The tragedy of Darfur is and will remain a deep scar for years to come. The causes and roots of the conflict are, however, complex and intertwined. This is why many of us are baffled by the oversimplified and misleading portrayal of the conflict between Arabs and black Africans.
One of the tools of the anti-Sudan campaign has been to call for “divestment” from companies dealing with Sudan. But the recent proposal presented to the regents of the University of California, calling for divestment from Sudan (to be voted on Jan. 18 and 19 at UCSD) contains a precarious clause: “A policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the university only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide.” What this proposal consequently does is ignore the findings of many other international bodies and leaves it solely up to the U.S. government to be the moral compass of the public.
Given the recent fumbles of U.S. policymakers (WMDs, Abu Ghraib, domestic spying, etc.) one has to seriously question this clause. In fact, such a clause would have made it impossible for the University of California to divest from apartheid South Africa in 1986.
The fact that the U.S. government alone has declared Darfur a “genocide,” contradicting the investigative reports of the United Nations, European Union, African Union and Doctors Without Borders, should raise legitimate questions. Pointing this out should not belittle the scope of the tragedy. However, let us consider the following: Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Danforth remarked in a BBC interview that describing the conflict as “genocide” was done for “internal consumption” in an election year. Peter Hallward, journalist for Britain’s Guardian, wrote: “Bush’s opportunity to adopt an election-season cause [in 2004] that can appeal simultaneously to fundamentalist Christians, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, multilateralist liberals and the altruistic ‘left’ … [was] … too tempting to pass up.” Jonathan Steele, another journalist, points to the “Arab bashing” that has accompanied the anti-Sudan campaign. Hence, I suspect that the above clause represents a commitment by some in the university to support the current U.S. administration’s unilateralism in international affairs.
A few more facts should be pointed out. Sudan has a new transitional Government of National Unity that has been in place for a year, since the end of the civil war in the south. Is the divestment campaign targeting Sudan’s GoNU, and thus seeking to destabilize it? Given the fact that the UC system is the largest public university system in the country, divestment will only encourage many other universities and public institutions to do the same, thus denying Sudan needed foreign investment funds for relief and reconstruction.
Divestment is essentially a form of economic sanction. Former Southern Sudanese rebel-turned Vice President John Garang, and his successor, Salva Kiir, have both expressed opposition to sanctions at the U.N. Security Council and the White House. The divestment campaign, fixated on the Sudanese government, ignores a point made by some of the Sudanese government’s harshest critics, such as pan-Africanist writer Tujadeen Abdul-Raheem.
I know that many sincerely wish to help the afflicted of Sudan and help bring an end to this conflict, and to them we are grateful; I also recognize that the issue is being exploited for political purposes. While the UC regents may vote in favor of divestment — for this campaign has much “star power” behind it — it will do so ignoring the input of many Sudanese who have been left out, as everyone claims to be solving our problems. I nevertheless urge the UC regents to vote this proposal down. Sudan does not need sanctions or divestment. Sudan needs help.
Ismail Abdel-Rasoul is a former resident of Sudan.
