Listening to Bashir

My genocide co-blogger Michelle has just posted a clip from the recent BBC interview with Sudanese President Omar Bashir.  It's a fascinating interview, not least to hear Bashir provide an alternative narrative of the conflict.

First, he emphasizes that the Sudanese military acted in response to an insurgency: "the state has the responsibility to fight the rebels."

Second, he blames tribal tensions for much of the bloodshed: "the source of the violence in Darfur was caused by a tribal struggle...the Government is playing the role of intervention to help stop this struggle."

It's easy to loathe Bashir.  Yet both statements above contain more than a grain of truth.

The conflict in Darfur did not occur in a vacuum - it's not as though Bashir suddenly woke one morning with a burning desire to kill as many Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa as he could.  Instead, rebel attacks against the Sudanese military in early 2003 helped spark the current crisis.

Further, one reason the conflict has proven so intractable is precisely because it both builds upon and further exacerbates tribal tensions dating back to the Arab-Fur war of the late 1980s and before.

Tensions which themselves stem from environmental pressures and access to land - or the lack thereof - made all the worse by a shared history of marginalization.

Not to excuse Bashir, who's at best a lying, semi-genocidal thug - statements such as "we have never fought against our citizens, we have not killed our citizens" leave something to be desired, even on the truthiness-scale.

(Also, on a lexicographical note - disingenuous, adj. - "blaming the violence on 'tribal conflict' while neglecting to mention that you yourself not only a) stoked said conflict, but also b) took great pains to arm one side and then encouraged them to rape and slaughter at will.")

Yet we shouldn't dismiss all of what he says out-of-hand.  If we want to influence the Sudanese government, the least we can do is listen to what they say.