Archives For United Nations

Last week Ben Packham wrote in The Australian that ‘China scored a victory in its campaign to prioritize its national interests over human rights, securing support for a UN resolution that would make individual rights a matter for “mutually beneficial co-operation.” [i]

In other words, individual rights are solely contingent on an individual’s total subservience to and acquiescence with the Marxist/Maoist state. The individual must bow to the deified state in toto – mind, body, soul and strength.

This is the Chinese Communist Party’s theocratic claim of possession over individuals, which is, outside good governance genuinely lived out under God, something neither government nor ideology has the right to make.

Within this framework the state is God. Rights are not inherently God given, they’re a reward, which can be cancelled at any time should the state so decree.

China’s resolution win allows for less accountability in how it implements inhumane programs to carry out its Marxist theocratic claim.

Australia voted against the resolution, ‘arguing that it undermined “long established principles with regards to the promotion and protection of human rights.’

Packham cited Elaine Pearson from Human Rights Watch, who said that the resolution ‘limits engagement on a country’s human rights record, as it prioritizes sovereignty over accountability, treats fundamental human rights as being subject to negotiation and compromise, and foresees no meaningful role for civil society.’[ii]

An equally important side note is that the resolution appears to have been won by China leveraging its 138 nation, global financial imperial alliance, created through its Belt and Road initiative (BRI).

Nations who voted in favor of the resolution included ‘African, and a range of developing nations, including The Philippines, Indonesia and Venezuela.’ [iii] Most of whom, according to data from Green-Bri.org are part of China’s BRI.

If pressure was applied by the CCP in order to win the UN vote, than the BRI isn’t just a debt trap. It’s part of a greater diabolical maneuver to undermine sovereign states, and bolster Chinese Communist influence through the creation of debt slaves.

The latter are unsuspecting nations who’ve sold themselves into quasi-indentured servitude to the Chinese Communist Party, routinely called upon to do the CCP’s bidding.

The BRI gives the CCP power to use these debt slaves to secure key votes, thereby swaying important international agreements, not in favor of their nation or the Chinese people, but in favor of the Communist regime.

It should also be noted that China was, until January this year, a sitting member of the U.N. Human Rights council, and that there are BRI [indentured] nations currently members of U.N. Council. China also has a place on the U.N. panel that chooses U.N. human rights investigators.

Indonesia, a predominately Muslim country supporting the suppression of accountability and dissent isn’t a big surprise either. They may be looking for assistance in blindsiding the world on their own human rights abuses, namely Indonesia’s reported mistreatment of Indigenous West Papuans.

This resolution means that authorities can more easily dismiss accusations about human rights abuses connected to the CCP’s brutal national oppression of Christians, and of the Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, once declared independent, but subsumed into the Communist Chinese Maoist state in 1949.

It means that reports like the one released this week by independent, bipartisan research organization, The Jamestown Foundation, may never get to see the light of day where it matters.

The 32 page report, put together by German Anthropologist, Adrian Zenz provided ‘evidence of birth prevention & mass female sterilization.’ [iv]

He explained on Twitter that these ‘findings give the strongest proof yet that Xinjiang atrocity fulfills a U.N. Genocide Convention criterion: imposing measures intended to prevent births.’

Zenz, who is also a senior fellow in China studies at Victims of Communism, added: ‘Birth control has a long history in China, but evidence from government documents about birth prevention in Xinjiang indicates a ruthless, draconian suppression of population growth that is, frankly, unprecedented. Esp. worrying is evidence of a campaign of mass sterilization.’ [v]

Due to population growth among minority ethnic groups, ‘by 2019, Xinjiang [province] planned to subject >80% of women of childbearing age in the southern minority regions to intrusive birth prevention surgeries (IUDs or sterilizations). In 2018, 80% of new IUDs in China were fitted in XJ (region only makes up 1.8% of national population). [vi]

Zenz writes that the ‘likely goal of this campaign is to sterilize all women who have had 3 or more children, plus some. Funding in 2019/20 sufficient for potentially up to 200,000 sterilizations, but at least one region also received central gov’t funding for this.’ [vii]

The Marxist theocratic end goal is that

not one child to be born outside the will of the state. Technically, the government can now dial minority birth rates up and down at will, like opening or closing a faucet. Coupled with state-sponsored promotion of in-migration and of inter-ethnic marriages, this constitutes a tripartite campaign of ethno-racial domination’ [viii]

Zenz concludes, writing that ‘these findings provide strong evidence of the fulfilment of U.N. Genocide Convention, Section D of Article II: “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the [targeted] group.’

The Associated Press referred to the four year program as “demographic genocide.

The program is ‘backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps.’

The Communist Chinese Party joining in on bandwagon accusations about the alleged systemic oppression of minorities in Western countries; raising the socialist power fist in unison with its Marxist LGBT Black Lives Matter cousin is nothing more than hot air on par with those living in glass houses throwing stones.


References:

[i] Packham, B. Human Rights take a Hit at UN, The Australian Wednesday, 8th July, 2020

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] Zenz, A. Twitter, 30th June 2020

[v] ibid

[vi] ibid

[viii] ibid

First published on Caldron Pool, 6th July, 2020.

Photo by Sonny Ravesteijn on Unsplash 

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

Ahmed Shaheed, lecturer and volunteer adviser to the U.N., is advocating that religions conform to an eventual universal, “progressive” law. In his latest report for the U.N, the religious freedom advocate provides an argument for a blueprint, which will outlaw any theological critique or practice, unless it has first been approved, or established by LGBTQAAI+ activists, radical feminists & academics who advocate from a Leftist worldview.

Steve Warren from CBN news rightly noted that recent ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (available as a Word Document here), makes no distinction between who and what religion Shaheed’s volunteered prescriptions pertains to. Instead Shaheed appears to have subsumed all religions into one category of hate, bigotry and discrimination.

Shaheed accuses all governments of failing to stop discrimination against women, and those who identify as LGBTQAAI+, stating:

‘Governments in all regions of the world have also failed to uphold their obligation to protect people from gender-based violence and discrimination perpetrated against them by private individuals or entities claiming a religious justification for their actions and to sanction the perpetrators of such acts. Gender-based violence and discrimination is being perpetuated both in the public sphere and by and within religious communities and entities.’

The report’s findings and prescriptions were based on ‘information gathered directly from survivors of human rights violations from over 42 countries.’ Participants ‘also included members of several United Nations agencies including UN AIDS, UNFPA, UNWOMEN, and the WHO.’

The key findings of Shaheed’s report specifically addressed,

‘Female Genital Mutilation, marital rape, early and forced marriage and polygamy; [and] noted the increasing use of religion or belief to deny reproductive health and sexual rights; criminalize protected conduct and deny the equal personhood of LGBT+ persons; or to undermine the right to freedom of religion or belief to women, girls and LGBT+ persons.’

Examples acknowledged progress, but specifically included countries such as Saudi Arabia where women ‘continue to face systematic discrimination in law and in practice in several areas and are inadequately protected against gender-based violence.’

Shaheed also stated that in Israel, ‘Denominational family law, to which there is no civil alternative, permits divorce only with the consent of the husband, which reportedly can coerce women to forfeit property or custody of children.’

In addition, the report cited Tunisia, first saying that

‘although it stands out in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for many of its  protections for the human rights of women and girls, the Personal Status Code of 1956, rooted in an interpretation of Islam, requires further amendment to guarantee gender equality in inheritance rights.’

Other nations and regions mentioned were South and South-East Asia, citing Sir Lanka’s Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act ‘which, unlike national legal provisions for non-Muslim women, does not identify a minimum age requirement or require a woman to consent to marriage; leaving Muslim women and girls unprotected by national provisions.’

This is in addition to some ‘counter-extremism’ measures from South and South-East Asia where some states have ‘targeted women from Muslim minority communities with rape, forced sterilization, and forced abortion.’

Iran got its own paragraph. Shaheed’s volunteered advice raised concerns about ‘laws inspired by religious beliefs’ such as the Iranian regime’s ‘compulsory veil legislation and the reported arrest, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention of women’s human rights defenders who protested against it.’

