Phares: Dear colleagues, Mr. Haidon's note about the Arab world’s problem is correct. The central issue in the Darfur drama and in any similar situation in the region, is the fact that the dominant political and intellectual establishment in the Arab world didn't and isn't accepting the principle of self-determination to non-Arabs, or to non-Muslims if non- Arabs.

In 1981, I conducted a series of dialogues with Arab nationalists and Islamist thinkers in Beirut and raised the issue of ethnic and religious pluralism in the region. The responses were brutal and irrevocable: Non Arabs and Non Muslims simply "do not exist" as communities in the minds of the dominant elite.

I compiled these dialogues in a book in Arabic titled Hiwar dimucrati, "Democratic Dialogue." The existence of these communities as a socio-political entity somehow "threatens" the notions of "Arabism" or "Umma." Hence, during the Cold War or even after it, the national and religious minorities of the region had no chance of being recognized.

"Pluralism" (al Taadudiya) was a casus belli during the Lebanese attempts to achieve Peace. There is no notion of the "aakhar" or if you wish the "other." The problem is way deeper than adjusting power or redistributing it, or even sharing it with the other ethno-nationalities or religious communities. It is about asserting that there is no other identity, other than the dominant one, but measures can be taken to accommodate those who are different from the "Uruba" or Arabness. That was the essence of Kurdish, Chaldo Assyrian, Maronite, Berber, Coptic and in our case, the Nilotic Africans of Sudan, more particularly in Darfur.

Mr. Haidon's other point is also very valid. The economic incentives of the Janjawid's Jihad are very clear. May I add that it is not an exception to the greater ideological sense of Jihad. Actually, it is an organic part of it. The Jihadists draw their doctrines from their perception of the salaf, past commanders. The raids into infidel lands, known as Ghazwa, were to produce Ghanima, or war treasures. It could range from Slaves to land. This was and remains a basic concept of Jihad. The Janjawid's acquisition of lands and sites is a classical component of Jihad.

Mr. Haidon's other point on the post 911 "realization that the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims or minorities in Muslim/Arab countries has now become a more compelling national interest" in America is "the" real cross road. Have we reached it yet, as US Foreign Policy? At the level of the Administration's strategic perception, I believe so. I read the President's speeches carefully, and I can see the trend becoming a doctrine. It will have to be tested, including in Darfur. The latter is an "emergency," drawing other countries with us. But the real test will be if the Sudan regime won't comply with the UN resolutions. Even more challenging, would be to see if the US Administration would address the entire Sudanese question (i.e., the southern genocide and slavery issue). My feeling is that a second Bush Administration will go forward in that direction, with greater energy than the current positions. One would understand that in view of the priorities. I am not sure, however, that a Kerry Administration would break with the Clinton parameters of status quo with Arab-Islamic regimes. Most of his (Kerry) advisors are criticizing the incumbent for "going too far." If they get to the White House and re-take the State Department, I don't know if they would actually "withdraw" from the Darfur position or not.

Mr. Haidon's reference to an "emerging doctrine in international law known as humanitarian intervention" is important.  Indeed, this new body of principles "would permits a state to take the necessary means to protect a civilian population of another state from genocide or ethnic cleansing." But one has to be careful in terms of hopes. I am afraid, that while the new doctrine is in the right direction, its implementation is still selective and reflective of the classical balance of powers inside the UN.

Yes, as my colleague pointed out, "NATO's intervention in Kosovo is a perfect example" of how saving endangered peoples could be organized, but the big question remaining, is which peoples are to be saved. Bosnians and Kosovars were, but not the southern Sudanese and the Nubians of Darfur. Why? Because of the veto the Arab League raised at any time an attempt was made any place in the Arab world. That is the real problem.

Mr. Haidon's assertion that "Islam can be a secular and modern faith, consistent with democracy" will be always well received in the world of humanists. But, as he said, the confession is the historical passage for such transformation.

My colleague Mr. Lewis is absolutely right when he noted that "they are using Israel as a means to distract world media attention - particularly in Western Europe - from the severe human rights abuses within Arab League member states".  Indeed, any attempt by any progressive, humanist, democratic group or intellectuals to raise causes in the region other than the "Israeli occupation of Arab lands" was and is being accused of "pro-Zionist" ideas!

