The Sudanese government is committing ethnic cleansing in Darfur. HRW says here :
"The government of Sudan is responsible for 'ethnic cleansing' and crimes against humanity in Darfur, one of the world's poorest and most inaccessible regions, on Sudan's western border with Chad. The Sudanese government and the Arab 'Janjaweed' militias it arms and supports have committed numerous attacks on the civilian populations of the African Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. Government forces oversaw and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians, including women and children, burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land long inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. The Janjaweed militias, Muslim like the African groups they attack, have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders, and desecrated Qorans belonging to their enemies."

Medical charity�Medecins Sans Frontieres�warned yesterday that the entire population of Sudan's western Darfur region�, about�6 million people�, was "teetering on the verge of mass starvation."

The Bush administration has taken steps that facilitate the flow of arms to Sudan. The Chicago Tribune noted: "Secretary of State Colin Powell removed Sudan from a list of countries that cannot receive U.S. arms because they have failed to cooperate with the U.S. on international terrorism."

I was first learnt of this through Nicholas Kristof's series of articles in the New York Times. If I remember correctly, his opinion was that the ethnic cleansing in Darfur could be stopped by bringing international pressure to bear upon the government of Sudan.

Subsequently, the US did take a few steps to raise this issue in the U.N. Also, 3 weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that "Sudan was elected Tuesday to serve a three-year term on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, provoking a walkout by a senior U.S. diplomat who accused the government of helping to drive more than a million African villagers from their homes in Sudan's Darfur province. "

All these US gestures are meaningless Public Relation gestures and far from sufficient, since by its actions, the US government has made it clear that it doesnt care.

What is shocking however is the response of the large activist movements all over the world. They have been silent. To take a single example, the only article on the issue on the Zmag page is a reprint from an Independent article. Apparently, activists dont care much either.

Steve Sachs argues that:
" To my mind, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that the movements' attention is simply not engaged by violence that fails to fit a certain profile, that can't be told in a familiar anti-colonial narrative; that if innocent people are being murdered, the identity of the perpetrators is the most significant factor in whether it will be opposed."

A few qualifications need to be made, though I am going to basically agree with the viewpoint above.

First, the Crisis in Sudan is a result of poverty that is perpetuated and exacerbated by the economic system we live in and historically a result of imperialism. In 1999, it became possible to extract Oil from the Oil Reserves discovered in southern Sudan. Salivating Corporations jumped at the opportunity and in an effort to ensure 'security' for them the government started killing the troublemaking local population[which made the ludicrous demand that oil in their area should be used for their benefit]. A number of companies are involved in this -- Talisman of Canada and it partners - Petronas Nasional Berhad of Malaysia (Petronas) and the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC). Also, somewhat surprisingly, ONGC[Oil and Natural Gas Corporation] of India. See the Human Rights Watch report on Sudan: Rebels, Religion and Oil

Second, recall that in 1998 Bill Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Possibly, tens of thousands of people have died as a result of this act. Of course, when the world's major superpower commits an act like this, any infantile excuse 'There was an Al-Queda Link', will suffice and no reparations need be made.

The devastation of Central and South Africa shows us the savagery of our economic and political system and I am reminded of what Marx said:

"The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, moving from its home, where it assumes respectable form, to the colonies, where it goes naked" (Karl Marx, "The Future Results of British Rule in India," New York Daily Tribune, January 22, 1853).

Since a lasting solution to these crises can only come from a lasting struggle against imperialism and capitalism, the anti-war movement and the anti-globalization movement are of tremendous importance not only in regard to Iraq but in regard to the AIDS crisis and Sudan and India...

A final qualification is that the activist movement is still at a stage where its outlook is shaped by the mainstream media. The coverage of the crisis in Darfur has been quite marginal ... the BBC ran a few sub-leading stories on its site yesterday, Kristof wrote a few articles several weeks ago and the New York Times followed it up a bit, the Independent ran a few stories but compared to say ... the war in Iraq, or even Palestine ... the media has ignored the issue.

Nevertheless I agree with Steve Sachs above. The ethnocentric discourse in the West is based on fairly flimsy grounds ... a lot of the glorious history has little basis in reality. Many cultural and scientific advances were borrowed from other culture[Black Athena: Martin Bernal(for a single example)] and the violence that colonialism wreaked on the world is quite unparalleled as are the disparities it created[hence all comparisons to the Persian Empire can only arise from illiteracy]. The US has a rich history of committing genocide[from the native Americans to Vietnam] and its actions all over the world[from supporting genocide in East Timor to counter-revolution in Chile] have had huge deleterious impacts.

However, we must remember that the British ruled India with the help of the Indian elite. They share the blame for the deindustrialisation and the savaging of the country. Exploitation continues in India and will not end till this elite is overthrown in a social revolution.

So, apart from not being engaged by violence that does not follow a standard colonial narrative, the colonial narrative that the activist movement uses is itself highly simplistic. It often absolves the native elite of its crimes.

This is a tendency that I have tried to comment on before with regard to Palestine. Israel's actions in the region are brutal, indefensible and murderous. It would take a genius to believe the Israeli rhetoric about 'security' ... clearly the Israeli army is out to crush the Palestinians and take away their land. Israel is inherently a racist state and any just(as opposed to practical) solution would involve a binational state.

Nevertheless, what about Cairo and the thousands of people who die in Egypt as a result of the actions of the Egyptian elite[and the great man: Hosni Mubarak]. Why does this not arouse the same indignation and fury?

I think this is because large sections of the activist movement accept a cultural discourse based on 'identity'. There is more to be said on this -- and perhaps, I'll say that in another post -- but I'm coming around to the viewpoint that many socialists who I would accuse of being insensitive to identity are in fact taking the only consistent stand possible.