How the American bombing of the Sudan destroyed the delicate peace that was unfolding (see bold text)
polyconomics.com
June 3, 1999
Slavery in the Sudan
Memo To: Jim Lehrer, Phil Ponce PBS Newshour
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Your Monday Sudan segment
After a long period of silence, there has been a sudden surge of interest
in the Sudan, emanating from human-rights organizations who focus on
assertions of the practice of slavery. The segment you devoted to the
issue Monday was a good start to looking at the problems there, but it
really only nibbled at the edges. I was pleased to see you give
prominent time and space to the Sudanese ambassador to the United
Nations, Elfatih Erwa, who did a fairly good job of defending his
government. The term "slavery," after all, is inappropriate unless a
central government recognizes the right of a human being to own
another and to defend that "property right." In the 15-year civil war
between the Islamic north and the non-Islamic south (which contains
most of the Christians in the Sudan), the central fact has not been
slavery, but starvation. As Ambassador Erwa told you, he has never
seen a slave, although he knows for sure that Sudanese tribes who war
with each other abduct some of those they subdue and absorb them as
possessions. This has been going on for ages, he acknowledged.
Indeed, this was the source of the slave trade between Africa and the
American colonies in earlier centuries.
It should be pointed out that that form of "slavery" was an advance in
the history of civilization, over previous practices of cannibalism. That is,
many centuries ago, when there were not enough calories to go around
in an area, tribal frictions would result in the winning side taking on the
losing side as if they were livestock. With the introduction of chickens
and cows from Europe, the slaves were used as workers instead of
meals. And when slavers showed up looking for human chattel for
export to America, tribal leaders would of course sell their slaves, not
their own people. Now, when there is great economic contraction in this
part of the world, the earlier practices are restored. The term
"indentured servant" is probably closer to being accurate than "slave," in
that there is no way for tribes to appeal to a legal authority to enforce a
property right. Those abducted in the warring clashes may consider
themselves lucky to get fed for their work.
Why should this level of poverty exist in the modern world, when we
have so many Nobel Prizewinning economists? The answer throughout
much of the world and especially in the most backward areas of Africa
has been bad economics supplied by our Nobel laureates and their
students. As far as I know, the Newshour has never had a program
devoted to the root causes of the bloody carnage in the Balkans over
the last dozen years -- or it would have discovered the hand of the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank. If you look back into
the economic decline of the Sudan, I’m sure you will also find the
"helping hand" of our international financial institutions. I recommend to
you an op-ed by former Vice President Dan Quayle in the May 27
Washington Times, "U.S. and the World," where he notes: "Not every
conflict is economic at bottom; but it is usually the case that age-old
hatreds explode in times of want, hunger and distress. We need to keep
our eye on promoting global peace and prosperity. That means stopping
the International Monetary Fund from making misery of entire nations,
and instead, exporting the ideas that we know work: the rule of law,
free elections and free markets, low tax rates and stable currencies. This
too is real leadership."
The Khartoum government last year seemed finally to be making some
headway in its dealings with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the
counterpart to the Kosovo Liberation Army in the Balkans -- except
the SPLA is Christian and the KLA is Muslim. Last June 30, a new
constitution was signed into law, canceling the former ban on political
parties. In July, the SPLA called a three-month cease-fire in Bahr
al-Ghazal, and in August the government called a cease-fire throughout
the whole southern Sudan to permit relief organizations to send in
supplies. These hopeful developments were crippled on August 20,
when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of an aspirin factory in
Khartoum, killing innocent civilians, on the erroneous assumption that it
was making weapons of mass destruction. Whoops.
As far as I know, behind the American-based "humanitarian" groups
there are others who are doing nothing more than fomenting
public-relations wars against the Khartoum government in the hopes of
getting our government to arm the SPLA. These are the same folks who
argue for the arming of the KLA in Kosovo. Next thing you know, we
will have NATO parachuting into the Sudan. See what I mean. |
