It is happening again. In Darfur, scene of a genocide that killed 300,000 people and displaced millions 20 years ago, armed militias are on the rampage once more. Now, as then, they are targeting ethnic African tribes, murdering, raping and stealing with impunity.
“They” are nomadic, ethnic Arab raiders, the much-feared “devils on horseback” — except now they ride in trucks. They are called the Janjaweed, and they are back.
How is it possible such horrors can be repeated? The world condemned the 2003 slaughter. The UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigated. Former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity along with his principal allies. The trial of one suspect, known as Ali Kushayb, opened last year. Yet al-Bashir and the guilty have evaded justice so far.
Illustration: mountain people
It is a familiar story. Throughout history, genocide, the most heinous of crimes, has often gone unpunished. The UN’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defined it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” It is universally proscribed. States are legally bound to prevent it. Yet there is a tendency to look away. In Xinjiang, Myanmar and elsewhere, the convention’s “odious scourge” rages unchecked.
For its part, Sudan goes from bad to worse. The Janjaweed are allied to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — paramilitaries warring with the army for control of the country. RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemedti, was a Janjaweed leader in 2003. Like others, he has never faced justice.
The UN warns with growing urgency that “crimes against humanity” are being committed in Darfur. It seems only too obvious where this is headed.
Genocide, typically, is a “never again” event. So terrible and long-lasting are its effects that survivors insist it cannot ever be repeated. The Holocaust — the murder of 6 million European Jews by Nazi Germany — is the supreme, modern example of genocidal evil. Yet even that abomination has not dispelled a more general amnesia (or deliberate forgetting) about the past, nor deterred present-day emulators.
“Never again” never works.
The denial of recognition and justice to genocide’s historical victims helps explain today’s political and moral blind spots. In a powerful essay in the New York Review of Books last month, Ed Vulliamy, a former Guardian and Observer Bosnian war correspondent, highlights one such case of “invisibility”: the 19th-century drive to exterminate California’s Native American tribes.
“They were totally deprived of land rights. They were ... treated as wild animals, shot on sight ... enslaved and worked to death... Their life was outlawed and their whole existence was condemned,” an official report later said.
Nowhere were efforts to destroy indigenous peoples’ lives and culture more “methodically savage” than in California, Vulliamy wrote.
Yet who remembers now? Who even knew?
To his credit, California Governor Gavin Newsom has sponsored the California Truth and Healing Council to collect descendants’ testimony and formulate proposals for recognition, recompense and restorative justice.
Newsom is clear about what happened.
“It’s called genocide... No other way to describe it,” he said when setting up the council.
Such candor is rare.
Most European states, Britain especially, formerly exhibited genocidal tendencies. Australia, too.
The genocide of the Herero, Nama and other indigenous peoples by early 20th-century German settlers in what is now Namibia is another instance of obliterated history recently brought painfully to light. Thousands were machine-gunned by the colonists. Pornographic photographs of sexually abused women were sent home as postcards. Foreshadowing Nazi atrocities, macabre medical experiments were conducted on prisoners.
In 2021, a belatedly apologetic Germany agreed reparations with Namibia’s government, but the deal is on hold. Victims’ groups object, saying they were not consulted. As in other historical genocides, like that suffered by Ottoman-era Armenians in 1915-17, facts are disputed, responsibility is repudiated and reconciliation remains elusive. Referred pain is just too powerful.
Genocide prosecutions make gradual advances. Last week, a court in Paris jailed for life a Rwandan military police officer, Philippe Hategekimana, for his role in the slaughter of 800,000 people, mostly minority ethnic Tutsis, in 1994. Following the Bosnian war, former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leaders, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, were tried for genocide.
However, national courts in Germany and France exercising “universal jurisdiction,” the much-undermined ICC (the US, Russia and China reject its authority), special courts (as in Sierra Leone) and ad hoc, Yugoslavia-style international tribunals, such as that urged for Ukraine, are struggling to keep up with the sheer scale of atrocious behavior around the world.
Why, for example, is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad not prosecuted for attempted genocide of Kurdish and Sunni groups under the terms of the 1948 convention? Russian President Vladimir Putin should surely face similar action over Ukraine — in addition to the ICC’s war crimes warrant. Last week’s pizza restaurant bombing in Kramatorsk could be exhibit A, although in truth there are not enough letters in the alphabet to list all Putin’s crimes.
Treating genocide as a rare, usually historical occurrence is nonsense. It is happening today in Darfur. It is happening in Myanmar, where minority Rohingyas are persecuted and displaced by a vicious military junta. It is happening in China with the documented mass detention, forced labor, involuntary sterilization, family separation and religious persecution of Uighurs in Xinjiang.
As the US government says, such cruelty exactly fits the definition of genocide with intent. So why not indict Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)? The UN Human Rights Council’s shameful vote to ignore its own damning Xinjiang investigation shows why this suggestion is impractical to the point of absurdity. It shows the depth of the problem with genocide denialism that the world still faces.
It is why impunity rules. It is why the killers keep killing. It is why the Janjaweed ride again.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS