BOOK REVIEW
Khartoum’s best friend?
Mahmood Mamdani has chosen to act as an apologist for the Sudanese regime.
I n his memoirs, the famous twentieth
century intellectual Arthur Koestler
refers to himself and others who
attempted to raise awareness about the
Holocaust as screamers. Like Cassandra,
they tried to warn the world of what
was happening, before it was too late,
but, few people listened or understood
at that time. I think most of us in the
human rights movement would like to
be screamers ourselves when the time is
right. Wherever the atrocities and crimes
of the present and the future may strike,
we intend to raise the alarm.
A situation like Darfur – where
atrocities are ongoing, well-documented,
and met with inaction and procrastination
by the international community – seems
as good a time as any for screamers to
shift into high gear, as many have in fact
done. Yet, there is one author who does
not aspire to be a screamer, who fears that
amid all the screaming, the calm voice of
reason is being ignored.
This is Columbia University professor,
political scientist, and Africa expert
Mahmood Mamdani, who takes as
his primary targets the Save Darfur
Coalition, various international human
rights groups, and individuals he labels
as human rights fundamentalists.
Part of a broad swath of post-colonial
and anti-imperialist academics, Mamdani
clearly conceives himself as a member of
the political left and an enemy of global
power. Despite this (or perhaps because
of it), his views often lead him to act as
an apologist for the many atrocities and
oppressions around the globe which can
not be traced to any Western hegemon.
His point about the need for clear-
headed analysis, is, like many of his
points, plausible enough, yet utterly
irrelevant to his main thesis, which is
indefensible. However, since his views
are likely to influence many who would
prefer inaction and complacency in
Darfur, it is worthwhile to examine them
in detail.
By Joshua F Leach
Mamdani sets himself the seemingly
impossible task of arguing that the events
in Darfur do not constitute a genocide, or
anything beyond the ordinary violence
which accompanies conflicts in Africa.
Certainly, he does not regard the violence
in Darfur as any worse than that occurring
in the Congo, Uganda, or anywhere else
where long-term, intractable conflicts
are being played out. Yet, it is Darfur
which has received the bulk of the media
attention.
He believes that Sudan has been
singled out for political reasons. There is
an Arab government sitting in Khartoum,
and the United States has chosen to target
it in order to demonise its enemies and
contribute to the greater war on terror, or
so Mamdani implies.
The agents of this war on terror,
according to Mamdani, include Save
Darfur; well-known human rights groups
such as Amnesty International, Human
Saviors and survivors
Darfur, politics, and the war on terror
BY Mahmood Mamdani Pantheon, 2009
Independent World report
Rights Watch, Refugees International;
religious groups running the gamut
from the Unitarians to Jews, Muslims,
Catholics, and Evangelicals. All of whom
have come out in favour of international
humanitarian action in Darfur.
Mamdani’s book is not addressed to
victims of violence everywhere (or, anything
else which might have salvaged his moral
credibility), but, to those fighting for
an independent African Union. He has
done more than just about any other
intellectual to downplay the atrocities in
Darfur, and while I am not in a position
to question his motives, it seems likely
that Omar al-Bashir and his government
in Khartoum would regard the author as
the closest thing they have to an ally in a
North American university.
Nowhere in the entire book the figure
of 2.7 million is mentioned. That is the 2.7
million Darfuris who have been internally
displaced by the fighting. Meanwhile,
Mamdani does his best to make a case for
ludicrously low estimates of mortality
figures in Darfur – little more than a few
hundred a month after the worst period
of fighting ended in 2005 – while brushing
off the figures reported by human rights
groups and experts such as Eric Reeves,
which put the death toll between 300,000
and 400,000.
He also gives an account of the history
of the atrocities which is belied by the
facts. His account holds that tensions
between landless and landed have been
going on for decades in Darfur and along
the Sudan-Chad border, exacerbated by
drought and famine which eventually led
to civil war. Rebel militias and Janjaweed
nomads all committed atrocities in such
conflicts, and the Khartoum government’s
counterinsurgency, which began in 2003
as a response to a Darfuri rebel raid, was
simply a bit more violent than usual.
Mamdani claims that, at the most, about
ten thousand were killed during this
early period and that mortality dropped
off entirely after that point thanks to the
January/February 2010 49

Aerial view of a burned-out village in Darfur: Photo by Physicians for Human Rights.
efforts of the African Union.
Admittedly, conclusive data is hard to
come by in such a situation, yet numerous
sources suggest that Mamdani is entirely
wrong in this estimate. Eric Reeves claims
that hundreds of thousands of Darfuris
died during this early time period alone.
While this may not be absolutely proven,
satellite imagery and the work of human
rights experts do indicate that about nine-
tenths of African villages in Darfur have
been completely destroyed since 2003.
Nearly all of this violence has been a
product of the Khartoum government,
which, as even Mamdani admits, has
extensive links to Janjaweed militias
acting as pro-government paramilitaries.
It is well-documented that they have
committed atrocities on a grand scale,
poisoning wells with corpses, displacing
entire populations, deliberately targeting
food sources in order to trigger famine,
and so forth. Much of the killing has
not come about by putting people to
the sword, but this does not change the
genocidal character of the events. The
intent to destroy an entire people is
clear.
What better evidence could there
be of genocide than that Bashir and
the ruling regime have not stopped the
atrocities. Mamdani wrote his book
50 January/February 2010
after the International Criminal Court
arrest warrant was issued against Bashir,
but the book was written too early
to mention the most recent action of
Bashir’s government: the expulsion of all
humanitarian groups from Darfur who
were serving the almost fully displaced
population.
This left 1.5 million refugees without
any source of healthcare and 1.1 million
without food, according to various
sources who have spent far more time on
the ground than Mamdani, who gives no
sign of ever having visited a refugee camp
in the region. What else could this recent
act be but a direct attempt to destroy the
millions of vulnerable people who depend
on humanitarian aid?
Some of Mamdani’s points are
plausible, yet they are completely
irrelevant to the question of whether or
not international humanitarian action is
needed in Darfur.
He is correct to say that the recruits
in the Janjaweed ranks are not devils, but
incredibly poor, young, and disadvantaged
people. But no one in the human rights
community would say anything different.
Most people are victims to some extent
in such conflicts, especially those on the
ground. Yet, one group of people remain
victimised by no one – those who have
Independent World report
comfortably masterminded the genocide,
from Khartoum. These and the Janjaweed
leaders, not the recruits, are being
targeted by the ICC and would be brought
to justice by an international action.
Mamdani is also right that Darfuri
rebel groups have committed atrocities
as well. But no one wants to take the side
of the Darfuri rebels. An international
action would attempt to end violence
entirely in the region. It is merely the
case that almost all of the violence is
emanating from the government side, so
it is this side which receives the bulk of
global condemnation.
Finally, Mamdani makes the point
that the Arab and African labels in the
conflict are mostly for show. They are the
product of colonial categories and little
else. Therefore, any conflict between
them is not ethnically driven but merely
a competition for resources. Again, this is
true to some extent.
Very often ethnic conflicts are, at
heart, about competition for resources.
If all sides felt they were getting a square
deal, there would be no conflict. All
racial categories are invented beyond
a certain point as well. They certainly
have no biological basis, but, they can
have very real political consequences. If
one looks at Rwanda, for instance, the
Hutu-Tutsi conflict was based on nothing
more substantial than a false dichotomy
invented by colonial administrators. No
one can deny that a real genocide took
place there.
This is why the human rights
movement charges genocide in Darfur.
That other conflicts outside of Darfur
are not receiving their fair share of
media attention is no doubt true and
regrettable, which is why we have a
need for independent media committed
to holding all human rights abusers to
account. But, instead of making this
legitimate point, Mamdani has chosen
to act as an apologist for the Sudanese
regime, to stifle progress towards justice,
and to stand up for some of the world’s
worst human rights abusers. One wishes
he could have used his intellect in the
service of a better cause. �
Joshua F Leach – currently a student at
the University of Chicago – is a writer and
human rights advocate.