Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa

The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House.  But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.

"Out of Iraq - Into Darfur" cartoon by Mike Flugennock.  Find more of his work at www.sinkers.org 

Top Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify US Military Intervention in African

by BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon

The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media.  Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.

Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan.  Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the "Save Darfur" lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness.  In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa. 

1.  It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.  

Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam.  This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense.  More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's still better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

2.  It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.

 The 1995 US and NATO military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide.  The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet.  The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders.  At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the US military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes.  It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the US's secret prison and torture facilities. 

3.  If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?

"The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd," according to Congolese activist Nita Evele.  "What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."

More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many Africans have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement.  In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed. 

Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrcik Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo.  Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese "genocide" worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.

4.  It's all about Sudanese oil.

Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil.  But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum.  Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet's energy supplies.  A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.

5.  It's all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.

Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors.  Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium.  Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world's supply.  When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity.  But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.

6.  It's all about Sudan's strategic location

Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world's easily extracted oil will be for a few more years.  Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route.  The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan has water resources of regional significance too.  With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent.  From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.

7.  The backers and founders of the "Save Darfur" movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a copyrighted Washington Post 
story this summer

"The "Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum...

"The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year...

"Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars."

Though the "Save Darfur" PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago.  Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manfacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.

8.  None of the funds raised by the "Save Darfur Coalition", the flagship of the "Save Darfur Movement" go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.

"None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act."

9.  "Save Darfur" partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur
President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur.  Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.

The slick, well financed and nearly seamless PR campaign simplistically depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan.  In the make-believe world it creates, there is no room for negotiation.  But in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black.  In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and can also negotiate in good faith if it chooses.  Negotiations are never a gurantee of anything, but refusal to particpate in negotiations, as the U.S. appears to be urging the rebels in Darfur to do, and as the "Save Darfur" PR campaign justifies, avoids any path to a political settlement among Sudanese, leaving open only the road of U.S and NATO military intervention.

10.  Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis. 

"Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback."

Apparently Blackwater doesn't need to come to the Congo, where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape and the disappearance of schools, hospitals and civil society into vast law free zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), all under a veil of complicit media silence already constitute the perfect business-friendly environment for siphoning off the vast wealth of that country at minimal cost.

Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across the wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call "ungoverned spaces".  Just don't expect to see details on the evening news, or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie.

Bruce Dixon can be contacted at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com 



Thank you for presenting some of the realities behind the whole "Save Darfur" push.


Jews have had their hand in African affairs for a long time. They've been riding Blacks' back for a very long time beginning in Africa, then through enslavement in America, and now through the public school system. Thanks for writing this article, BAR.


excellent simplified wrap up.

much appreciated

It's not the Jews

It is not the Jews who have plundered Africa the past century and a half or so. The European imperialist powers divided up Africa at the Berlin conferance in the 1880's.

Now, of course, the Zionists are active there as well.

Now your mistake: Zionists claim to speak for all Jewish people, but that is false. They want people to believe it so they can then falsly claim that an attack on Zionism is an attack on the Jewish people. The media and the Israel Lobby push this line .

Fascists also claim that Zionists and the Jews amount to the same thing.

Progressive people have to avoid this trap. It is a trap especially set for African-Americans to drive a wedge between them and progresssive Jewish people

Jews/Africa (2)

It's a trap to think Jews have NOT played any part in the negative treatment and portrayal of Blacks through the centuries. History tells a very different tale indeed. Everything can't be pushed on Zionism when you have so many people enjoying the benefits of what the Zionists push.

A perfect example that's non-Jewish is how the wives of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney sit back and enjoy the benefits of what their husbands are doing. That's also how it was during the prime of American enslavement. A few complained and did something. But most enjoyed the "benefits" of the institution of slavery, which is why it lasted for nearly three centuries. History tells you that as well.

Comment on Darfur

You are dead on with your scientific analysis.....Keep the real coming

Step forward

The truth is there is no race, no religion, no group of people in power who have not tried, and some succeeding, to keep Blacks suppressed to the point of genocide. Even Blacks in power have attempted to suppress Black citizens from massing and taking their progressive movement forward. The time for nostalgia about what could have been has got to stop, Blacks need to take power into their own hands and guard it like a precious baby, because everyone and anyone will want to steal it. Look to no one for help, look to no one for trust, look to no one for fairness and equality.

Why Is The Truth Always So Difficult and a Lie So Easy to Believ

Once again a great article on a subject which has been totally misreported by the "mainstream" media. My opinion is if we are able to remove only three people from African Soil the world will be a better place. They are Mr. CIA, Mr. Msada (Isreal) and Mr. MI-6 (England.). Why do our people not realize that Africa is the wealthiest continent on earth and every natural resource needed to sustain life can be found there. Unitl we wake up we will continue to follow the minstreal.


Good points about Darfur, however its not a good comparison with the Congo. Because during the aftermath of Lumumba's death, the Congo was in the same position as the Sudan has been for the past 30 years. And the same reasons the U.S. and other imperialistic nations, the extensive and rare natural resources that lie in the Congo. The Belgians intentionally stirred up factions to keep up the infighting. I believe that the Sudan will be just like the Congo if the situation is allowed to continue. A failed state.


Another fine piece from BAR exposing the real agenda in Africa. As in Iraq, countless innocents will suffer and die because they are "in the way" of resources and energy.

You lost me . . .

Same old, same old. I read a piece, nodding my head, and then I get to the part about "the Jews" - coded, but still there. No attempt to lay the blame anywhere else.

The Holocaust Museum is behind U.S. foreign policy? Right. Just them? And if not, then why not spell out who really is behind it? Unless, you mean, the Jews.

Sick. Sick. Sick. You lost me.

Arabs vs Blacks

From the first time i had heard about Darfur, i've had my doubts. It was said on the news that Arab militias were gunning for blacks. The amount of ignorance needed to say this was staggering.
You try to counter that by saying: "in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black".
What do you mean 'many'? All Sudanese are black!
Other than that, excellent article.


I do not think we should amass ALL people of Jewish faith into one Zionist click. It is, and has been, the "reform" or "conservative" [so-called] Jews who should accept some of the culpability. These Jews are part of the White Supremacy Dynamic or White Power Structure that has contributed to the usurpation of African resources as well as the perilous history of Africans in America. Still, all-in-all, great article!

thank you

Thanks so much for this article. There have been all too few voices presenting this critical view of the Darfur "movement." Even those who are very critical of US foreign policy in general have often been reluctant to say what you said here.

Others among the few who see this as PR for empire: Dennis Brutus, David Whitehouse and Avery Wear, Gary Leupp, and Joshua Frank.

rothschilds ? anyone ?

it is obviously only a very few jews (rothschilds,warburgs/schiff families are most prominent)....although too many try to generalize the specification of criminality as a racist generalization which it is not...

check out http://iamthewitness.com for amazing truths about history

ww1 gave zionists the balfour agreement

ww2 killed off assimilated jews or forced them to colonize palestine...and it gave zionists the decades long lie to protect their own genocidal racism

ww3 will destroy all strong nations in mideast except israel, leaving it free to expand to the original zionist dream...from the nile to the euphrates...

jesus fought the same folks 2 thousand years ago...phariseic bankers, lawyers, and politicians are destroying God's creation same as ever...but the truth will destroy them...have faith

Sadly the author is ill-informed.

Points 1 and 2 are irrelevant.
to what is happening in Sudan.

Point 3,

The supposed descendants of Arabs and Turkish invaders hate the fact that they "look" Black and have been subjated non Arabs in Sudan for centuries. Starting with the Nubians over a thouand years ago. Sudans is currently builidng a damn that will flood what remains ancient Nubia Goverment of Sudan's President Omar Bashir led a jihad against non Muslims in southern Sudan that cost over 2 million lives.
The jihad was financed in part by Omar Bashir. The author failed to mention those 2 million African lives lost.
Now China is exchanging money weapons weapons used to kill Black non Arab Sudanese Muslims in for black oil.

What about the Congo, is often used by those who want to distract from Sudan. Where are the separate articles about the Congo?

Points 4 and 5.
Its about humanity. Yes I know there just Africans so that's hard to believe. But if was about oil and other resources. The U.S. would have brokered a deal with Sudan years ago. Arabs and the West has been doing that all over Africa for centuries. Make a deal
with the leader and screw the people. So yes it's in this case it's about humanity. Ask Danny Glover, or Black Congressmen, or
me at www.uniteus.com. Visit Sudan.net or SudanTribune.com
Ask Rwandans why they were the first to send peace keeping troops to Sudan.

6. Irrelevant. Darfur is hundreds of miles away from the Nile. Many organizations and individuals want to see the mass killing and displacement of Sudanese men, women, and children come to and end. Speculating about the U.S government may feel good but meanwhile the killing continues.



Be nice if the media gave as much attention to Darfur as Brittany Spears, Michael Vick, O.J. Then you wouldn't needs organizations to raise awareness about the atrocities in Darfur.

Sudan has different words to describe people of various skintones. The darkest are called abid, which means Black slave.

Ever heard Black American make fun of someone with darker skin. Did you know Oprah had to sleep on the porch of light skin relative because her skin was considered too dark? Bloods and Crips have been known to kill based on clother color differences. Nazis killed Jews even though they shared the same skin tone. It's whats between your ears that count. Some Sudanese hate to be called Black see themselves as Arabs and speak Arabic. Don't be surprised. There was a time when most Black Americans did not want to be called Black. I was suprised when visting Sudan.net how little concren the so called Arabs showed toward death of dark skinned Muslinm Sudanese in Darfur but would lament and pray to Allah over the death of Palestinians.

10. Irrelvant to Save Darfur.
The biggest block to peace is China. They've been threatening to veto any action UN condemnation or action. They got a sweet deal with Sudan's President Omar Bashir.

Finally THE JEWS.
Hey if want to get on Jews
that promote, abortion,gay porn,
gangsta rap, or Alan Greenspan for blocking sanctions againts oil companies profitting from the genocide in Sudan than I'm with.

At the same time we must praise Jewish groups like www.jewishworldwatch.org

For further reading

I suggest people also check out the following articles on Darfur. Mamdani's LRB piece, in particular, provides an excellent overview of the historical, economic, agricultural, political, and cultural underpinnings of the conflict in the Sudan.



I knew it

Amy Goodman and the people at Pacifica Radio who have been pimping this cannont be trusted. For shame on them!

Excellent piece

I'm very happy to see someone attack this issue so comprehensively with well researched facts and to construct such cohesive arguments.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you view the BBC documentary, The Great African Scandal by Dr. Robert Beckford. Google it.

here's some hidden truth that's destroying us all

ZIONISM EXPLAINED: The Central Banker who took over England's money creation process in the 1700's, the Rothschilds (real name Bauer)AKA Ratchilds funded two gangs for world takeover; 1776 the Illuminati (>>CFR, TC, etc.)and in 1897 zionism . Ratchilds' Balfour Declaration GAVE Palestine to the the Zionists (who helped Hitler to chase the Jews out of Germany into Palestine) for use as a military terrorist base for Ratchilds' MILITARY takeover of the world. Recall that the Rat..s already own basically ALL the $ of the world through their Central Bank of Issue scam -they creat $ ex nihilo and pocket half calling it 'bonds' and lend the other half to the govts of the world at interest which they collect thru their IRS . Haven't checked lately and they may have altered this as too many people are catching on to their scam , but your cancelled IRS check says 'Federal Reserve Bank' which is their private Central (Counterfeiting)Bank so theiy stole your $ as "interest" to them. Also see the 21,000 p Grace commission Reprt which proved that not one penny of your IRS $ pays for ANY Govt programs! (The Rat..s just lend MORE ex nihilo "$" at more interest to pay for the govt programs!.
PS Just think if Ron Paul gets elected President he will close all those military bases and no more wars for the oil companies, etc. He will eliminate the "Federal" Reserve /IRS scam and that would lead to propspertiy for all. The free energy technologies currently being suppressed (cold fusion, etc.- lots of them! see www.panaceauniversity.org )would flourish and mankind would finally advance beyond the thug and poverty stage
that the centa-trillionaire Ratchilds are currently lording over. dc PPS Keep up the great

I forgot to mention

very important proof of the "Fed"/IRS scam is the excellent movie by famous movie producer Aaron Russo ("The Rose" with Bett Midler,"Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy, et al) called America:From Freedom to Fascism and this great movie can be found at his site
www.freedomtofascism.com . Needless to say, even he could not get this shown widely in the Central Bankster owned theaters-they own all major media including newspapers, etc,
to insure that "we masses" cannot find out about their money-creating and IRS scam! dc

the psychological world war

I think that underlying the physical situation is an almost world-wide mythology justifying it all. Not long ago that mythology was straighforward, primarily christian-derived, 'white mans' burden' type stuff. Since WW2 the official global myth of western imperialism has shifted from explicitly 'white power', for obvious reasons (the holocaust), and 'the Jews' (as a moral abstraction and symbol, via hollywood) have become the self-proclaimed heroes of the 'anti-racist' myth and - simultaneously - the actual leading edge of white supremacism on a world scale. Obviously this is completely self-contradictory, and they can only maintain the contradiction because they own most of the major western mass media.

It is corporate globalism that is the problem.

The corporations who own the puppet governments of the West in our pretend democracies, lobby our governments for 'intervention' on humanitarian grounds, this appeals to politicians who want to extend their power.

War is big business and there are so many people who benefit financially from it from the military industry, private mercenary companies, surveillence industries, fake charities, not least those who can steal the natural resources of a countries such as the oil companies.

This is sold to politicians and and the self appointed elite as an ideology. They believe that the world should be a global village that THEY control. The problems of the world can only be solved through globalism.
They are preparing the world for a one world fascist state.

The mainstream media promotes globalism as necessary, they want power of the UN or America to trump that of national sovereignty.

They are morphing the sovereign nations of the EU into one government that will be imposed on us that nobody wants under a constitution that takes away all our rights and empowers unelected beaucrats to control us.
This is also beginning in the US with NAFTA, Canada, Mexico and the US will morph into one, minus your constitution and democracy.

This is directly tied into what is going with Africa, former French President Mitterand admitted in his autobiography that EU expansion and increased power for unelected fascists was necessary to create strong armies to fight the main war of the twenty first century which is resource wars.

Globalism is the new nazism. It has infested the fake left right paradigm that has been created in America to distract you from real politics and decreasing freedoms.

They use everything from poverty, global warming, aids, war etc as an excuse to extend their power.
Whether it is giving billions to wealthy pharmaceutical companies who hold Africans to ransom, promoting a global tax for the enviroment while the same people drop uranium bombs on the heads of Eastern Europeans and Iraqis poisining their enviroments forever, using poverty as an excuse to subsidise dictators who then further oppress their own people, using anything as an excuse to invade people.

It is all about power and money.

Gulf of Tonkin

Memo to Capt Ford: the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a non event. It didn't happen. Period. I know a navy pilot that was there,got scrambled to counter attack. Nothing there. Try to imagine some torpedo boats attacking the 7th Fleet. Give me a break.

You are on your head

I'm sorry, usually I just read the things in this report and let a good part of them go undiscussed more so because I read the BAR as a sort of point counter point, but you are truly wrong on this one.

You talk about how the Save Darfur Coalition is mainly a PR scam and has nothing to do with stopping the issue and yet you fail to mention not one piece of personal research but just referencing other's. Come on you are too smart for that. First of all you should look at their website, their background and the programs they run and sponsor, you talk about not giving the money to those on the ground in Darfur. No they run programs such as those which promote the divestment from companies which are funding the hateful acts which are taking place in the region.

You also talk about how there is no mention of the Congo, yeah, that is why it is called the Save Darfur Coalition not the Save Congo Coalition, that is why they work with Darfurians to help talk about and promote the issue. Funny at how the projects and groups which have taken place outside of their watch like the Olympic Hopeful who had a story on HBO or the professional Basketball Players who are from that region are saying the same thing and it is what they escaped.

I don't find it shocking that a group of folks are quick to try to divide the groups and lack discussion about real results, but what I do find shocking is the fact that you all think it is such an important thing to do.


Thank You

something about the darfur struggle has always struck the wrong cord with me. Seeing as it is not new, the new emphasis on it is one that has led me to question whether or not people actually care about this or knew anything about Africa.

As this article has well shown, this whole issue is a serious one but is more of a pr stunt than a real interest in genocide. If really interested in humanitarian work, the activists would be targeting central africa where children are thrown out on the streets for being "witches" and people are being killed and raped at much higher levels than in Darfur.

So, I thank you for publishing this article and clearing up many of the issues that I've had with it.

Not many specifics

You made many good points, but failed to give a detailed description of the conflict itself. If it is not a Black versus Arab conflict then what exactly is it? What is a summarized history of Arab influence in Africa? People are being killed and displaced from the land so what is so terrible about paying attention to the conflict? I am personally against any Muslim government, whatever their hue, persecuting Black people, even with your well placed arguments. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy is not enough. You need to properly explain the parameters of the conflict. Only with a good understanding will the situation be addressed.

Angry African

I generally enjoyed reading your piece but your "blame the Jews" rhetoric sat ill with me. Sure, many Jews have directly exploited Africans, and many many more have benefited from that exploitation despite not being directly involved in it. But that's also true true of millions of Europeans and other White people the world over. Moreover, many Africans have themselves directly exploited their own people and/or benefited from that exploitation. The Idi Amins and Mobutus and Savimbis of the world do not characterize all Africans, nor should the Rothschilds and Sharons and Ben Gurions characterize all Jews.

Point is, what's happening in Darfur is genocidal. Does this mean that what's happening in Congo isn't? Of course not. But, by your argument and that of some of your commenters, Darfur is only noteworthy because White people have taken interest in it and are going to use it as an excuse to put a military presence in Africa. I agree that the West is using it as a pretext to reinvade, but that does not mean the rest of us should remain silent. In fact, our silence created the very space that these White Save Darfur advocates are filling. We need to learn a lesson from this.

Bottom line is, I'm uncomfortable with the Arabs vs. Black argument, and I'm even MORE uncomfortable with the Holocaust Museum's involvement, for personal reasons. But at the end of the day, people are dying. Yes, it would be nice if Congo got as much, or more, attention as Darfur, but that's no reason for nobody to speak out for Darfurians. Otherwise, Darfurians and Congolese will continue to die and be displaced with neither crime being denounced.

Sorry to say...

You have a group of people in Northern Sudan who consider themselves Arabs although from the African-american perspective we consider them to be Black. They define themselves as Arabs, racially and religiously and we cannot force our definitions or perspectives on who they say they are. Since they believe this, they have made themselves enemies of the African historically speaking. Just wanted to clear that up quickly.
Speaking on Darfur and the Congo, it just goes to show how much of a propaganda machine is going here. Telling us one thing about Darfur genocide and nothing about Congolese genocide. They want to prepare us mentally for the military action that is about to happen on the African continent. This is nothing but propaganda.

Save Darfur

This was an informative article. for those of you who don't realize who controls the media, check out this site.

From the author to the Angry African & others

I emphatically take issue with your characterization of my Darfur story as "blame the Jews rhetoric".

I quoted a heavily fact-checked Washington Post story naming the Holocaust Museum and the AJWS as the principal founders of the Save Darfur Coalition. Does that constitute "blame the Jews rhetoric"? I think not. I also said that among the most strident backers of the Save Darfur movement are many equally strident backers of the state of Israel's more questionable policies. You have to twist your neck and cross your eyes a long time for that to look like "blame the Jews" rhetoric.

I did specifically blame the public relations profession, and the foreign policy establishment. And the Hollywood stars I named --- Clooney, Jolie and Oprah --- I don't believe any of them is Jewish either. I humbly and respectfully suggest to the writer and to others who have expressed similar sentiments that you are seeing something in my work that just ain't there, and maybe you should re-read the article.

United States and Israel should place sacntions against themslev

Bruce Dixon,

Regarding your reason #2 "It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed 'genocide prevention as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region."

Iraq is another example of this. The U.S. Administration was always talking about how Saddam Hussein had killed his own people.They left out that it was the United States that that helped to put Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities.

Regarding your reason "# 3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?"

In order to stop the genocide in the COngo the United States would have to place sanctions against itself and Israel for their role in this genocide.

See http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm



No proof of genocide in DARFUR!!!!!

No pictures of MASS GRAVES have yet to suface in DARFUR. Are the "JANJAWEED" (A creation of the Amerikkkan media the same people behind the weapons of Mass Destruction HOAX!!!!!) systematically killing all of those people then taking their precious time to DIG GRAVES FOR ALL THOSE THEY HAVE SLAUGHTERED AND THEN BURY THEM TO COVER THEIR TRACKS?



Colin Powell's Vietnam Mai lai massacre where there were pictures of what the whiteman made him do! KILLING BABIES AND WOMEN!

The French and the Americans should have video footage by now but they do'nt because there is no genocide taking place.

Yes indeed innocent people have died but to call it genocide is just simply ridiculous.

No pictures of dead bodies,No mass graves, NO GENOCIDE IS TAKING PLACE IN DAFUR WHATSOEVER!

Learn how the world works in 21'st century by Malcolm X

It may be hard to remember--given the politically calculated cluelessness of African-American leaders and pundits on this issue--but there was a time when a black leader could spot "cold blooded" manipulation about the "humanitarian project" of the day for Africa from 8,000 miles away and could dissect the process in an interpretation that has stood the test of time:

They call it a humanitarian project and that they're doing it in the name of freedom. And all of this, these glorious terms, are used to pave the way in your mind for what they're going to do.

This is all a cold-blooded act on the part of your Western powers, namely the Western powers here in the United States--interests in the United States, in England, and France, and Belgium and so forth. They want the wealth of the Congo, plus its strategic geographic position.

The step-by-step process that was used by the press: First they fanned the flame in such a manner to create hysteria in the mind of the public. And then they shift gears and fan the flame in a manner designed to get the sympathy of the public. And once they go from hysteria to sympathy, their next step is to get the public to support them in whatever act they're getting ready to go down with. You're dealing with a cold calculating international machine, that's so criminal in its objectives and motives that it has the seeds of its own destruction, right within.

...when you're playing basketball and they get you trapped, you don't throw the ball away, you throw it to one of your teammates who's in the clear. And this is what the European powers did. They were trapped on the African continent, they couldn't stay there; they were looked upon as colonial, imperialist. So they had to pass the ball to someone whose image was different, and they passed the ball to Uncle Sam. And he picked it up and has been running it for a touchdown ever since. He was in the clear, he was not looked upon as one who had colonized the African continent. But at that time, the Africans couldn't see that though the United States hadn't colonized the African continent, he had colonized twenty-two million Blacks here on this continent. Because we are just as thoroughly colonized as anybody else.

When the ball was passed to the United States, it was passed at the time when John Kennedy came into power. He picked it up and helped to run it. He was one of the shrewdest backfield runners that history has ever recorded. He surrounded himself with intellectuals--highly educated, learned, and well-informed people. And their analysis told him that the government of America was confronted with a new problem. And this new problem stemmed from the fact that Africans were now awakened, they were enlightened, and they were fearless, they would fight. So this meant that the Western powers couldn't stay there by force. And since their own economies, the European economy and the American economy, was based upon their continued influence over the African continent, they had to find some means of staying there. So they used the "friendly" approach. They switched from the old, open colonial, imperialistic approach to the benevolent approach. They came up with some benevolent colonialism, philanthropic colonialism, humanitarianism, or dollarism. Immediately everything was Peace Corps, Crossroads, "We've got to help our African brothers."...

That leader was Malcolm X.

Here is a Realplayer audio link to Malcolm X's talk from which above was excerpted. It's around an hour and 24 minutes in length. When you click on above, only the first 39 minutes is played, but then the stream will automatically switch to the remaining 45 minutes. His African analysis is mostly in the second half.

Bizarre Article

I've been following the Darfur for some time now and I must say this is the most bizarre conspiracy yarn ever spun. I have trolled the internet most of the weekend and cannot find any connection between the Save Darfur Coalition and the Center for Security Policy. Also, why does the article discount the good work of Congressional Black Caucus members Maxine Waters, Donald Payne and Barbara Lee? Website like this sang Lee's praises when she voted against the war in Afghanistan -- so what do you think of her now? As I understand, she has drafted some of the toughest divestment language against Sudan. So, is Barbara Lee now focused on Sudanese oil????

Re: Bizarre Article

Maybe you need to adopt the research methodology (http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1763-3.html) of another "humanitarian" who's quite loud on the "Save Darfur" bandwagon, Alan Dershowitz, to pooh-pooh Bruce Dixon's superb analysis (Hint: it involves reaching a conclusion first--this is all a "conspiracy theory"--then doing research in an "ass-backward way to back up a thesis").

Dershowitz, who has been providing legal apologia for torture, house demolitions, razing of villages, and last year plumbed depths previously reached publicly only by high-ranking Nazis and Fascists (e.g. Mussolini who was given to labeling the entire population of an occupied country like Ethiopia as the Enemy) when he called for the destruction of all Lebanese civilian targets during Israel's savage assault on that tiny country, is certainly a fine example of the humanist whose sole concer is the suffering of people in Darfur.


J ust
E liminate
W orthless
S ables

Jews have traditionally used blacks in many ways throughout the world. That's the reason for much of the tension between the groups in Amerika.

tired of words---you know what to do

This scam of public relations for human misery as a way to gain access and control of resources deserves bloody opposition .

Why play Uncle Tom and serve the US military to escape poverty? And to protect themselves I suggest Africans take note of what the Vietnamese did.

What Dafur?

Look around you. Who are spreading the venom? Zionists and their sympathizers. We don't deny that there is a conflict in Dafur. But genocide? 200,000 killed? And the lies they keep on piling up to support their objectives! One would think that Joseph Goebbels has come back from the dead.

so what next

hi, this is my 1st time to read on this site.I've liked this article.I am from Africa and that sometimes gives me a unique perspective when i read sites like these (e.g democracynow.org).some say we should take power into our own hands:ya we've tried that b4.we've had leaders who have heard african instrests are haert.they all lost and still lose due to one perticular fault:Not knowing how to play the imperial game! thus we get played everytime we want to do something for ourselves. we dont sturdy our problems deep enough.We still have that inferiority complex.Even though we can beat the imperialists at their own game,we luck the knowledge to do so and are unwilling to get it.Trust me,i've done enough informal research on this.There are many suspicious groups coming to sudan through uganda. i rencetly asked one HUMANITARIAN working with an NGO anumber of questions. i asked him why darfur when congo is much worse? he couldnt answer.i gave him a nother barage of questions that exposed a hiden agenda, he still could not answer.He was saved by his GF cos they had to go.and i confirmed it: darfur is another geopolitical game! Perhaps, i may well conclude by saying that the key to this century success lies in only one thing: LEARNING HOW LEARN FAST AND HOW TO THINK CREATIVELY AND ANALYTICALY.
and i recommend a book about that to everyone.

Great article

Bruce Dixon has written a great piece. Only thing I would add is that, unlike advocates against the Iraq War, the 'Save Darfur' crowd can get an audience with George W. Bush.

United States and Israel should sanction themselves

Bruce Dixon,

Regarding your reason #2, where you give the example of Yugoslavia, a better example is Iraq. Remember when the U.S. administration and the media was saying that Saddam Hussein killed his own people? They left out that it was the United States that had helped Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities.

Regarding reason #3 and doing something about the Congo, the United States and Israel would have to place sanctions against themselves since they are playing a role in the genocide in the Congo.




When will the United States and Israel be putting their high level government officials on trial for war crimes?

The United States needs to sanction itself

Bruce Dixon,

Regarding your reason #2, where you give the example of Yugoslavia, a better example is Iraq. Remember when the U.S. administration and the media was saying that Saddam Hussein killed his own people? They left out the information that it was the United States that had helped Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities.

Anti semitism

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Dixon. The only other thing I would ask is that you take a position equally strongly against the comments of "Ben the N-Word" and others.

I like BAR a lot. I hope you'll make it clear that it is not a place where anti-semites and other types of bigots (like homophobics and sexists) are welcome.

arab racism

arabs are one of the most racist people.stupid blacks don't even understand that muslim arabs are the real slave masters.america should not intervene and let the muslims and black kill each other.these two races have achieved nothing,they just bring misery everywhere.

While I can agree that the Save Darfur movement has its
problems, these 10 don't seem to be any of them. The most egregious lie
being proffered in this article is that somehow lobbyists are a front
for a neo-colonialist war. Here, for example, are the 5 points being
demanded of politicians by Save Darfur:

1. Make ending the crisis in Darfur one of your top priorities;

2. Push for the fastest possible deployment of the hybrid U.N.-A.U.
peacekeeping force authorized by the U.N. Security Council in July;

3. Pressure contributing nations to fully and immediately meet their
pledges of troops, funding, equipment, and logistical support;

4. Work to ensure the Sudanese government's full participation in a just
and inclusive peace process, and to overcome any attempts to obstruct or
delay the protection of civilians or the peace process;

5. Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for its safe delivery.

If this were in any way a front for the US government, lobbyists would
have given up on the peace-process and the UN four years ago and
demanded NATO, or the US lead an intervention and take over. They

It comes as a complete shock to me (a human rights activist) that "the Darfur region in
particular" sits atop a lake of oil. Sudan, as a whole, doesn't have
resources that ultimately amount to much. And Darfur has virtually no
oil, as far as I know. Of course, oil is a part of the equation of
instability in Africa, but to argue that the Darfur conflict is "all
about oil" is naive, at best, and specious, at worst.

It's true that Sudan has oil, and it's true that it 'fuels' conflict,
but Nigeria and Angola contain sub-saharan Africa's mother loads. Sudan
is actually Africa's 6th largest producer, at the moment. Regardless,
Iraq is THE mother load for the US.

A very basic web search
(i.e., http://ecosonline.org) will show that Darfur's reserves cover only a
tiny part of the south-eastern corner of the country.

Another aspect of the article (and the NY Times one it quotes) that
bothered me was the line that Save Darfur has given no money to the
humanitarian effort. It must be pointed out that the conflict in Darfur
has spawned one of the only well-funded advocacy groups in history. This
is a victory, in my opinion. Activists (i.e., people who are genuinely trying to bring about change) are always complaining that people don't
understand the value of advocacy, and that's why advocacy groups remain
underfunded. Again, while I don't think that the Save Darfur group
always has the deepest analysis, I think they deserve some praise for
drawing people in.

The author is arguing for something to be done about the Congo. I agree,
although the Congo does already have the world's largest UN peacekeeping
mission: 17,500 soldiers. In terms of why the label "genocide" hasn't
been applied to the situation in the DRC, the author has answered the
question himself. "In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and
warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola
engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation...." Who's
killing whom, in other words? Regardless, in Darfur the term "genocide"
has proved meaningless.

If Sudan and the DRC have such large resources,
as the author argues, why the differential treatment? Arguing for attention to one conflict and not the other is not a logical position, in my opinion.

As I mentioned, I agree that the Save Darfur group has weaknesses: at
times, it doesn't carry out the most sophisticated analysis and/or
consultations, i.e., calling for a no-fly zone in the face of
humanitarians objections, but the group largely coalesced because of
people's (particularly Jews') concern for large-scale,
ethnically-motivated killing. As well, I might add, I think "Darfur" has
become "sexy", so to speak, but I don't think people are consciously
fronting US imperialism.

The question we all need to ask ourselves is: "what will you do in
the face of such massive levels of killing?" The other has no answer other
than "push the West to stop oppressing Africans." A statement I can get
behind but, in the meantime, folks in Darfur continue to die.

Bashir, the President of Sudan, must love this guy.