Yes or no? To tell you the truth, I don't know either way, as I explained before.
From my reading of various articles on the subject, Arab and/or Muslim sources seem to take various views, perhaps according to different levels of information on the conflict, and certainly due to different biases.
There is one "faction", as it were, that utterly distrusts anything that comes out of the US, including their "human rights industry" (as the Sudan government has labelled them recently). I cannot blame them.
Secondly, a widespread ignorance -- even among Arabs -- on goings-on in Darfur is cited as reason for "Arab silence":
>>Weeping Darfur: The Tragic Saga of Skin and Bones
By Lamya Tawfik, 31/05/2004
...
In an open letter directed to Arab leaders published on May 19 on Sudaneseonline.com, intellectuals from Darfur questioned Arab silence, drawing resemblance to situations in Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, Bosnia and the Gujarat in India adding: “Muslims in all these places are being killed and no one in any Arab or Islamic country does anything positive until Allah makes the non-Muslims move to their rescue.” <16>
“The Arab World is always silent, as in the case of what is happening in Palestine and Iraq ! The Arab relief organizations have started to move (e.g. United Arab Emirates and Kuwait) after the UN Humanitarian Committee sent an appeal to those organizations to provide help,” said Mustafa.
The reason behind the Arab world’s silence, according to Adam, is that people in those countries “know very little about Sudan let alone about Darfur and consequently they believe in the misleading information which the Sudanese Government agencies present. Moreover, the culture of NGOs and civil society is not fully-grown in the Arab world and therefore the absence of Arab relief organizations from Darfur is based on the lack of such culture.”<<
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2004/05/article11.shtmlSee also this reader's comment at the site (a very interesting point of view with a few hints as to whence the astounding and sudden Western attention and interest in this conflict derives).
http://www.islamonline.net/Discussion/English/bbs.asp?aParID=357965&aTpID=&aGroupID=68682&action=move&aPathID=242&aSubject=Peace+At+Last+In+Our+Beloved+SudanThird, I have found quite frequently a sort of "measured" response that speaks of a human tragedy -- but stops short of concurring with the loaded language in the flurry of recent US and European news reports, and especially with their calls for foreign intervention.
Says, for instance, Sudan's key opposition leader Sadiq al-Mahdi, leader of the Umma party (I guess that qualifies as Islamic leader?) whose administration was overthrown in 1989 by the present government and who returned from political exile in the late 1990s:
>>Causes bedeviling the Darfur problem are known, with the major ones manifested in the development gap, conflict over resources between nomadic and settled tribes following the drought that hit the region, in addition to tribal and intertribal conflicts and non-availability of basic health and education services.
Added to that, the civil war in Chad culminated in the emergence of armed robbery in the region. The incumbent government policies also had their negative effect on the situation. Attempts by Dr. Ali Al Haj, who was assigned the affairs of the region, to establish a political base for the government there led him to be antagonistic to major forces and tribes, hence harming the social fabric without succeeding to achieve his goal.
Secondly, a few number of Arab youth received military training to counter the activities of the people's army. Members from non-Sudanese Arab tribes joined them, forming an elitist group whose activity was seen as of a military nature.
Groups opposed to this group looked at the government as their real enemy because of its support to it, and as a result, the former began launching subversive activities. To quell these activities, Government gave support to the first group, hence a state of polarization prevailed to finally culminate in human tragedies which drew the attention of the outside world. Several foreign delegations that visited the region saw for themselves these tragedies.
The Fur who fled to Chad spoke to foreign media agencies about the tragedies in the region and so attracted the concern of international public opinion. Under the circumstances, the American administration openly held the Sudan Government responsible for these tragedies, warning if intervention of the conflict was not ended.
In addition to this limited internationalization of the problem, broad and armed intervention has become relevant. In the face of this situation, we believe that armed intervention is wrong and will have negative effects. Urgent moves should be made to address the problem through the two following scenarios.
First, an administrative reform by assigning the administration of the region to trusted national figures to give the impression that change has been made.
Second: firm investigation of the wrongs committed and holding accountable those who committed them
Third: ceasing aggression on civilians
Fourth: Guarantee of flow of abundant relief to conflict-affected-people.
These, in my opinion, are the necessary measures to be taken, coupled with commitment to ceasefire under African Union on monitoring teams.<<
http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/296.shtml
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
