Author: Tim

Posted on

Despite violence Kenya is non-genocidal

As the violence in Kenya continues to spiral and various media outlets are murmuring about a possible genocide on the horizon, the second of two Kenyan MPs has been shot. The first, Mugabe Were, was shot earlier this week in a suburb of Nairobi, while yesterday David Kimutai Too (both from the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM)) was gunned down by a traffic cop in the town of Eldoret.

This latest killing has brought former Kofi Annan’s newly brokered political talks to a halt.

The latest killing was a setback for Annan’s peacemaking efforts. Six negotiators – three representing Kibaki and three representing the opposition leader, Raila Odinga – had met in the morning before postponing an afternoon session.

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, may also intervene by visiting Kenya tomorrow, according to diplomatic sources. Ban, who is in Ethiopia for an African Union summit, would support Annan’s efforts.

Odinga has said he wants a new election, while Kibaki has made clear he will not negotiate his position as president. Annan has said it could take a month to resolve the immediate dispute, and a year to deal with long-standing ethnic animosities and land disputes that have fed the violence.

While many of those who are watching the violence unfold have been likening this escalation to Rwanda, it’s important to note that the differences between the two countries are vivid enough as to put the immediate threat of genocide on the back burner. Even though the underlying animosity that’s fueling such widespread outbreaks is due to a disparity of land in a post-colonial African nation, the salient detail to watch is how the rest of the population is reacting.

As Voice of America was reporting this morning:

Kenyans have unanimously demanded an end to escalating violence sparked by the December 27 disputed elections. A group comprising civil society and ordinary Kenyans from all ethnicities gathered in the capital Nairobi Wednesday to express their dissatisfaction with the ongoing violence, which is blamed for a loss of lives and property and is threatening the country’s stability. The demonstrators also demanded that opposition leader Raila Odinga and embattled President Mwai Kibaki find a solution to the elections dispute as they continue with negotiations mediated by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

It’s this reaction — demonstrations against violence — which is markedly different from the escalation of violence in 1994 Rwanda or the on-going crisis in Darfur.

Posted on

Rwandan teachers suspended

Following Rwanda’s recent report that a “genocide ideology” was permeating the public school system, the Minister of Education has suspended 50 teachers who may be responsible.

“According to official sources, the Minister of Education Jeanne d’Arc Mujawamariya last week suspended 50 or so head teachers, teachers and curriculum developers accused of facilitating the ‘ideology of genocide’ in their establishments,” Liprodhor indicated on its website.

Almost 15 years later, anti-Tutsi messages stemming from the education system were still being unearthed.

“Tutsis are snakes, we’re sick of them and we will kill them,” reads a copybook taken from Mataba secondary school in Province du Nord.

Even though the parliamentary committee was unsatisfied with Minister Mujawamariya’s explanation for the earlier report, they have yet to schedule a follow-up session on the 400 page document.

Posted on

Candidate positions on genocide

With the primary season in full swing, I thought it might be helpful to revisit the various candidates and see what they have to say about Darfur, genocide, and Africa.

Clinton

Edwards

McCain

Obama

Giuliani
(No video)

Giuliani has said the United States should focus its policy toward Africa on increases in trade. “U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty,” he wrote in a September 2007 Foreign Affairs article. In that article, Giuliani also said the next president “should continue the Bush administration’s effort to help Africa overcome AIDS and malaria.”

In May 2007, Giuliani was informed that he held between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in companies that work in Sudan. His campaign spokesperson did not say whether he would be divesting (AP) from those companies.

Huckabee
(No video)

Huckabee has not made many public statements relating to U.S. policy toward Africa. His stance on U.S.action in Darfur is unknown. He has said foreign aid (Time) “should be limited to purely humanitarian efforts.”

Romney
(No video)

Romney’s positions on policy issues toward African countries are not well known. In a July 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Romney praised U2 singer Bono and other activists for their efforts to raise awareness of poverty in Africa and elsewhere. Romney said U.S. efforts to bolster the standing of moderate Muslims abroad by combating poverty and underdevelopment should be focused in Africa as well as the Middle East.

The Los Angeles Times reported on August 14, 2007, that Romney has investments in an oil company tied to the Sudanese government, which is accused of being partially responsible for the massacres in Darfur. Romney’s campaign spokesman told the Times that Romney’s attorney controls his investments and that he “had no influence over how his investments were handled.” His spokesman did not say whether Romney would divest these funds.

All position statements were drawn from the Council on Foreign Relations.

Posted on

Climate change excuses genocide?

Fred Pearce has an interesting article in the Telegraph about a trend in using climate change as an excuse for genocide.

Climate change is being used as “a convenient excuse for wars, violence, conflict and bigotry brought on by migration,” says Mike Hulme, until recently director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich.

As for the supposed helplessness of the Sudanese government in Darfur, Jan Pronk, the UN head of mission in Darfur, puts it this way: “Khartoum is booming on oil, but not a dinar is being spent on water or health care in Darfur.”

While Pearce correctly points out that the use of such explanations frequently lead to diplomatic laissez-faire attitudes, he doesn’t dig deep enough to uncover the kernel of truth that lies beneath such overly simplified statements. Darfur, to use his own example, has its roots in a massive drought that struck in the 1980s and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

It was this event, probably more than any other, that set the wheels of the current conflict in motion. As so many people were dying with little help from their capital, the residents of the region began to feel disenfranchised, which only worsened as the war between Khartoum and the South continued, creating the very real impression that the government cared little for the people of Darfur.

The simple truth is that climate change (or more accurately, unexpected climate shifts or collapses) is certainly one factor that may contribute to an outbreak of genocide. The violence itself, however, is almost always rooted in a clash of cultural ideals and misguided ideologies.

Posted on

Bush signs divestment bill (sort of)

With the unanimous votes of both chambers of Congress, the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act reached President Bush’s desk and was signed into law this week. Not surprisingly, the final document wound up with a signing statement attached to it:

…in which he said he was reserving the authority to overrule state and local divestment decisions if they conflicted with foreign policy. The statement said the measure “risks being interpreted as insulating” state and local divestment actions from federal oversight.

I realize the Executive Branch is often dealing with complex laws, but worrying over “insulating” legislative action, particularly with regards to such a minor proposal, is a rather blatant nod of contrition to the fact that we enjoy being stuck in a policy quagmire when it comes to dealing with acts of genocide.