While tens of thousands of men, women and children were exterminated from Iraq to Sudan, the Arab state system ignored them, and dodged their humanitarian responsibilities towards their own people. The list is too long. Today, Darfur is exposing the Arab League failure to protects its citizens and its minorities.  

A Couple months ago, I received a message from a Lebanese diplomat. He/she told me that the Arab diplomats are scrambling to deal with the issue of Darfur. I asked my interlocutor: “Which is more urgent now, Darfur or Iraq?” He said "Iraq is an open wound, the Arab League has little to say, but Darfur is a bleeding wound, it may be lethal."

As I inquired why was Darfur an issue of interest after decades of inaction regarding the whole issue of Sudan, I understood that the Arab regimes fear Darfur may degenerate into a wider conflict between the Arab League and Black Muslim Africa. Darfur, it seems,has uncovered the mask of Jihadist racism against Black Africans. As long as the Muslim/Christian divide affected the issue of Southern Sudan, the Arab League left the southern Blacks to their fate at the hands of the National Islamic Front for decades. But once a Black Muslim rebellion exploded in Darfur, the Arab regimes understood that this "front" may be dangerous. Hence, they scrambled to see what they can do.

Haidon: Sudan's presence on the Human Rights Commission provides an example of many shocking (or not so shocking) anomalies that occur within structures of the UN system (think notably of Libya's presence on that same Commission, the presence of an anti-Semitic Egyptian judge (among others) on the International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Barrier in the Occupied Territories, and the existence of UNRWA to name a few).

Mr Lewis is correct, the United Nations system itself, and the shackles it provides has contributed to the plight of the Darfurians, the same way it prevented action to stop the Rwandan genocide. Just looking back, to see the stall tactics and legalistic chicanery (including by the Clinton administration's play on the legal definition of genocide, and preventing real Security Council action) should intensify the urgency of the Darfur crisis. It is on the verge of happening again. Even after the passage of the Security Council deadline, attacks and atrocities still continue. The United Nations must reform itself, or die due to irrelevance.

Responding to Dr. Phares, I think an argument can be seriously made that humanitarian intervention need not be constrained by Chapter VII or the Security Council at all when the need for such intervention is instant and overwhelming, as in Rwanda and Darfur. Unilateral or regional cooperation such as in Kosovo will be at times absolutely necessary, in order to avoid the deadly bureaucracy and politics of the debate floor. In a perfect world, the Arab League a regional organization, would be in an excellent position to intervene. Ideally, Sudan would be expelled from the Arab League (after all the Arab League did not hesitate to expel Egypt after its efforts at peace with Israel), and a multi-Arab force could be established to stop the genocide. But as we have seen even political and diplomatic efforts and pressure from Arab states has been sickeningly minimal.

Dr. Phares makes the most telling point of Arab inaction. The Darfurians are representative of a Black African threat (one of the closest threats from the region the modern Arab world has encountered) to the Arab world. Predictably, if peacekeepers are sent, they will likely be predominantly from Black African nations, as is the case in most African conflicts. The Arab reaction on the Security Council floor will be interesting, as to the possible composition of such a force.

FP: Let’s have a concluding comment from each panellist. Mr. Lewis?

Lewis: Colleagues, I was very happy that our discussion touched upon one of the unspoken international threats of our time: the lethal combination of an aggressive, fascistic, racially-based Arab nationalism that denies the existence of ethno-religious minority groups and the Islamic concept of jihad.  

As we have seen in Darfur, such a combination is lethal and genocidal.  No longer can we separate what is happening in Darfur from what recently, and tragically occurred, in North Ossetia where Arab jihadis were among the hostage-takers and murderers.   This is not to say that Arabs do not have the right of self-determination or that Arab states - like Egypt or Qatar - are somehow illegitimate.  It just means that the Arab world needs to accept the legitimate national aspirations of other groups, be they Darfur Africans, Kaybles, or Israeli Jews.   The Arab world's educational system must also be reformed so that the history of disparate Middle Eastern groups such as the Copts and Kurds is taught. 

Unfortunately, I see little relief in sight for the long suffering people of Darfur.  If you had asked me several months ago, I was a strong proponent of military intervention.  In a way, I still am, but I am almost at a loss of what a minor intervention could do and regime change in Khartoum is simply not possible.  

