al-Bashir or Garang on whom to rely for a peaceful future in Sudan.

In the realm of terrorism, the panel tells us little that we don't already know. The embassy bombings of 1998, the presence of anarchic Somalia as a terrorist haven and the role of conflict diamonds in funding terrorism are all reiterated. The panel recommends a 'coherent' counter-terror policy in Africa, which has been necessary but absent since Osama bin-Laden was holed up in Sudan. Further, it suggests a greater outreach program to Africa's 300 million + Muslim population which, so long as the demagogues and shari'a thumpers in Kano State, Nigeria and greater West Africa are steered clear of, is a good idea. Also quite bold from the panel is the recommendation that the Saudi government be pressured out of funding radical madrasehs in Africa.

Diplomatically, the panel recommends, once more, greater coherence regarding peacemaking. This is a necessity for US policy toward Africa to mature and be functional. USAID needs to be better utilized, as they suggest and America needs to, as the CSIS puts it, "abandon its allergy to direct military assistance." This couples quite nicely with the panel's rejection of American resistance to small arms non proliferation in Africa. With direct involvement, the need to flood various resistance groups and national militaries with arms diminishes.

On HIV

Although Bush's efforts have made some inroads, they are not nearly enough to help end the AIDS crisis in Africa. As I wrote before, the prevalence of HIV is a hindrance to the development of strong economies. The cost of anti-retro viral medication remains exorbitant and makes American financial aid to the HIV realm look negligible at best. The panel fails to recognize this, and instead points to greater multilateral involvement, specifically with NGO's and faith-based groups, which is fine with me, so long as secular NGO's are approached with equal consideration as the faith-based groups.

Darfur Update

2004-07-08T21:18:00.000-07:00

Representative Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) introduced an amendment to H.R. 4754 the other day that would make the following changes:

At the end of title VI, insert the following:

SEC. 627. It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State, at the most immediate opportunity, should-

(1) make a determination as to whether recent events in the Darfur region of Sudan constitute genocide as defined in the Convention on the Pre- vention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and

(2) support the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Darfur region of Sudan.

This is a promising start, and activity in the senate is starting to catch up.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), who appeared on NBC News last week and explicitly avoided use of the word 'genocide', has now changed course and begun exploring the possibility of genocide in Darfur. I also discovered a statement by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) regarding a bill introduced in the Senate during the last week of June that preceded Powell's, Annan's, Brownback's and Wolf's visits to Sudan. Available on AllAfrica, DeWine is quoted as saying, "this is genocide."

What's perhaps more disheartening is that use of the magic word is catching fire in DC, but these developments are underreported in the American and global media. H.R. 467 was introduced on the 24th of June and endorsed by the following congressmen and women: Payne (author), Cummings, Jefferson, Wynn, Lee, Majette, Christensen, Davis (IL), Waters, Jackson (IL), Norton, Scott (GA), Millender-McDonald, Davis (AL), Rush, Towns, Schakowsky, Fattah, Owens, Rangel, Thompson (MS), Johnson (TX), Watt, Meeks (NY), Brown (FL), Watson, Jackson-Lee (TX), Lewis (GA), Clyburn, Conyers, Scott (VA), Ford, Kilpatrick, Tancredo and Bishop (GA). The resolution declares the situation as genocide, plain and simple. Having apparently garnered some silent support from the senate, H.R. 467

(1) declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur , Sudan, are genocide;

(2) reminds the international community, including the United States Government, of their international legal obligations, as affirmed in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(3) urges the Bush Administration to call the atrocities being committed in Darfur , Sudan by its rightful name: `genocide';

(4) calls on the Bush Administration to lead an international effort to prevent genocide in Darfur , Sudan;

(5) urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act;

(6) demands that the Bush Administration impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of assets of the National Congress and affiliated business and individuals directly responsible for the atrocities in Darfur , Sudan; and

(7) calls on USAID to establish a Darfur Resettlement, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction Fund so that those driven off their land may return and begin to rebuild their communities.

Washington needs to face the facts that intervention, perhaps unilaterally, may become necessary, especially now that Powell has admitted that the Sudanese government has failed. Still, a good start, late though it is, has been made. Underreported though they may be, the efforts of congress may perhaps be a sign that Washington has more or less learned from Rwanda and the idleness that cost lives in the Balkans.

Common Sense

2004-07-08T14:10:00.000-07:00

CNN just led in to a program with a report that UN officials and members of the US State Department, including Secretary Powell, are questioning the honesty of the Sudanese government regarding their trips to camps in Darfur. So wait, you're only now realizing that they had you visiting show camps?

Mugabe In Trouble

2004-07-08T13:55:00.000-07:00

According to the New York Times, a leading Catholic official criticized the African Union for being complicit in Mugabe's reign of terror. After tabling a harshly worded resolution against Mugabe's mistreatment of political dissidents through the ruling ZANU PF party, the AU runs the risk of becoming another trite regional governing body, much like the OAU was. When leaders thought to be catalysts of democracy like South Africa's Thabo Mbeki speak out for tyrants like Mugabe who use the AU as a platform for demagoguery, the AU and the continent of Africa suffer. The sooner Mugabe is tossed out, retires or dies, Zimbabwe and Africa are better off. Only after Africa's dinosaur brand of autocrats are removed from office can an organization like the AU be successful, and regional leaders need to be more vocal. A resolution against Mugabe is a start, passing it is the next step.

Public Enemy #1

2004-07-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

The BBC reports, today, that France is at once rejecting sanctions against the Janjaweed and rejecting claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

I've tried not to jump on the anti-French bandwagon, but this whole thing strikes me as an extension of the resurgent colonial paranoia Francois Mitterand developed at the end of his final term as president. Mitterand and his arms dealer son, Jean-Christophe supplied arms to Angola, Rwanda and its president Habyarimana (continuing to support Hutu Power forces during the genocide) and, applicably, Sudan. French support for these regimes stemmed from Mitterand's fear that the British were trying to foster influence among the English speaking contingents of francophonic Africa -- specifically rebel groups in Central Africa supported by Museveni's Uganda, and the SPLA and sister groups in the south of Sudan. Mitterand's fears were exaggerated, and his actions arguably cost the lives of one million people in Rwanda, as well as extended chaos, famine and death in DR Congo and the Sudan.

Regarding Darfur, though, the Chirac/De Villepin axis does have a dubious investment in petroleum interests controlled by the al-Bashir government, but more to the point, Chirac has inherited Mitterand's fears of British hegemony on the continent. Francois-Xavier Verschave, of the French NGO Survie, has been an outspoken critic of French policy toward the Sudanese government for years. Verschave has alluded not to French oil interests, but rather that very extension of Mitterand's paranoia as reason for French support for Sudan. "France is prepared to support the massacres in Sudan, arguing that the Americans are helping the other party," Verschave said, almost ten years ago. Fearing Anglo-American influence in a region wedged between French North Africa (Chad) and the Arab world, France will continue to look the other way when genocide is ongoing. But wait, the Beeb is reporting that France doesn't even believe genocide is being perpetrated against the people of Darfur. At least they call it a humanitarian crisis, though.

All ulterior motives aside, I can understand why anyone would be hesitant in weighing sanctions against Sudan, but the sanctions in question aren't designed against the Sudanese government (and by proxy, the people of Sudan) the way the sanctions against Iraq worked by the end of Saddam Hussein's reign. The sanctions under discussion, though, aren't designed against the entire country, or even al-Bashir's government. They're designed to take effect against the Janjaweed, who are wholly responsible for the execution of the genocide in Darfur, but preventing Anglo dominance on the continent is much more important than protecting lives, after all.

AIDS Terror

2004-07-07T11:12:00.000-07:00

According to the AP, today, the American ambassador to Zambia believes that the AIDS crisis, if left ignored, will result in Africa becoming the new 'terror hotspot'.
Several things are made evident by Mozena. He gets it half-right. Yes, if left to gestate, the AIDS crisis will further destabilize the African continent, but AIDS, alone, is not the only problem. Naipaul's 'mimic men' and 'dinosaurs', who still have a grip on much of Africa, crooked rebel groups, famine, war, the diamond trade, questionable missionary work by Christians and Muslims and another aspect -- one described, inadvertently, by Mozena -- all have as much to do with Africa's continued fall as AIDS.

Mozena says, "The reason this is our top priority is not because we're nice guys, it's because it's in the interest of the United States." Well, aside from the terror possibilities that are, at best, ten to twenty years down the line, it's in the interest of the United States because we are nice guys. The United States is a beacon of hope and democracy to the rest of the world, and the best way to spread democracy is to work toward fixing the problems in fail-states and the developing world, not because of a national security concern, but because of the magnanimous nature that has guided the United States, in principle. If the United States acts, now, before it waits for these issues to develop into national security concerns, then countless lives on both sides are saved. It's semantic nitpicking, of course, but I think it a valid criticism of Mozena's statement, especially when he's not a politician on this side of the atlantic, but rather an ambassador to a sub-Saharan African country.

But, if you favor the realpolitik approach, and you disagree with America's presumed responsibility to be a 'charity state,' then there is a whole other reason to act on the AIDS crisis and other crises afflicting Africa, right now. By letting millions of people die of AIDS, famine and war, and by letting millions more suffer in poverty and squalor, one disenfranchises a continent of potential clients and consumers, choosing instead to let them wallow. In terms of capitalism, there is a whole untapped market in Africa, and it does neither party any good to let that market die off, slowly, before transforming into the next legion of terrorists and thugs.

