This week, students will participate in Mighty Mic, a campaign to educate the campus community about genocide. The student activists organizing this campaign have put together a comprehensive program that includes concerts, film screenings and educational symposiums.
Unfortunately, commentary published last week in the Daily Bruin by Tristan Reed (“”˜Genocide’ term may be detrimental,” May 21) unfairly demeans the heroic actions of these student activists by evincing a poor understanding of the concept of genocide and misrepresenting the actors involved in the Darfur crisis.
Darfur is defined as a genocide because the government of Sudan, through its military and proxy militias called the Janjaweed, has targeted people on the basis of their identity.
They have used brutal forms of violence, including rape, murder and the destruction of property, not to target rebels but rather to wipe out entire ethnic groups, primarily the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit. These facts must be discerned over and above the complexities of the conflict and history of Darfur. This is not to say that the complexities are not present, but contrary to Reed’s position, complexities and genocide can actually be concurrent.
Reed assumes that genocide cannot exist alongside civil war, but this is almost never the case.
For example, look at the Rwandan genocide. The Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front fought a civil war against the Hutu-dominated government, which committed the genocide in the context of the war. In fact, it was only the victory of the RPF that ended the genocide.
Just as in Darfur, war crimes were committed by all parties, but this does not obscure the fact that a genocide was carried out against innocent Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Reed incorrectly assumes that a “reasonable” government is incapable of genocide. The Sudanese government is calculating and intelligent, desperately seeking to hang on to power and control of Sudan’s precious resources. People who carry out genocide do not foam at the mouth and wear signs; they wear suits (e.g. Adolf Eichmann) and military uniforms.
Reed states that activists believe the rebels are “unambiguously righteous” and that “armed intervention” is the activist solution to Darfur. This is incorrect on both accounts.
Most activists, including those at UCLA, are vigorously critical of the rebels and their failure to participate in peace talks. In fact, the documentary Darfur Now, which will be screened tonight, was filmed with the permission of the Sudanese government, which provided access to the rebels and was in turn provided with a chance to present its position in the film.
Furthermore, the student activists at UCLA do not advocate for armed intervention in Darfur. They have been pushing for peaceful negotiations, targeted sanctions and a UN protection force.
It is problematic when anyone ““ journalist, academic, politician or activist ““ oversimplifies complex situations such as the Darfur crisis. But too often, the same categories of people have used complexity as an excuse for inaction.
This week, students across UCLA will learn about the complexities of genocide and responsible ways to address the crisis in Darfur. Reed should consider attending.
Adam Sterling is a UCLA alumnus and the director of the Sudan Divestment Task Force, a project of the Genocide Intervention Network. John Prendergast is co-chair of the ENOUGH Project, a project to end genocide and crimes against humanity.