It is sad, but aside from rhetoric, very few international actors want to take the first step to seriously engage the Sudanese government and back that engagement with the credible threat of military force.  As long as French foreign policy -- and public opinion, for that matter - remains more concerned with vilifying President Bush than with introducing human rights into the Arab world, I see little prospect for serious change. 

That said, should the international community or a coalition of the United States, Britain, Australia, and others decide to intervene in Sudan, I would give them my full support.   Perhaps our discussion here -- in which a Christian, Jew, and a Muslim agree upon the need for reform in the Greater Middle East - can start a discussion among the foreign policy elite.

It was indeed my pleasure to take part in this symposium and I wish my colleagues, Mr. Haidon and Dr. Phares, nothing but the best. 

Phares: A final word on the drama of Sudan sitting on the Human Rights Committee of the UN. It wasn't just by coincidence. It was a deliberate move on behalf of the Arab League group at the UN, who lobbied (read put pressures on) with a number of African countries, to push Sudan into that position.

 This appointment was not only a failure of the UN to recognize the Human Rights abuses of the Khartum regime, but a failure of the international body to resist the pressures of the Arab regimes in the General Assembly. That is the real problem with the UN today. As for the move itself, it shows the coordination, especially between authoritarian regimes to protect each others back. The main reason for why Sudan was pushed by the Arab League in the UN, was because they knew that this was Khartum's weakness. They worked on enabling the Sudanese regime to defend its human rights records from within the Commission which was supposed to indict it. This is called preemptive strike, no?

I liked Mr. Haidon's "perfect situation," where the regional Arab organization (today called Arab League) would have expelled the Sudanese regime and sent Peace Keepers. But for that to happen, regimes must change and be replaced by democratic ones. And this is precisely why there exists a solidarity among all the existing Arab regimes. If one falls, such as in Iraq, the domino effect may take place. Which explains why in the case of Darfur, the Arab League rushed to stop as much as it could any international intervention. I value Mr. Haidon's understanding of the gravity of the situation in Darfur and his compelling arguments. I also concur with Mr. Lewis as to the essence of the problem: It is about education and a new debate that must take place yet. I thank both of them as well as Jamie for this excellent panel.

Haidon: I was certainly encouraged last week when the State Department issued a report indicating that a primary factor behind the atrocities in Darfur is racial hatred directed toward Black Africans. To me this signified that perhaps the Bush administration was moving towards a formal declaration that these atrocities are actually genocide. However, now that I have seen a copy of the draft US resolution calling for a mere expansion of African Union monitors and possible sanctions on Sudan's oil industry, without an identifiable deadline I am disheartened, and frankly a bit surprised by the weakness of that draft resolution. Sudan has rejected an extension of the mandate of African Union monitors. (The current mandate is extremely limited). Meanwhile, attacks occur daily, killing and displacing more Black Africans.

A "minor" intervention as Mr Lewis has pointed out, such as economic sanctions will be wholly ineffective, and will further exacerbate the suffering of the Darfurians. At the very least the United Nations should consider establishing  "safe zones" in the West of Sudan, not unlike the "safe havens" and "no-fly zones" in Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina, designed to protect ethnic minorities. This may well be a consideration if matters escalate further. However it could be too late for the victims of the Khartoum. Again, this could also fall under the rubric of humanitarian intervention.

To be sure, states under the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law are sovereign, politically and territorially. However, state sovereignty is not absolute. When a state abrogates the most basic of duties in failing to protect its nationals and in turn seeks to eradicate a portion of them, other states have a moral obligation to intervene to protect that portion. We already have seen the results when states fail to protect. Mr Lewis is correct, the mentality and underpinnings of the jihad occurring in Darfur, at its roots, is not dissimilar to the slaughter in Beslan. Clearly the international community is blind to this linkage! The crisis in Darfur should be seen as directly related to the global war on terrorism and related to the overall crisis facing contemporary Islam and Muslim states in the Middle East.

It has been an honor discussing these issues with all of you. Another excellent panel Jamie!

FP: Thank you. Thomas Haidon, Walid Phares and Jon Lewis, Frontpage is most grateful for your participation in this symposium. It was a pleasure and we'll see you again soon.

The Muslim Convert: Thomas Haidon, Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat.