Nat Hentoff
Our genocidal ally in Khartoum
http://www.NewsandOpinion.com |
George W. Bush was the first world leader to directly rebuke Sudan's
murderous ruler, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, for his government's
responsibility for the mass killings, rapes and brutal displacement of
black Africans in the Darfur region of Sudan last year. And the then
Secretary of State Colin Powell forthrightly and accurately called these
atrocities genocide.
But Bush has been silent for some time about Darfur, where the death
toll is at least 400,000, many murdered by Sudanese armed forces and
their accomplices, the savage Arab Janjaweed. Every day — every single
day — at least 500 more corpses are being added to the total (according
to the watch group Coalition for International Justice), and more than 2
million are living perilous lives after being driven from their homes
and villages.
The body count, at a death every three minutes, may actually exceed the
800,000 murdered in Rwanda's genocide in 1994. Back then, a worldwide
chorus vowed "Never Again!" And reading of President Clinton's lethal
decision not to intervene in time, George W. Bush is said to have
written on that account, "Not on my watch."
As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof — who continually alerts
this nation and the world about the horrors in Darfur — noted on May 3,
the Bush administration strangely "is fighting to kill the Darfur
Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has
taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls
for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing
an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing
villages."
And on April 29, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice — while sending a letter to the Bashir regime asking
it to stop the attacks in Darfur — added the Bush administration's
anticipation of continuing its "close cooperation" with Lt. Gen.
Bashir's regime in the war on terrorism.
In the April 29 Los Angeles Times, journalist Ken Silverstein explains
this reaching out to Khartoum and the loss of outrage by the Bush
administration on the genocide in Darfur.
Why the White House's change in attitude toward Darfur? Silverstein,
reporting from Khartoum, notes that, "the Bush administration has forged
a close intelligence partnership with the Islamic regime that once
welcomed Osama bin Laden here (in Darfur), even as Sudan comes under
harsh U.S. and international criticism for human rights violations.
"The Sudanese government, an unlikely ally in the U.S. fight against
terror, remains on the latest U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
At the same time, however, it has been providing access to terror
suspects and sharing intelligence data with the United States."
The Los Angeles Times' substantially and carefully documented report
makes clear that this collaboration between our CIA and the Mukhabarat,
the Sudanese equivalent of the CIA, has produced very important results
in our war against terrorism. For instance "A U.S. source familiar with
Sudan's cooperation said, 'They've not only told us who the bad guys
were, they've gone out and gotten them for us.'"
Furthermore, a Muslim intelligence agency like the Mukhabarat "can 'get
firsthand information, while we get 10th-hand information,' said Lee S.
Wolosky, a former National Security Council staffer in the Clinton and
Bush administrations."
Accordingly, in countries where barbaric jihadists organize and plan
against us — and where the CIA has very limited contacts — Sudan's
intelligence agents can be of considerable, and possibly life-saving, help.
Silverstein points out that this "cooperation is politically delicate
for both sides. Bashir's government faces strong internal opposition —
including critics within the regime itself — to cooperating with the
U.S. ... (and) official acknowledgement of the relationship could also
create a political backlash in the United States."
But now that other media have begun to cite the Los Angeles Times'
disclosure, more Americans will know of this grim relationship. But will
there actually be a "political backlash?" Especially when most Americans
are still engrossed in the Pitt-Jolie-Aniston soap opera and the endless
Michael Jackson trial?
Isn't this liaison between the CIA and the Mukhabarat a necessary, vital
act of self-defense by the United States against those who now murder
our soldiers in Iraq, and may still yet come here?
But does it matter that the head of the Mukhabarat, intelligence chief
Maj. Gen. Salah Abdallah Gosh — who used to have regular contacts with
Osama bin Laden in Sudan and is now in contact with CIA boss Porter Goss
— has been accused by members of Congress of planning military attacks
on black African civilians in Darfur?
By being involved with — and indebted to — Bashir and Gosh, what is
our responsibility for the rising death toll in Darfur? The
International Criminal Court (ICC) is now in charge of prosecuting the
committers of genocide, but a May 9 editorial in the Financial Times
says "it will be at least a year, maybe two, before the ICC even issues
its first indictments."
Meanwhile, the slaughter and gang rapes continue, unabated.
To protect ourselves, is the bargain with these forces of evil
justified? What do you, the reader, think?
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance". Comment by clicking here.
