Monday, January 5, 2015

The general in his labyrinth or should I say denial?



I have written this article in response to the interview of the Sudanese President with Kevin Sieff of the Washington Post published on December 23, 2014. My response was published in Sudan Tribune, on January 5, 2015.
First of all, I should congratulate Kevin Sieff not only for  having the opportunity to meet with our bloodthirsty President , but also for escaping the fate hovering over most journalists in Sudan i.e. detention and intimidation.  I hope he makes it safe after all; you cannot trust the Sudanese government, that I know for certain.




The online edition of the interview welcomes the reader with a photo of the Sudanese President, Omer Al-Bashir, smiling sheepishly with wandering eyes that are not directed at the camera.  I went back to photo after reading the interview and I reckon that his evasive look suits the fallacy he had told in the interview.
What is intriguing about this interview is that the President bluntly told sated lies and artlessly twisted facts.  He was deeply indulged in self-victimization and blamed all his victims for their own misery.  It was the Southerners Sudanese who did not fulfil their end of the CPA agreement, the Darfurian refugees who like the easy life in camps and do not want return to their intact homes, Rapid Support Forces existence is a military necessity and a product of asymmetric conflict with fluid rebels, and finally Sep 2013 demonstrators were terrorists and the government was forced to react.
I must admit that I admired how much the President tried not to use his usual jingoistic slur he generously offers in Sudanese media.   But I wished if he had shared his genius conclusion he recently claimed that Sudan Call is orchestrated by the CIA and Mossad, who are instigating Sudanese political oppositions' dissention from the government-sponsored national dialogue.  The President assured the interviewer of the oppositions' soon return to the government national dialogue, although his security forces detained two significant signatories of Sudan Call, Chairman of the opposition National Consensus Forces Faruq Abu Issa Abu Issa and Amin Makki Madani .
So, let's take a look at the black comedy play our president staged on Washington Post pages:
Nonsense # 1: UNAMID Is Not Needed, Darfur is Safe Now

Cartoon by Sudanese cartoonist Nayer 
My nonsense tally is not in order of the questions the President had answered but rather based on relevance to current affairs.  Therefore, I will start with the  answers he gave in the third question about demanding the depart of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Sudan has taken a habit in disrespecting the international community every time it feels cornered. It was first UNAMID Human Rights Office in Khartoum, and then  expelled two senior U.N. officials on Dec 24, one day after the Washington Post interview was published.  
As for the claims that UNAMID is incapable of providing protection, Mr. President seems to act as if he is not an integral part of the conflict that necessitated the presence of UNAMID, and limiting its ability at the same time.  Albeit our criticism of UNAMID performance, we cannot turn a blind eye to the governance lack of respect of the UNAMID’s mandate or its rule.  The government decision to evict UNAMID is part of its ongoing attitude towards conflicts. Prolonging them.
Mr. President yet gave a false statement about the peace process in the region and claimed that the peaceful areas in Darfur are expanding.  The President, who expressed his concerns about the Internally Displaced People IDPs, did not know that they are not only hundreds of thousands.  As of December 2013, and according to the UN, there are  2.9 million IDPs in Sudan. Mr. President, please check your facts.  
And Mr. President cannot actually understand that IDPs are not migrating birds and their transition from IDP camps to their villages is not a picnic or enjoyable road trip. Those IDPs, whom the President accused of loving ‘easy life in camps’ and aid dependent, actually have no place to return to, and their villages are burnt down with no sign of any public services.   Many refugees in Chad,  had taken then step voluntarily to return, as they did in 2012, only to lose once again what they had hoped for: peace, and they went back to Chad in influx that the international community still dealing with its ramifications.  Let’s assume that today all IDPs repatriated to their homes, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically assume that their houses are still standing.  How easy it is for war survivals to return to normal life? what about the trauma? what about the economic well-being and rebuilding? What guaranties that catalysts for the past conflicts are now resolved? For one, the governance style has not change.
The President lightheartedly said “they went back and it was safe and they farmed their lands.” I wish life was that simple Mr. President. IDPs returnees, if we were to shake a magical wand and return them to their homes, won’t find the ability to farm or the sense of security to do so. And farming takes more than a man and fertile soil.
Nonsense #2: September 2013: We Only Killed 80 People, Not 200
As for September 2013, the President blamed the victims, as usual.  First, he dehumanized the victims and shortened them to numbers, by referring to them as “number of people who died.” “Who died”?  They were killed.  Using the past tense "died" suggests that those armless protesters died of natural causes not police intentional "shoot to kill" conduct.   He was so fixated on the correcting the number more than answering the way in which those number were counted as causalities.   When finally he decided to answer the question of their dead circumstance, he claimed that the 80 people who 'died', died of their clashes with the police.   This what the president is promoting in his self-victimization campaign: Unarmed people lost their mind and clashed with heavily armed police. They attacked the police therefore they deserves to meet their demise for trying. I am relieved he did not say they were high or stoned to justify his allegations. The interesting thing is that he pictured the demonstration as a scene in a si-fi movie. Demonstrators attack police stations and courts.  All courts mind you in Khartoum. But only 80 died? how many courts and police stations do you have in your capital Mr. President? The President went on claiming that the “people who died” killed people and destroyed property with no mention of number of victims as he was very meticulous about the number of demonstrators “who died.”
Another fascinating analogy the President made is comparing Sudan with the U.S. The funnier analogy was describing the demonstrators as terrorists, who are Qaeda ally, which is quite interesting if we reflect on the reasons that put Sudan on U.S. sanctions list in the first place.
Nonsense # 3: Sudan-South Sudan Conflict is Patrimonial
Answering a question about the impact of the American sanctions on Sudan, the president answered another question he heard in his head.  The question specifically asked about the impact of U.S. sanctions on Sudanese people and Sudan’s economy.  The answer had no mentioned of Sudan people or their economic well-being for the matter.
Al-Bashir claimed that lifting sanctions was contingent to ending war with the South, which he thinks had been delivered. Nevertheless, the president got touched by a historical fairy and said that the conflict actually, which he just claimed ending it with diligence and willing to compromise, tracks back to the mists of time for which he blamed the British Colonization. First of all Mr. President, Sudan-South Sudan conflict might had been inherited from colonization, but all consecutive governments reproduce the same tactics of exclusions. The two decades wars during your reign were international and ideological. The South war and the ramifications of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and its ramifications in form of the South Sudan independence in 2011, fulfilled the Sudanese government's quest for “purging” the country from all aspects of diversity, in race or religion. Evidently, you, Mr. President, wanted the secession to happen.  Demanding lifting sanctions in return for what in fact serves your ideological goals, is dishonest and distortion of truth.
Nonsense # 4: We delivered peace, therefore, we should be rewarded
Answering the same question about the sanction, the president  went on in lamentation about how the U.S. had tricked them into signing many agreements to end conflicts with the promise of lifting the sanctions. I am not sure if the president has a PR person or someone sensible to advise him on how to portray himself.  All I know is that argument made him sound like a toddler mad at his teacher for denying him his perks for not cleaning his desk.  It is your desk. You made it dirty. Take reasonability.  Hello?! Mr. President, you should not demand or need an incentive to end conflicts you have started and fueled for years. Period. Get over yourself.  Conflict in Darfur had been, and still is, a pressuring  card for the Sudanese regime. It is money-generating conflict in which the governments keep reselling to different stakeholders for different prices.  So, Mr. President, please!
Nonsense # 5: When Revenge Is Actually not a Revenge at All
Do we remember the question about the sanctions' impact on Sudan’s people and the country’s economy that the president turned it into tears bond on unfulfilled promises? Here how he concluded his irrelevant answer, which I consider a masterpiece and indicative of the political and intellectual capacities, or the lack thereof, of our President:
"And, of course, we need to see very clearly the loss incurred on the United States by the economic influence of china. It is a loss. That’s why we say the sanctions hurt us. But they also hurt the United States."
Amazing! Right? How could the president think that he made the U.S. tastes it's own poison, and that Sudan and  inflicted any economic losses on America by establishing a partnership with the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt i.e. China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt.
There is much more to this interview than what an op-ed could handle. But I hope the facts are checked and people get to hear the many sides to the story.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Racism in Sudan: The Elephant in the Room



Reading  "Americanah" by  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie prompted me to write this blog. If you hadn't read it, please do so! **

________

Since my move to the U.S. in early 2012, the issue of race has always been present.  I hear it in radio/TV talk shows, stand-up comedies, movies, grad school classes, and open mike events. I read it in newspapers and books, and it is always present when Obama’s name comes up. I have walked in several marches pertinent to police cruelty against black and listened to African-American speakers sharing their thoughts and demanding change. But does that make America a better place now for blacks or colored people? of course not, and indeed there is much more to be done.  But at least the topic is not a taboo or avoided by the colored themselves.  Social change is a process not a destination.  We become what we aspire for as we proceed. So you find “race” right there front and center wherever you find a black person, even if many would like this topic to be left behind in the past.  But people still do talk about race and racism, and the discussion should never stop. Never. Otherwise, laws, and people could easily slack and go back to the world of white supremacy.


Sugarcoating: Is it racism or tribalism in Sudan? 


The first sign that this topic is a taboo in sudan is that it is not called in its real name.  It is mitigated and called  gablia قبيلية  [Arabic for tribalism]. While tribalism is indeed a toxic ingredient that jeopardizes social harmony and social justice,  it is not the same as racism or Arab supremacy in Sudan.  Why? Because tribal characteristics of Arab tribes, albeit their difference, at the end of the end of the day, they collectively, triumph over African tribes. And this is the case in Sudan.  Jaalai [ جعلي] and Sahigi  [شايقي] might scuffle about each one's avarice or  temerity stereotypes,  but they are still considered awlad Arab اولاد عرب [Arabic for Arabians], which has positive connotation  thus spontaneously place them on the top of social hierarchy compared to those less Arabs.



Illusion



By Sudanese cartoonist KhalidAlbaih [1]

I often hear people say that old Sudanese people were never racist.  Or that they if they were racist, they never explicitly acted on their racism. That people were race-blind so to speak.  I find it hard to believe that race was not an issue until the current government came to power.  Or that racism in Sudan is just another manifestation of the present global wave of tribalism.  Nor that I think the government is innocent of instigating differences along racial lines.  But I rather suggest that the regime is using what is already latent and implicit within the social setting.  Racism, prejudice, and the notion of Arab supremacy do/did exist in Sudan.  Why am I so fixated on saying that we are racist? Because you cannot tackle what you think it doesn’t exist. So, first we need to admit the existence of racism to be able to embark on a journey to find its root, and to address it eventually.


Race has always been an issue in Sudan, and it will also be as long as Sudanese people are in limbo about their Africanism.  Race was always there, but we try to sweep it under the carpet.  If you need to know how race is significant in our collective conscious, please read the history of slavery in Sudan, and it  might shed light  on this reality.  

Reading kitab al tabagt by daifallah [2] طبقات ود  ضيف الله,  one would find profuse contents to get a feel of the presence of race long before the creation of the modern state in Sudan.  In page 108 of the fifth edition, the biography of one of the scholars indicates that his mother was Sudnaia سودانية, which was explained in the footnote that the name was the prevalent references for the indigenous people of the land i.e. the blacks. Two things caught my attention: one, the maternal lineages gained significant due to its ties to negro race. I did not find another reference in the book that mentioned a mother from the Arabian background. Two: the origin of the country's name "Sudan" should had given supremacy to the black race since they are the indigenous, but this is not the case as we all know.

Avoidance


I rarely heard any candid  discussion about race or racism among Sudanese.  Those who are on the receiving end of prejudice prefer not to talk about it with the racially-charged knowing how sour the conversation could go. In more than one occasion, I was in social settings where the Arabized Northerners entertained light discussions form the position of the privileged, charged with more vanity than sympathy. They share anecdotes of so and so marrying form the “others” and how they see it as an indication of the collapse of racial barriers. I usually do not fancy telling them that this is an oversimplification of racial issues in Sudan. Intermarriage could be a result of socioeconomic reconfiguration not the ebbing of racism.     

Sometime it seems to me that people resorted to unspoken codes of race/class classifications, of who is who, and who belongs where. The privileged enjoy their privileges and those in the lower ranks of social hierarchy either accepted their position and admired the inherent  privileges the privileges enjoy, or resented the unfair racial compartmentalization, however, they still could not change it.  

Can we change it?


Changing the perception of race and prejudice works in multiple levels and dimensions. First, it requires a state that is not a patronage system. Because a patronage system needs social classification to sustain loyalty, therefore, it enacts adequate regulations to keep a tap on who belongs to what. Also, fear is necessary for people to endure a corrupt regime. What is best than making one fear the “other” whose image is systematically portrayed as an inferior and ambush to attack his master? Second, changing perception of race needs a change in power dynamics, which cannot be accomplished under totalitarian control. Third, racism should not be treated as a myth, it needs to be brought up and disarmed. There should be enough foundation of deep understanding of what racism means and its impacts on people’s live. Racism is not only calling someone A’ab عب [Arabic for slave]. Racism is thinking that some’s life is not as worthy as yours.  Whatever that entails, including the right to “be” free of prejudgment and limitation to power or opportunities based on race.

I am always delighted when the topic of racism is brought up in a cognitive context for it makes people relate.  Recently,  youth started to bring those topics up in poetry or on stage.  It is a good start to build the foundation of understanding although  the privileged indeed opt to look the other way when the word onsoriah عُنصرية [Arabic for racism] peeks its head in conversations.  

________



** It was hard for me to finish the novel in one week due its richness in topics and its complex plot.  While the topic I will highlight in this blog is race, I was moved by other aspects the writer brought up about what African women face when they come to the U.S.: sexuality, identity, African-American v.s American form Africa, belonging, fitting, interracial relationships, and redefining oneself, among other issues.  Maybe I will get to write about those issues someday!

[1] Two Sudanese people calling one another 3ab (Slave or black)  -  by KhalidAlbaih

[2] The author of the book, Mohamed Alnour bin DaifAllha  said to be born in 1727 and died in 1810. The book is considered one of the major primary references to the Fung Sultanate, (also known as the  Black Sultanate). The book was aimed to be an encyclopedia of religious scholars of that era.