In the same way, the report described concerns about limitations put on Muslim women (no region or country was referenced) regarding wearing ‘headscarves, or full-face veils – in their efforts to combat gender-based discrimination, but without sufficient attention to the self-understanding and agency of women.’

As is to be expected, pro-life advocates were high on Shaheed’s hit list. Following the general abuse of language regarding abortion, Shaheed, rebelled this section: ‘State restrictions on access to sexual and reproductive rights.’ He then cited partial and total bans on abortion in some Latin American countries, claiming that ‘discriminatory religious edicts inform laws and policies that restrict sexual and reproductive rights’. His justification for this claim is that some ‘women and girls can be prosecuted for miscarrying their pregnancies, and limited access to abortion has in some cases, caused serious suffering.’

As for LGBTQAAI+ discrimination, Shaheed pointed again at South and South-East Asia, and Sub-Saharian African regions, stating that many have ‘justified’ the maintenance of the country’s legal prohibition of homosexuality on the grounds that it upholds the tenets of Islam or Christianity.‘ He argued that civil laws in these regions are ‘contributing to violence and discrimination against LGBT+ persons’.

Shaheed then addressed adultery laws, noting that in

‘countries where Islamic law governs personal laws, adultery is severely punished and may even result in a sentence of death by stoning. The sanctions are generally imposed on the women rather than the men. Additionally, sexual assault and rape often go unreported because women fear they will be charged with adultery; and there may be impunity for marital rape.’

Poland copped it too, with Shaheed labeling opposition to identity politics, gender wars, and LGBTQAAI+ ideology as ‘pseudoscience’; saying that protecting ‘heterosexual norms’ was discriminatory and doing violence to ‘LGBTQAAI+ persons’. He claims that ‘well coordinated groups are misusing freedom of religion or belief across continents and in the media – to counter human rights in the name of religion or belief.’ Calling anyone who ‘espoused that a gender ideology is harmful to children, families, tradition and religion’ an active participant in perpetuating “injustice”.

The report did distinguish between beliefs and interpretations of those beliefs. Shaheed gave special praise to (Leftist) activists in religious communities, for showing that ‘not necessarily all members of a religious community held to [“oppressive beliefs” based on interpretations of religion].’ He inferred that this was the correct way to use freedom of religion, and it’s for these people alone, that religion of freedom should be protected.

In sum, citing specific examples and allegations from within the Middle East, African, Poland, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Latin America, Tunisia, South and South-East Asia, Shaheed is claiming that all religions are doing violence to women, girls and people who identify as LGBTQAAI+. As such, he seems to be advocating a “need” for religion to be brought into line with the “glorious benevolence” of what could be rightly termed the religion of Leftism. Shaheed’s suggestions present a strange irony, given that he is a well-known, advocate for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and of belief.

Given that Islamism makes up the majority of areas where Shaheed’s concerns rest, by subsuming all religions into one melting pot of discrimination and violence, out of what seems to be a fear of discriminating against Muslims, Shaheed is doing unfair violence to Christians and Jews. He, among all people should know that playing the ‘they’re all just as bad as each other’ card is dismissively childish and in some parts lazy. It buttresses ignorance of, and encourages an increasingly prejudice against Christianity, and all traditionally free societies built on Biblical Christian foundations.

Shaheed (and potentially the U.N as a whole) is saying that those who choose to provide a loving “no” to transgenderism, or refuse to embrace the LGBT flag, and its ideology; alongside Christian pro-life advocates in Western nations are to be equated with Islamists beheading infidels, murdering their wives in honour killings, taking child brides, and throwing homosexuals from rooftops.

Thus the lack of definition and distinction regarding specific religious, judicial and theological contexts raises red flags. It’s ludicrous to brand Christians as extremists simply for holding to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that there are only two genders.

Where we can agree with Shaheed is that ‘traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes must not be used to justify violation of human rights’. I’m all for this. But again, let’s define our terms of reasoning, and examine the context before making broad recommendations that could give rise to the U.N equivalent of the Gestapo, and Soviet gulags.

The Christian theological understanding of the world, agrees at this point with Shaheed. The Biblical witness testifies that sin pervades human existence, kills relationships, hinders God’s providential fatherly Lordship at work in the world, and affects male and female genders, nations, and ethnicities equally.

Abuses and abuse does occur, not just in the name of religion, but name of ideological paradigms – all man-made systems of salvation and condemnation, both civil and ecclesial. Borrowing Karl Barth’s terminology, these ‘towers of Babel’ should be challenged, because God challenges them. The most obvious example of this is in His remedy for sin, via a reckoning and forgiveness of sin, through Jesus Christ.

Where we should depart from Shaheed is his politically motivated generalizations. This is evident in his broad use of religion, and his push to protect freedom of religion or belief, only for those who fit neatly within a universally approved ideological paradigm (Leftism).

His only issue with Christianity appears to be pro-life advocates, and Christians who uphold both binary gender, and the equality of the physiological, biological union, which sees man free woman, and woman free for man.

In sum, Shaheed’s recommendations resemble a receipt for re-education camps. His definition of ‘human rights defenders’ might be better translated ‘social justice warriors’ or Leftists; and his call to protect them, seems to be advocating freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

Worth noting: it’s strange Shaheed has overlooked Communist countries. The report doesn’t mention Communist Chinese persecution of the Muslim minority Uyghurs and Christians. It makes no mention of Christians suffering in droves at the hands Islamists in Nigeria, Asia, The Middle East, or the African Continent; and he makes no mention of oppression in Vietnam, North Korea, or even Russia.

As for people characterizing others as “immoral actors”, Shaheed may want to look in his own “progressive” backyard first, and observe the caricatures of Christians made en masse by radical feminist and LGBTQAAI+ activists, his so-called ‘human rights defenders’. To quote Warren, ‘mainstream Christianity doesn’t call for violence or discrimination against anyone, even though some opponents of orthodox Christian belief have tried to characterize it that way.’


References:

First published on Caldron Pool, 21st March, 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

From the start of his candidacy, I’ve considered Donald Trump a diamond in the rough. It’s a working hypothesis that I’ve held onto in the face of an onslaught of fear and dire predictions about his alleged “reign of terror”, a lot of which came from almost everyone I know (theologians and pastors included). Joining the bandwagon condemnation of Trump, in order to spread fear, was always a darkened side-road best left in the rear-view mirror. Minus a few friends and two years on, this hypothesis still stands strong.

While I believe that God can transform, and still is in the business of transforming people’s hearts, I’m also cautious of Donald Trump and the euphoric support which surrounds him.  For instance, I’m no fan of the ‘’god emperor’’ memes or any view of Trump that implores manifest destiny or deus ex machina.

I’m as fervent in my caution about this as I am in my opposition to people who deify victimisation, and use reckless narratives in order to irrationally “Hitlerise” personalities, because they see potential political gain in doing so. (No one should seek to make a profit from suffering, unless those who have suffered are the primary beneficiaries.)

My caution of Trump is the same as my caution of ‘the bureaucratic caste’[1]. The highlight of reports today was Trump being laughed at during his speech at the U.N. This myopic reporting gives justification for such caution. The Washington Post was drooling with satisfaction at what they said, was a fair response from the German delegation. Trump “made claims” about German dependency on Russian energy. According to the W.P., Trump, ‘as usual, got his facts wrong’. However, one look at the transcript of his speech shows that Trump was issuing a warning about the trajectory of German dependency on Russian energy. He wasn’t claiming that Germany is completely dependent on Russia, as was implied by the W.P.

Even BBC World News was quick to misquote the Trump:

 

 

Despite the red herring headlines, there are a lot of positive things which can be said about Trump’s speech to the U.N. He rejected the ‘ideology of globalism’, called for diplomacy and a better deal. He didn’t just speak about American sovereignty. He spoke about the uniqueness of every non-belligerent nation, and their valuable contribution to the peace and prosperity of their neighbours.

