Over
the past six months in the United States, there have been calls
for International Olympic Committee member-nations to boycott
the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Beijing will host the twentieth-ninth
Olympic Games August 8-24, 2008. The stated objective for the
proposed boycott is to coerce China to pressure the Sudanese
Government of National Unity-dominated by the Islamic-oriented
National Congress Party to cooperate with the deployment of
United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Advocates
of the proposed boycott have been calling the Beijing Games
the “Genocide Olympics".
Since
February 2003, there has been violence in the Western Darfur
region of Sudan. That violence has caused a humanitarian catastrophe.
Despite a dispute over the actual count, certainly tens of thousands
of people have died; hundreds-of-thousands have been forced
into refugee camps; and over a million Sudanese have fled into
neighboring Chad. The boycott advocates claim that the Sudanese
Government is responsible for “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”
in Darfur, and that the Sudanese Government refuses to stop
the violence. Despite the signing of a Darfur peace agreement
between the Sudanese Government and rebel forces in May, 2006,
and the deployment of 7000 African Union peacekeepers, violence
has continued between Government forces, the pro-Government
paramilitaries, and rebel groups there.
Why
is the Beijing Olympic Games being linked to the Darfur Crisis?
Is the allegation valid, that the crisis is “genocide”? What
are the roots of the Darfur Crisis? Who is advocating the boycott
campaign? Will the Darfur Crisis be resolved? How should the
call for an Olympic boycott be understood in the context of
United States foreign policy?
The
boycott advocates claim that China is the reason why the Sudanese
Government is not responding to the demands of the “international
community” (generally considered: the United States, the European
Union, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council) to cease
the violence occurring in the Darfur region.
The
boycott advocates make this claim by stating that the Sudanese
Government, headed by Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, is resisting
fully complying with the “international community” to end the
Darfur Crisis as long as China underwrites that regime. Their
argument points out that China has trade relations with Sudan
amounting to over $3 billion annually. The fact that most of
this trade is in the oil sector is emphasized. Sudan currently
provides six per cent of China’s foreign oil imports, representing
70 per cent of Sudan’s export earnings. China has also invested
heavily into the Sudanese economy. China has purchased 40 per
cent of the Sudanese Greater Nile Petroleum Company and 41 per
cent of Petrobar, which manages Sudan’s largest oil field. China
also has modernized the oil infrastructure, including building
roads, pipelines, and a refinery. China also sells Sudan arms,
including helicopters and fighter jets. China is currently
building a dam on the Nile River; when completed it will be
Africa’s largest hydroelectric project.
This
investment in Sudan’s oil sector is very important to China.
This is because, owing to its annual near ten per cent growth
rate, China is becoming increasingly more dependent on foreign
oil. This trend helps to explain China’s increased commercial
activities throughout Africa. Furthermore, the opening for
China to invest in Sudan exists because, in 1997, the United
States applied economic sanctions on Sudan prohibiting trade
and investment; thus, basically shutting out United States oil
firms from operating there. The Clinton Administration’s rationale
in placing sanctions on Sudan was that the Government sponsored
“terrorism". That administration considered Sudan the
central threat to United States interests in Africa. Russia,
India, and Malaysia also invest heavily in Sudan.
The
boycott advocates also emphasize that China has not supported
applying United Nations Security Council sanctions or Chapter
VII language against the Sudanese Government. (Chapter VII language
calls for the determination of “…the existence of any threat
to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and
shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be
taken in accordance….”)
As
an example of the criticism, in a December 23, 2006, editorial
The Boston Globe commented: “With China running interference
for Sudan on the [UN] Security Council, Bashir has been able
to thwart the dispatch of UN peacekeepers, denouncing them as
forerunners of a Western scheme to re-colonize a Muslim land.
As Bashir’s government continues its policy of exterminating
African farmers in Darfur, China’s motive for enabling him is
purely capitalist: to protect Beijing’s $10 billion investment
in Sudan, primarily in that country’s oil reserves.”
The
Globe concluded,
by declaring: “But if China persists in its complicity with
the regime in Khartoum, grassroots groups around the world ought
to brand the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing as the 'genocide
Olympics', as professor Eric Reeves of Smith College recently
proposed on the (Boston) Globe op-ed page.”
The
boycott advocates claim that the threat of a (and/or an actual)
boycott of the Beijing Games would “shame” China into
forcing the Sudanese Government to end the conflict in Darfur.