Annan in Addis

2004-07-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

The New York Times, the BBC et al have reported on Kofi Annan's speech to the African Union detailing, among other things, the situation in Darfur, but what strikes me is a tone reminiscent of Annan's blunders in Rwanda, ten years ago. His words spoke volumes about a blanket desire to prevent the deaths of millions, but nary a proverbial tear was shed for the thousands of innocent men, women and children already killed by the government-supported Janjaweed militias. Annan says,

I have just visited Darfur and the refugee camps in Chad. The ruined villages, the camps overflowing with sick and hungry women and children, and the fear in the eyes of the people should be a clear warning to us all: without action, the brutalities already inflicted on the civilian population of Darfur could be a prelude to even greater humanitarian catastrophe -- a catastrophe that could destabilize the region.

What Annan said is no doubt accurate, but stunning because he visited, along with Colin Powell and other leading diplomats, show camps in an act of appeasement to the regime of the Sudanese 'president' al-Bashir. Continuing, Annan says,

The Joint Communiqué recently signed in Khartoum between the United Nations and the Government of Sudan is a welcome development, as are the steps the Government has already taken to remove obstacles to humanitarian work.

Is the UN simply happy to take what it can get from a totalitarian regime that has committed acts of genocide throughout a civil war that has gone on for 50 years? Once more it seems that the world governing body is settling for less and it is counseling the African Union to do the same. Not one week after the Sudanese government pledged to disarm the Janjaweed and be less obtrusive with regard to the humanitarian groups in Darfur, Annan basically praised Bashir's efforts. In regions wrought with genocide and war crimes, can diplomatic speech perhaps take a backseat to a genuine threat of force? Perhaps not with Annan on board, and certainly not with just 400 AU troops in a region the size of France to protect aid workers (but not the victimized).

Every ten years we go through with the same soul searching, questioning whether or not we'll let it happen again. Based on the UN's track record, it seems that if it can happen, it will.

Untapped Markets and Rotted Media

2004-07-06T12:48:00.000-07:00

I became interested in the continent of Africa around the time I discovered the phenomenon of blogging. I quickly became a devoted reader of several blogs that specialized in American domestic politics. Sadly, or, perhaps, predictably, the lustre of these blogs wore off, quickly. The forums essentially amounted to the same he said/she said arguments between right and left and, once the whole blog craze died down, the provocative buzz of the more bellicose and interesting blogs died as well. I discovered, while perusing these web forums, that there was a distinct lack of international coverage or, at the very least, coverage of American foreign policy. Of course, there were exceptions. The weblog Where is Raed? has provided insight from Iraq's interior during the war. Several political blogs also surfaced in Britain and Europe, but there was still a lack of specialized coverage of the developing world and Africa, specifically.

When it appeared that ethnic cleansing and genocide were in full swing in the Darfur region of Sudan, sympathetic tidbits were posted on blogs across the United States, equating the idleness of regional powers and the United States to their inaction in Rwanda, ten years prior. News reports and editorials, sparse as they were, echoed the same concerns, but beyond cries of intervention from Human Rights Watch and calls for donations from the likes of Medecins Sans Frontieres and Oxfam, few in the 'blogosphere' have made a sincere effort to call attention to the crimes against humanity ongoing in Darfur. For instance, take a look, today, the 6th of July, at some of the more popular blogs in cyberspace -- Andrew Sullivan, Tacitus, Glenn Reynolds, OxBlog, Matthew Yglesias, and The Volokh Conspiracy. All have covered the Iraq war in great detail and some have even covered items of interest in Africa, including the Niger uranium question, American involvement in Liberia and the AIDS crisis. But, to look at them today, there is mention on their frontpages of Darfur only on Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, and it's merely a vehicle for an attack on MoveOn, at that.

And what of the ethnic cleansing of the Anuak in Southwest Ethiopia? With the exception of a seldom updated blog, there has been almost no mention in the mainsteam media and even less coverage on the more popular blogs.

From within the borders of the continent, the state of the African media, itself, is in dire straits. Whether Mugabe's stranglehold on the Zimbabwean press, efforts to stifle human rights groups in Rwanda by that country's parliament, or the quashing of a nascent free press in North Africa, it has become increasingly evident to me that, to affect change in the continent, efforts must be made from the outside.

I've created this blog because I have a passion for the continent of Africa, as well as a strong belief in the continent's future. Regrettably, there is little coverage on the blogosphere of events in Ethiopia, Sudan, the Congo and Zimbabwe, so I have attempted to fill the hole and make good on the sickening lack of African coverage in the American media and the blogosphere.