In addition to this, Trump discussed the dangers of allowing globalists (and I would add in with them: those who operate from within the Leftist cult of modern liberalism[2]) to set the national and state, right down to regional, and local, agendas of nations; nations that allow an un-elected bureaucratic caste to rule over them, such as exists within the current structure of the European Union. This is the very definition of imperialism and Donald Trump is right to oppose it.

Globalism is imperialism. Ultimately globalism undermines the usefulness of the United Nations. Through a uniformity of identity, diversity is diminished. Behind the veil of words about diversity, equality and tolerance, there is no unity in diversity because the telos of globalism is a quagmire of sameness.

Compliance is monetarily rewarded. Dissent punished. There is no real check or balance allowed under this kind of absolute power. The global demonization of Donald Trump, and Trump administration supporters, provides a taste of life under global imperialism and how its newspeak is used to sure up its centralised control of the masses[3].

Globalism is a surrender of sovereignty, rights, citizenship and cultural identity. It is the stuff of a monolithic alliance. Poised to strike at all who oppose the faceless, would-be lordless powers who control it. Higher institutions of learning are weaponized. The education industrial complex jackboot marches side by side with the entertainment and military industrial complexes. They all fall into line and are employed to indoctrinate, shame, negate history and healthy culture via manipulation, appeasement and revisionism. Thus globalism promotes the use of shaming techniques and manipulative propaganda. It provokes national genocide and advocates perpetual war behind a veil of humanitarian benevolence.

It would appear that most news outlets have chosen to report only on the areas which can be utilized to further demonize and mock Donald Trump. What’s ironic about this is that there’s a bunch of do-very-little bureaucratic elites and spectators sitting in chairs, laughing at a leader, who may have the flaw of speaking too much about his own success, and not staying on script, but is leading a team, which is, according to balanced reporting, achieving a great deal of success[4]; and they’re achieving this despite unprecedented attempts by a bitter and resentful group of political opponents, to manipulatively interfere in undermining that success.

For the rest of us watching it’s a bizarre era, not because of Donald Trump and his idiosyncrasies or flaws, but because of the bizarre behaviour of many who cry wolf, simply because he was elected President of the United States.

Perhaps Trump and his critics could take a step back and consider what Theodore Roosevelt said in 1910:

‘’The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt…
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” (‘Man in the Arena’)

While I still see Trump as a diamond in the rough, I remain cautious. He isn’t God. He is human and therefore prone to the same temptations and failings as the rest of us. This same caution needs to also be applied to those who would seek to be our self-appointed lords, such as an un-elected bureaucratic caste; those who would gain and then maintain power via newspeak, agitprop and by profiting off of the subjugation of others.

Donald Trump is right to oppose globalism because it is another form of imperialism.  The conclusion of globalism is injustice; a quagmire of sameness enforced by foreign rulers over nations not their own. A monolithic alliance filled with paralysed citizens, who are burdened by a meta-state with division, mistrust, fear and suspicion.

Criticism of Trump and those in his administration should be heard, but every thinking person should apply the necessary filters to sift the wheat from the chaff. For the words of America’s 26th President, Theodore Roosevelt, still ring true: ‘the poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt…’[5]

Britannica defines Imperialism as ‘state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.’

In the light of this, Donald Trump’s “no” to globalism, is a no to imperialism and a “yes” to freedom.


Notes & References:

[1] Simone Weil, Oppression and Liberty.

[2] Faceless (largely Leftist) powers who operate as though they were god; in other words masters of humanity; lordless.

[3] Watch any news conference between Donald Trump and the reporters. It’s easy enough to hear the prejudice and hostility. The product of lament and bitterness because their team lost the 2016 election.

[4] E.g.: Trump’s work on the Korean Peninsula, continued to commitment to NATO, pulling an aggressively expansionist Communist China into line, and practising diplomacy with Russia and Syria, instead of triggering a total, or maintaining a covert war against both.

[5] Roosevelt, ibid.

Roosevelt, T. 1910. The Man In The Arena (sourced 26th September 2018, from http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com)

‘Trump‘ photo by Kayle Kaupanger on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2018

In a 2006 article written for the Stanford Journal of International Relations, called ‘Responding To Genocide In Sudan[i], Stephan M. Doane lays out reasoning for a much needed, tougher international stand on the issues plaguing Sudan.

The article is dated, but raises, on an academic level, awareness about the plight of many South Sudanese people, who are stuck in a cycle of constant violence. Many of whom are Christians.

Doane’s piece is well researched. He argues that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is less acknowledged by international stakeholders. For example, the U.N and the international community appear ‘indifferent’ towards the aggression and socio-political maneuvering of the Islamist North.

Evidence for this is found in the fact that up until at least 2006, when foreign aid was delivered to Sudan for distribution in the South, the North controlled when, where and who received it. As a result, International aid became one more way in which the North could control the South.

‘Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), was restricted by the North from bringing aid to South Sudan. Many died because of UN acquiescence to Khartoum demands that dictate where to allow passage of UN-sponsored flights. To this day (2006) the UN still grants the northern government authority over its relief efforts’ (Doane, p.2)

Demographically, the North of Sudan is ‘primarily Arab and Arab-African’ (p.1). Most of the North are Muslim who desired Sudan to become Muslim. Doane, citing Madut Jot’s ‘War and Slavary in Sudan’, 2001 states that ‘the resolute will to make Sudan an Arab and Islamic nation originates from the belief that

“Arabism has a superior rank than Africanism, based on the way they view the racial hierarchy”[…]‘Southern leaders were treated as second class citizens.’ The intent of the North was to implement Islamic law (Shari’a) and set up and Islamic state; ‘”it’s chosen hegemony” (p.2)’.

According to Doane, Sudan’s troubles can be traced back to its independence. When independence was formed, under a British civil administration in 1947, ‘many of the southern representatives present were not ready to accept the unity of the Sudan – due in large part to prior deception from the North’ (those deceptions aren’t elaborated on).

In 1955, a civil war erupted between North and South that lasted until 1972. This was initiated by the South and was triggered primarily because ‘the Sudanese government [sought] to subjugate southerners to a cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage that is not their own – Islam.(p.2)’

In 1983, civil war broke out again. This time towns were

 ‘ravaged by government troops and government supported milita caused internal displacement of southerners in gigantic  proportions. The hijacking of food deliveries from international relief agencies resulted in more than 250,000 deaths by famine in 1988 alone, in addition to military casualties. Military victories by the Southern forces motivated a peace initiative which included the abolishment of Islamic Law (Shari’a) as the law of the land (p.2).’

Doane continues,

‘Displaced Southerners were often gathered in forced-labor camps as well as re-education camps where children are forced to learn Arabic, memorize the Qu’ran, convert to Islam, and are beaten or tortured if they do not comply. [Among other war crimes] Women are frequently raped; arbitrary arrests and imprisonment are common […] Government armies and government-supported Popular Defence Forces also sell southern women and children as slaves (p.2).’

Yet, even with these examples,

‘many international governments support the aggressor [the North] and its policy goals. In addition, the U.N has been reluctant to rebuke the Sudanese government for its human rights violations […] The international body most sympathetic to the northern government is the League of Arab States. Bulgaria, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and former Soviet Republics have all sold weapons to the northern government armies and state-sponsored militias (p.4).’

As Doane is right to point out, ‘what is most ironic,however, is Sudan’s membership on the UN Human Rights Commission.’ Furthermore, ‘the hypocrisy of selecting such an abusive government to judge human rights violaters reveals the extent to which the world has turned a blind eye to the [issue of slavery in Sudan] and the genocidal actions of the North.’

Sudan was a member of the UN Human Rights Commission from 1998-2000 and was assured a seat in the 2012[ii] election round for the Commission’s replacement, the UN Human Rights Council which replaced the Commission in 2006[iii]. The North’s candidacy was, however, vetoed when a ‘group of African nations petitioned against it’[iv], on the grounds of the human rights abuses carried out there by the North.

Doane also highlights how blind-eyed foreign investment in oil, helped the North exploit and torture the people of the South.

Citing Mindy Belz,

‘China’s petroleum firm (CNPC) reportedly purchased a high-tech radar system for the government last year. It was installed in summer, and since then the government bombing raids against southern targets (mostly churches and humanitarian relief organisations) have increased.’[v]

He then writes,

‘The windfall  of revenue allowed the North to purchase sufficient military firepower to permanently eradicate the South Sudanese opposition. This impending possibility correlates with the stated vision and previous action of the despotic Khartoum regime, and this threat must not be taken lightly’ (p.5)

In concluding, Doane links up the War on Terror with continued oppression in the South. While the North supported the West in its War on Terror, the North had leverage over any committed effort by the international community to push for peace and justice for the South Sudanese:

 ‘It would be sadly, ironic if the deaths of thousands of civilians on September 11 provide a pretext that the North Sudanese Government could use to kill many more thousands of civilians with international impunity’ (p.8)

In other words, Christians and people of South Sudan were fighting a war against terror in their own right, only to be overlooked by the West, because they lacked the resources, voice, support, and recognition that its Northern neighbour had and has.

Doane’s essay is eleven years old and shows its age. It doesn’t mention the 2013 ethnically motivated civil war in the South, nor does it mention diplomatic efforts in the way of sanctions, pushed for by the recent Obama administration, efforts designed to censure the North. Also missing is the important historical note that in 2011, South Sudan found its own independence[vi].

Although independence was won, and civil war continues to linger, turmoil created by the North also continues. In 2012, the UN Security Council issued a resolution calling for a cessation of ‘repeated incidents of cross-border violence between [North] Sudan and South Sudan, including seizure of territory, support to proxy forces and aerial bombing.’[vii]

The South is a nation trying to find its way towards reconciliation. It’s a new nation, that fought a great struggle against much of what the world seems to ignore: militant Islamist expansionism, non-white racism, modern slavery, and religious genocide. Given their fight against terror and oppression; the calamity, division and devastation brought onto the South by the North, it’s no surprise, that two years after independence, the South was thrown into a civil war.

The strength and benefit of ‘Responding To Genocide In Sudan’ is found in its clear ability to raise awareness of the situation in Sudan. With over 45 references, it issues us with a reliable resource that gives invaluable insight into the whole of Sudan. Both what it is, what it was and what it may perhaps still become. It’s age shouldn’t be a deterrent to reading it.

South Sudan is a war torn land. It’s a land torn apart by wars spreading out over eight decades. There can be no doubt that the South Sudanese are an ostracized, isolated and suffering people, stuck in a perpetual cycle of violence.

Stephan Doane highlights this tragedy and the need for its quick remedy. Through it he also reminds us about what occurs when, once again, the world stands by in its appeasement of real totalitarians, who under the guise of peace, blind the world to the oppression of their people; disguising the insidious nature of an ideology that forges a toxic hegemony, from which the totalitarian can hide his or her crimes behind.


Sources: (underlined and hyperlinked where appropriate)

[i]  Doane, S.M 2006 Responding to Genocide in Sudan: Barriers to Peace, International Indifference,  and The Need for Tough Diplomacy,  Stanford Journal of International Relations sourced 19th April 2017 from web.stanford.edu

[ii] Miller,J.R. 2012  Genocidal Sudanese regime’s appointment to UN human rights council all but certain, watchdog says” sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.foxnews.com

[iii] BBC, 2013 Concern Over New Human Rights Members sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.bbc.com

[iv]  Human Rights Watch, 2012 African Union: Don’t Endorse Sudan, Ethiopia for Rights Council, sourced 19th April 2017 from www.hrw.org

[v] Belz, M. 2001 Blood For Oil, World Magazine sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.world.wng.org

[vi] Gettleman, J. 2011 After Years of Struggle, South Sudan Becomes a New Nation sourced sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.nytimes.com

[vii] UN Security Council Meeting notes, 2012 Calls for an immediate halt to fighting sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.un.org.

Photo Credits: Gregg Carlstrom (Creative commons).

 (RL2017)