There
is no question the Sudanese Government has been responsible
for much of the death and horror in Dafur. However, defining
the violence in Darfur as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”
confuses what is happening in Darfur; obfuscates the objectives
of the United States toward Sudan; and distracts from what needs
to be done to resolve the Darfur Crisis. As Ugandan scholar
Mahmood Mamdani explains: “Morally, there is no doubt about
the horrific nature of the violence against civilians in Darfur.
The ambiguity lies in the politics of violence….”
The
Darfur conflict is actually part of a complex series of regional
civil wars abetted by “Big Power” intervention while innocent
people are caught in the middle. The outline of that situation
starts with the fact that for over two decades the Sudanese
Government and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) were
involved in a civil war in southern Sudan. The United States
provided arms, training, materiel, and intelligence to the rebel
SPLA during that conflict. That support was transferred through
Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Uganda.
In
2001, the United States and Great Britain began to oversee a
negotiated national reconciliation between the two parties.
The Sudanese Government made significant concessions to the
rebel SPLA, including power sharing, regional autonomy, and
wealth sharing. However, as that negotiation was progressing,
two insurgencies formed in the Darfur region — the Justice for
Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)
— to challenge the Sudanese Government. The political demands
of those insurgencies included a similar political deal that
the peace treaty provided for the rebel SPLA.
In
response to the Darfur insurgencies’ early military successes,
the Sudanese Government proceeded to arm local nomadic/pastoralist
tribes into a counter-insurgency militia — called the Janjaweed.
Along with all-out war with the insurgents, the Sudanese Government
and the Janjaweed also carried out massive human rights abuses,
including killing, rape, kidnapping, and harassment of villages,
with the Government sometimes carrying out aerial bombardment
of villages. As Mamdami explains, the intent of the Sudanese
Government was to force the locals to evacuate the areas so
that the insurgencies could be deprived of bases of support
and be defeated. The insurgencies — who represent prosperous
peasants in Darfur — have also been responsible for gross abuses
against civilians. From past patterns, it can be assumed that
these forces have received support from the West.
Significantly,
since beginning production in 1999, Sudan has become the third
largest oil exporter in sub-Saharan Africa, behind Nigeria and
Angola. Sudan’s oil reserves are located in both the southern
and western regions; oil reserves are also expected in the Darfur
region as well. It is estimated that Sudan has 563 million
barrels of reserves. The country produces over 520,000 barrels
per day; and exports 80 per cent of that total. Thus, in actuality,
the Darfur Crisis is an all-out struggle between fractious national
ruling forces and competing marginalized local capitalists in
the Darfur region largely over the control of oil profits.
The peace settlement between the Government and the rebel SPLA,
which was signed on January 9, 2005, laid out a plan to share
the oil profits in the South.
The
violence in Darfur had been going on for over a year, while
the United States and Great Britain managed the negotiations
between the Sudanese Government and the rebel SPLA. As the
crisis in Darfur could no longer be ignored by the “international
community,” the Bush Administration, the United States Congress,
and individuals and organizations in the United States civil
society began to criticize the Sudanese Government over the
developments in Darfur. This criticism included, in June 2004,
Congress passing a resolution calling the situation in Darfur
a “genocide". A month later, Congress passed a resolution
calling on the Bush Administration to consider “multilateral
or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the
United Nations Security Council fail to act". In September
2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell also claimed that “genocide”
had occurred in Darfur.
Importantly,
the United Nations has not accepted the use of the term “genocide”
to explain what was happening in Darfur. In fact, in October
2004, the Security Council formed a five-person commission of
inquiry to investigate whether “genocide” had occurred. The
commission reported the Sudanese Government had not committed
“genocide", but it did declare that the Government violence
had been “deliberate and indiscriminately directed at civilians",
and that it had been “widespread and systematic". The
commission did assign the rebel insurgencies SLA and JEM with
having “secondary responsibility for the violence".
Nevertheless,
earlier in July 2004, the United Nations Security Council did
proceed to pass Resolution 1556 by a 13-0-2 vote; China and
Pakistan abstained. The resolution gave Sudan 30 days to report
on progress toward disarming the Janjaweed and bringing to justice
its leaders or the Security Council would take further action
in event of non-compliance. The implication was that the Security
Council was prepared to implement sanctions. Furthermore, Great
Britain and Australia proposed that they would be willing to
intervene in Darfur to protect the refugees.
The
United States Government’s statements and actions were integral
to the emergence of an peculiarly diverse “grassroots” movement
calling for the “international community” to militarily intervene
into Darfur to protect the displaced refugees. Some advocates
called for a United Nations intervention; while others called
for the United States to lead a military “coalition of the willing”
into Darfur.
The
“Save Darfur” movement includes anti-war groups, civil rights
organizations, human rights NGO’s, and liberal church groups,
including liberal Jewish organizations. The movement also includes
establishment policy planning organizations, right-wing evangelicals,
and conservative pro-Israeli organizations. For example, the
“Save Darfur” Coalition Executive Committee includes: the American
Jewish World Service; the American Society for Muslim Advancement;
Amnesty International, USA; the Citizens for Global Solutions;
the International Crisis Group; the Jewish Council for Public
Affairs; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
Peoples; the National Association of Evangelicals; the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops; and the United Holocaust
Memorial Museum.
The
“Save Darfur” movement has utilized the corporate-media, the
internet, Congressional lobbying, and political demonstrations
to make its case for United States-led military intervention.
This form of intervention is referred to as “humanitarian intervention".
The concept was used to rationalize the United States/NATO intervention
in Kosovo in 1998, allegedly aimed to prevent Serbia form committing
“genocide” of the Kosovarians. The implication of this concept
is that the United States can militarily intervene for “human
rights” purposes.
The
“Save Darfur” movement expediently sensationalizes the human
tragedy that was occurring in Darfur. Its members conflated
the number of people killed; while the claim that the “Arab”
Sudanese Government was “ethnically cleansing” black Africans
was a distortion of what was occurring on the ground. The victims
were mostly Arabs, and nearly all were Muslims. The domestic
historical and political context was completely ignored by the
Darfur activists, as was the regional and global dimensions
of the situation. By implication, the culpability of the United
States was also deleted. Curiously, that movement completely
ignored a much graver humanitarian crisis in the Kivu region
of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Interestingly,
the “Save Darfur” campaign started right at the point when it
was obvious that the United States (military) invasion of Iraq
had caused a catastrophe. What was being ignored by Darfur
“ humanitarian activists” was that a United States-led intervention
would only amplify the level of violence; all one had to do
is look at Iraq and Afghanistan to understand that. Emblematic
of the Orwellian world that we live at the moment, at “Save
Darfur” demonstrations, many peace activists carried signs which
read: “Out of Iraq; Into Sudan”!
On
May 5, 2006, the Sudanese Government and the rebel SLA did sign
a Darfur Peace Agreement in Abuja, Nigeria. That agreement
was managed by the United States and the African Union. The
agreement laid out similar concessions that existed in the peace
accord with the rebel SPLA, including power sharing, regional
autonomy, and wealth sharing. The agreement also called for
the Janjaweed to be disarmed, and members of the rebel groups
integrated into the national army and police force. However,
the JEM and a smaller fraction of the SLA refused to sign the
agreement. (After the peace accord was signed SLA-head, Minni
Mimmawi, met with President George W. Bush in the White House.)
However,
the peace agreement collapsed immediately and fighting was renewed.
Alex de Waal, who was part of the AU mediation team, claims
the agreement fell apart because the “international community”
had established an unreasonable deadline. He claims the agreement
was very close to full acceptance by all-parties; and if given
more time it would have been finalized.
Nevertheless,
the Sudanese Government found itself facing a United States-led
offensive allegedly to address the ongoing crisis in Darfur.
The Bush Administration endorsed the Darfur Peace and Accountability
Act of 2006, passed by Congress. That act calls for further
sanctions on Sudan. It also encourages the United States to
take a more active role in stopping the “genocide", including
NATO participation in that effort; and endorses a Chapter VII
mandate for a United Nations mission to Sudan. Also, outgoing
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for the establishment
of a United Nations mandated “No-Fly Zone” over the Darfur region.
This means that Sudanese Government military planes would not
be allowed in the area. Blair has also called for a new set
of sanctions, which would include Chapter VII language that
would allow the use of force. Furthermore, on August 31, 2006,
the Security Council passed Resolution 1706 calling for a three-phased
deployment of a hybrid AU-UN peacekeeping force of 22,500 troops.
This deployment would augment the already 7000 AU forces already
in Darfur.
The
Sudanese Government agreed to the first two phases of the agreement,
but refused to allow the United Nations peacekeepers into the
country. It appears the Sudanese Government assumed that the
deployment would add to the systematic unraveling of its national
authority that was occurring through the various national reconciliation
peace accords. President al-Bashir called the UN deployment
a “colonial plan". He added, “We do not want Sudan to
turn into another Iraq.” The violence in Darfur continued,
while the humanitarian crisis was getting worse. What al-Bashir
understood is that Sudan is encircled by United States-client
states (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Chad, Uganda, and the Central African
Republic) that are willing to do the United States’ bidding
to destabilize the National Congress Party regime.
In
early March 2007, the Chinese Government removed Sudan from
its most preferred trading nations list. Some observers felt
that this action by China was aimed to encourage Sudan to accept
the AU-UN troop deployment. However, Chinese President Hu Jintao
stressed that “Any solution [in Darfur] needs to respect the
sovereignty of Sudan and be based on dialogue.”
The
boycott advocates continued to push for a boycott of the Beijing
Olympics. Those groups are some of the same interests that
had been lobbying the Bush Administration to militarily intervene
into Darfur. The proposed boycott of the Olympic Games appears
to be a tactical shift to get China to put pressure on the Sudanese
Government to allow the hybrid AU-UN peacekeepers into the Darfur
region. In arguing their case, Beijing Olympic boycott advocates
made an analogy with the situation leading up to the 1936 Berlin
Olympic Games. Professor Eric Reeves, who is a key spokesperson
for the “Save Darfur” movement, claims that the Beijing Games
will also be “overshadowed” by “genocide", not unlike the
Berlin Games.
(In
1931, Berlin was selected to host the 1936 Olympic Games; two
years before Adolph Hitler became German Chancellor. Within
months after Hitler came into power a movement developed in
the United States, calling for a boycott of the Berlin Games
because of the Nazi’s anti-Jewish policies, which included purging
Jews from German sporting organizations. That movement consisted
of a unique alignment of Jewish and Christian organizations,
members of the American Olympic Committee and the Amateur Athletic
Union, labor organizations, and the Communist Party. In 1934,
the AOC and the AAU passed resolutions to postpone accepting
the invitation to participate in the 1936 Games until AOC-President
Avery Brundage reported on his visit to Germany to assess the
situation. Brundage felt that all that could be asked of the
Nazi regime was that it accept Olympic rules and allow German
Jews to try out for the German team. Meeting with German government
and sports officials, he was told that Jews would be allowed
to tryout for the German national team. Brundage returned
to the United States declaring that the Germans were going to
run a successful Olympic Games. While advocating United States
participation in the Berlin Games, Brundage promoted his consistent
philosophy, "that amateur sport and the Olympic Games are
above politics, racial and religious considerations."
Largely because of Brundage’s lobbying, the United States competed
in Berlin. In December 1935 the AAU narrowly voted to formally
accept the invitation to participate in the Berlin Olympic Games.
The vote was 58 1/2 to 55 3/4.)
On
March 30, 2007, in a major breakthrough, Sudan announced that
it would allow the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force in
Darfur. The Government also agreed with the United Nations
to improve access to Darfur for humanitarian aid groups. The
announcement was made at the Arab League Summit in Riyadh after
deliberations among the Sudanese Government, United Nations
Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, African Union Chairperson, Alpha
Ouma Konare, Arab League Chairperson, Amr Moussa, Saudi Arabian
King Abdullah, and Kenyan President, Mwai Kibaki. President
al-Bashir reiterated that his Government rejected the UN plan
as an attempt to restore colonial rule, but, but he added, it
welcomed UN support for the ill-equipped AU forces.
The
United States responded to the announcement stating, “We are
very skeptical that Bashir has agreed to any such thing. We
must see the fine print.” The United States also stated that
it would, in fact, “tighten the screws” with “fresh measures
in a few days". Those actions might include additional
restrictions on dollar transfers, and extending further travel
restrictions on Sudanese Government officials. Bush Administration
officials also stated the United States would rebuild the Sudanese
Peoples Army in southern Sudan. Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ali
Karti, in response to the United States statement, declared:
“Sanctions are not new, they have been using sanctions as a
weapon for years. They will not change anything and we will
just go on. It is just unfortunate that instead of being positive
at a time when we are trying to reach a comprehensive peace
they [the United States] are talking about negative steps. This
will only hurt our efforts.”
The
Sudanese decision to cooperate with the United Nations appears
to be an effort to blunt the United States confrontation with
the National Congress Party Government. It also seems to be
an attempt by the Arab League, the African Union, and the United
Nations to diffuse tensions between the United States and Sudan
and to seriously address the mounting humanitarian crisis in
Darfur.
Despite
the sincerity of many Darfur humanitarian activists and international
aid workers, the “Save Darfur” movement obviously complements
closely United States foreign policy objectives. Relative to
Sudan, the United States would like to see the current regime
ousted and a client-regime put in its place. Certainly, the
Sudanese Government has committed serious human rights abuses.
However, its major “crime", from the standpoint of the
United States, is that it is an Islamic regime that has pursued
an independent nationalist position. This means that it has
been unwilling: