|
|
|
- A Journalistic Lowpoint? The Wall Street Journal on Sudan
by David Hoile/ESPAC
On 12 December 2001, 'The Wall Street Journal' published an article
entitled "Don't 'Engage' Rogue Regimes", written by Michael Rubin.
Although Mr Rubin is described as an adjunct scholar of the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, and a fellow of Hebrew University's
Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, his obvious
shortcomings as a researcher are more than amply reflected in this
article, as is 'The Wall Street Journal''s questionable choice of
commentators.
It should be noted from the outset that this news item is but one in a
catalogue of questionable and discredited claims that have been made
over the years on Sudan and the Sudanese conflict. In 1999, for example,
the British media widely reported similarly dubious claims that Sudanese
government forces had used chemical weapons in southern Sudan. (1) In
2000, a British newspaper reported that 700,000 Chinese soldiers were
being deployed in southern Sudan, a claim similarly publicly exposed as
yet another false allegation. (2)
Rubin's glib and intellectually undemanding recital of Sudan's alleged
involvement in terrorism is tenaciously out of date. He starts off by
citing the Clinton Administration's 1993 listing of Sudan as a state
sponsor of terrorism. This listing was questioned from the start by
former President Jimmy Carter, who asked to see the evidence for Sudan's
listing. He reported that: "In fact, when I later asked an assistant
secretary of state he said they did not have any proof, but there were
strong allegations." (1) The simple fact is that the listing was based
on the over one hundred CIA reports on Sudan and terrorism from 1993
withdrawn in 1996 as unreliable or having been fabricated. (2) Sudan
continues to be listed more as a matter of saving face for Washington
than anything else. The gap between American claims about Sudan, and
reality, was also clearly demonstrated by Washington's amazingly inept
1998 cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa medicine factory in Khartoum,
an attack acknowledged to have been the result of yet more disastrous
American intelligence failures.(3) This level of incompetence led the
London 'Times' newspaper to state that such a circumstance "is no great
surprise to those who have watched similar CIA operations in Africa
where 'American intelligence' is often seen as an oxymoron." (4) Much
the same might be said of Rubin and research skills. All Rubin has done
is echo claims that are not just unreliable but which, in the final
analysis, amount to little more than state sponsored propaganda by the
former Clinton Administration.(5)
The gist of Rubin's article is criticism that the Bush Administration is
"trying to entice" Sudan "into cooperating" in the war against
terrorism. This is a doubly ironic claim for Rubin to have made.
Academics are also expected to review all available material before
reaching conclusions. In his enthusiasm to propagate fundamentally
questionable images of Sudan, however, Mr Rubin appears to have ignored
or overlooked independent material which contradict his claims. Both the
American magazine 'Vanity Fair' and a September 2001 article in 'The
Observer' newspaper in Britain reported that far from needing to be
enticed to cooperate on anti-terrorism, Sudan's attempts to actively
cooperate with the United States with regard to al-Qaeda and Osama bin-
Laden had been repeatedly rebuffed for several years before being acted
upon in part by Washington in 2000. (6) Moreover, in November this
year, 'The Washington Post' also publicly revealed that Sudan offered to
hand Osama bin-Laden over to the American government in 1996. Amazingly,
the offer was declined.(7) Mr Rubin appears to have studiously avoided
reading these key articles, articles central to the claims made in his
article. After several years of declining repeated Sudanese invitations
for American intelligence and counter-terrorist personnel to come to
Sudan and investigate whatever they wanted to, joint CIA, FBI and State
Department counter-terrorism and intelligence teams have been in Sudan
continuously, at Khartoum's request, since early 2000, almost eighteen
months before the attacks on 11 September 2001.(8) 'The Observer'
confirmed that in May 2001 these teams had given Sudan "a clean bill of
health" with regard to allegations of terrorism. In August 2001 Bush
Administration officials further confirmed that the Sudanese-American
cooperation on counter-terrorism had been positive. (9) This American-
Sudanese intelligence cooperation was said to have "covered
everything".(10) In fact, based on these extensive investigations, the
United States had agreed to the lifting of the limited United Nations
sanctions on Sudan.(11) Speaking on the same day as the Rubin article
was published, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Walter Kansteiner confirmed that Sudan had been cooperating with the
United States for some time before the World Trade Center attacks, and
that this cooperation had reached new levels since 11 September: "We
appreciate Khartoum's relationship with us."(12)
Rubin's Claims about Chemical Weapons: Disproven Old Allegations
In addition to his sterile claims about terrorism, 'The Wall Street
Journal' also allowed Rubin to make further sensationalist allegations,
without the slightest hint of any evidence, that the Sudanese government
has "chemical weapons stockpiles" in Juba, the main city in southern
Sudan. These are precisely the sort of claims which were the precursors
to the farcical American attack on the al-Shifa factory mentioned above,
which was similarly claimed to have been stockpiling chemical weapons.
Rubin also alleges that "throughout the 1990s" Sudan "provided a safe-
haven for...Iraqis working to develop chemical weapons, outside the view
of U.N. weapons inspectors": he also claims that Sudan has acquired
chemical weapons from Iraq. These clumsy allegations have also been
comprehensively contradicted by, amongst others, the White House, the
British government and UNSCOM. In 1998, the Clinton Administration,
clearly no friend of Khartoum, publicly stated that: "We have no
credible evidence that Iraq has exported weapons of mass destruction
technology to other countries since the (1991) Gulf War."(13) In
addition to the American government, the British government also stated
that there was no evidence for any such weapons of mass destruction
technology transfers from Iraq to Sudan. This was the view of both the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Defence Intelligence staff of
the British Ministry of Defence. On 19 March 1998, Baroness Symons, the
then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
stated in Parliament in relation to claims similar to those made by
Rubin, including chemical and biological weapons, that: "We are
monitoring the evidence closely, but to date we have no evidence to
substantiate these claims....Moreover, we know that some of the claims
are untrue..."(14) The British government also stated that: "Nor has
the United Nations Special Commission reported any evidence of such
transfers since the Gulf War conflict and the imposition of sanctions in
1991." (15) Who is one to believe with regard to chemical weapons and
terrorism? The American and British governments and UNSCOM or Rubin,
someone who is seemingly unable to keep up with searingly relevant
material such as that published in 'The Washington Post', 'Vanity Fair'
and 'The Observer', and who bases his claims on "interviews" with people
conveniently presented to him in rebel-controlled areas of southern
Sudan? (16)
Rubin's Claims of Slavery in Sudan
Michael Rubin is generous with his allegations of government-sponsored
"slavery" in Sudan, claiming that "few" non governmental organizations
"deny the existence of" of slavery. This would not appear to apply to
those groups and activists closest to the real issue of abductions and
kidnappings in Sudan. Sir Robert Ffolkes, director of the Save the
Children (UK) programme in Sudan, an organisation at the forefront of
the abductions issue, contradicts Rubin somewhat. Speaking earlier this
year he stated: "I have seen no evidence at all of slave trading. And
believe me, we have looked".(17) Sir Robert has also said: "I do not
believe the government in involved in slave-taking." (18)
Who does one believe? Reputable professionals who are present full-time
in Sudan or claims made by prejudiced, ivory-tower academics on the
basis of one, quick carefully chaperoned propaganda visit to southern
Sudan?
The respected human rights expert, and Sudan specialist, Alex de Waal,
while co-director of the human rights group African Rights, has also
stated with regard to claims similar to those of Rubin's:
"(O)vereager or misinformed human rights advocates in Europe and the US
have played upon lazy assumptions to raise public outrage. Christian
Solidarity International, for instance, claims that "Government troops
and Government-backed Arab militias regularly raid black African
communities for slaves and other forms of booty". The organization
repeatedly uses the term "slave raids", implying that taking captives is
the aim of government policy. This despite the fact that there is no
evidence for centrally-organized, government-directed slave raiding or
slave trade." (19)
Anti-Slavery International has also stated with regard to allegations of
government involvement in slavery that: "[T]he charge that government
troops engage in raids for the purpose of seizing slaves is not backed
by the evidence." (20)
The sort of claims of "slavery" made by Rubin have been extensively
questioned. Reuters, for example, has reported with regard to the sort
of "slaves" presented to Rubin that: "Local aid workers...say that they
have seen children who they have known for months passed off as
slaves...And Reuters interviewed one boy in Yargot who told a completely
implausible story of life in the north, a story which he changed in
every respect when translators were swapped." (21) Similarly, 'The
Christian Science Monitor' also clearly stated: "There are increasingly
numerous reports that significant numbers of those 'redeemed' were never
slaves in the first place. Rather, they were simply elements of the
local populations, often children, available to be herded together when
cash-bearing redeemers appeared." (22) It would appear that Rubin and
'The Wall Street Journal' chose not to look to far beyond a questionable
facade.
Rubin's Reliance on Christian Solidarity International as a Source
The questionable claims made by Rubin are clearly the result of
questionable sources. Rubin cites, for example, without attribution,
claims about government raids and enslavement made by Christian
Solidarity International (CSI) in November 2001, claims which alleged
that there were government attacks on villages near Aweil in the course
of which villagers were killed and 85 women and children were
"enslaved". CSI's reliability has already been commented upon by
reputable human rights activists as "overeager or misinformed" who have
also stated that the organisation has "played upon lazy assumptions to
raise public outrage." In February 2000 the Canadian government special
envoy to Sudan stated that "reports, especially from CSI...were
questioned, and frankly not accepted." (23) Rubin, however, accepts
them at face value.
Rubin's Missing Aid Worker
In his article Rubin makes much of a Kenyan aid worker who had been
"abducted, and has not been seen since". Once again this was
characteristically sensationalist. The Kenyan relief worker in question,
Miss Juliana Waithera Muiruri, had indeed been caught up (without visas
or documentation) in a skirmish in one of southern Sudan's war zones.
She was released on 18 November 2001, over three weeks before Rubin's
article: she has also expressed an interest in returning to Sudan, this
time "with proper papers". (24) Rubin has obviously not allowed facts
to get in the way of a good yarn.
Rubin's Visit to Southern Sudan
Rubin somewhat disingenuously states that he chose to enter southern
Sudan rather than northern Sudan because Khartoum "restricts the
movement of visitors and tightly monitors with whom they speak".
What Rubin does not tell his readers is that access into SPLA-controlled
areas of southern Sudan is notoriously restricted. One needs written
permission from the SPLA before one enters these areas, and once there
the rebel movement certainly monitors whom visitors speak to. An insight
into this control was reflected in the "Memorandum of Understanding" the
SPLA demanded that all nongovernmental organisations that wished to be
present within SPLA areas of southern Sudan should sign. This
"Memorandum" sought, amongst other things, to restrict the movement of
aid agencies, and stated that NGOs could only employ SPLA-approved
workers and that they could not hold public meetings without rebel
permission. American development aid expert, and Clinton Administration
official, John Prendergast documented earlier SPLA's restrictive
behaviour within the areas it controls: "A late 1993 SRRA [the SPLA's
relief wing] directive in Maridi and Mundri stated that visitors were
forbidden to talk to local people, but rather must speak to the SRRA.
The recent SRRA law reads more like a police directive...according to
one aid official. 'Its practicalities are abhorrent.'...There are SRRA
minders following wherever NGO representatives go." (25) Eleven
international humanitarian aid agencies felt themselves unable to remain
active in southern Sudan under the restrictive conditions demanded of
them by the SPLA and left southern Sudan. (26) One can safely assume
that this happens to other visitors, especially journalists. Given the
SPLA's strict controls, and its reputation for "misinformation" and
"cheap propaganda", one can be sure that the only people Rubin spoke to
were people the SPLA wanted him to see. Mr Rubin, however, apparently
felt comfortable with these conditions. Perhaps he was too naïve to have
noticed.
Conclusion
Sources are everything both to academics and journalists. Mr Rubin, and
'The Wall Street Journal', have displayed an amazing indifference with
regard to the reliability of the sources for claims made in this
article. This was particularly irresponsible given the serious nature of
the allegations that were made in the article. 'The Wall Street Journal'
comes out of this badly. It has a clear responsibility not to publish
the sort of unsubstantiated stories about weapons of mass destruction
and slavery that it did. Its reputation as a newspaper of record is
dented by this tabloid-esque journalism about Sudan. The article they
chose to publish would have been far more at home in 'The National
Enquirer'. Having published what can at best be described as
irresponsible, questionable allegations about Sudan, 'The Wall Street
Journal' then declined the offer of an article presenting an alternative
perspective. (27)
Mr Rubin either ignored or was unaware of crucial material on Sudan
central to the issue he was supposedly addressing. Out of naivety or
partisanship he chose sources that have long been seen as deeply
questionable. In any instance, he was too lazy, intellectually unable or
politically unwilling to address the issues objectively: none of which
commend him as a particularly astute writer on Sudan.
Notes:
1 'The
Independent' (London), 17 September 1993.
2 See,
"Decision to Strike Factory in Sudan Based Partly on
Surmise", 'The Washington Post', 21 September 1998; and "Sudan
Attack Blamed on US Blunders", 'The Times'
(London), 22 September 1998.
3
'The Wall Street Journal' also reported on the al-Shifa attack. See, "More Doubts Rise Over Claims for U.S. Attack",
'The Wall Street Journal' (New York), August 28,
1998; "Sudan to Allow U.N. to Investigate Any
Alleged Chemical-Arm Site", 'The Wall Street Journal'
(New York), October 16, 1998; "U.S. Should Admit Its Mistake in
Sudan Bombing", 'The Wall Street Journal' (New
York), May 20, 1999. It is surprising to see it
subsequently publish unsubstantiated claims of
Sudanese involvement in chemical weapons.
4 "Sudan
Attack Blamed on US Blunders", 'The Times' (London), 22
September 1998.
5
For a detailed study of the Clinton Administration's policies towards Sudan, see 'Farce Majeure: The Clinton
Administration's Sudan Policy 1993-2000', The
European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London,
2000, available at
www.espac.org
6 See,
David Rose, "The Secret Bin Laden Files: The Al-Qaeda Intelligence the U.S. Ignored", 'Vanity Fair'
(New York), January 2002, p.50 (Available in the
United States from December 5 onwards, a week
before Rubin's article in 'The Wall Street Journal'); and "Resentful West Spurned Sudan's Key Terror Files", 'The
Observer' (London), 30 September 2001.
7 "Sudan
Offered Up bin Laden in '96", 'The Washington Post', 3
October 2001.
8
See, for example, "US Sees Good Progress in Terrorism Talks with Sudan", News Article by Reuters on 25 September 2001.
9 "Powell
Mulls U.N. Action on Sudan After Report African
Government is Moving in right Direction on Terrorism", News Article by Associated Press on 22 August 2001 and "Sudan
Provides Intelligence to U.S.", News Article by
Reuters, 29 September 2001.
10 "Foreign
Minister says Sudan has been Cooperating with the
United States in the Fight against Terrorism for More Than a Year",
News Article by Associated Press on 25 September
2001.
11 See, for
example, "US Allows UN Council to End Sanctions Against
Sudan", News Article by Reuters on 28 September 2001; "US Ready to
End U.N. Sanctions on Sudan Friday", News
Article by Reuters on 28 September 2001; "US
Allows UN Council to End Sanctions Against Sudan", News
Article by Reuters, 28 September 2001.
12 "U.S.
Official Accuses Somalia of Harboring Terrorists", News
Article by Xinhua, 12 December 2001.
13 "White House
Says No Sign Iraq Exported Arms", News Article by
Reuters on 17 February 1998.
14 House of
Lords 'Official Report', London, 19 March 1998, cols.
818-820.
15 House
of Lords 'Official Report', London, 19 March 1998, cols. 818-820.
16 The SPLA's
capacity for deceit and deception is a matter of
record. Dr Peter Nyaba, a SPLA national executive member, has spoken candidly of what he describes as the SPLA's
"sub-culture of lies, misinformation, cheap
propaganda and exhibitionism" (See, Peter Nyaba,
The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan: An Insider's View', Fountain Publishers, Kampala, 1997, pp.55, 66).
17 Sir Robert
Ffolkes was quoted in "'Sudan', A Special
International Report", 'The Washington Times', 10 July 2001.
18 "Anti-Slavery
Drive in War-Torn Sudan Provokes Response Critics
Say Buyback Boost Market", 'The Washington Times', 25 May 2000.
19 Alex de Waal,
"Sudan: Social Engineering, Slavery and War", in
'Covert Action Quarterly', Spring 1997.
20 Peter Verney,
'Slavery in Sudan', Sudan Update and Anti-Slavery
International, London, May 1997.
21 "Aid group
tries to break Sudan slavery chain", News Article by
Reuters on July 11, 1999 at 23:40:58.
22 "Slave
'Redemption' Won't Save Sudan", 'The Christian Science
Monitor', 26 May 1999.
23 Ambassador
John Harker, 'Human Security in Sudan: The Report of
a Canadian Assessment Mission' Prepared for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, January 2000. See, also,
24 Miss
Muiruri's release was widely reported. See, for example, "Deported Aid Worker Tells of Wish to Return", News
Article by the UN Integrated Regional
Information Networks, Nairobi, 27 November 2001; and
"Aid Worker With a Big Heart", 'The East African Standard',
Nairobi, 5 December 2001.
25 John
Prendergast, 'Crisis Response: Humanitarian Band-Aids in Sudan and Somalia', Pluto Press, London,1977, p.59
26 See, "CARE,
Other NGOs, Withdraw from South Sudan", News Article
by Agence France Presse on 24 February, 2000; "Sudan: Focus
on NGO Pullout from SPLM", News Article by
Integrated Regional Information Network,
Nairobi, 29 February, 2000.
27 Conversation
with 'The Wall Street Journal' Editorial Page
staff-member on 14 December 2001.
The European-Sudanese Public Affairs
Council sent this media contribution to Media Monitors
Network (MMN)
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
|
|
|
