Where Civil Blood Makes Civil Hands Unclean

Death Toll Rising In Guinea

Religion. Politics. Tribal Vengeance. Old Mutiny.

Any of these things can be blamed for the latest spat between the Guerze and Konianke peoples. More poetic writers might be more apt to exaggerating the events to make it sound more dramatic than it really was. Yet what happened Monday in Nzerekore, Guinea was far from poetic. It was barbarism, at best.

A simple spat over supposed theft was all it took to drag a city of nearly 300,000 people into the chaos of ethnic violence. The brutal beating and murder of a Konianke youth by Guerze gas station guards was a spark. It lit a fire in the city that took two days to exhaust as police presence on the streets began to resemble military might. Law enforcement, dressed in battle gear, rode out the violence since they could not quell it through brute force.

By Wednesday morning the streets in Nzerekore resembled a war zone. Around 80 people had been wounded, including a Guerze tribal chief, and at least 54 had been killed. According to a doctor that refused to identify himself there were many more who had been either burnt beyond recognition or hacked to pieces. Leaving the official death toll limited to those that could be readily identified through ID papers or by relatives and friends.

In addition to the sudden influx of wounded and dead in Nzerekore there had been cars and homes destroyed by arson attacks and vandalism. For many these very places had been the only safe refuge they had as the rival mobs had carried out rolling battles across the city.

So what lay at the root of this latest outbreak of ethnic violence in Guinea?

Politics and Old Mutiny

In recent years the West, and Americans in particular, have come to realize that diamonds and precious metals originating in West Africa are often products of war and genocide. The term "blood diamonds" was coined and led to countless books and even an award winning movie produced in Hollywood. But the reality of what these conflict minerals actually leave behind has eluded many in Western culture. We tend not to think of the crimes these materials help fund or how many lives they cost. We really only tend to think of how we can obtain said materials without the guilt of purchasing "blood diamonds" while still affording such luxuries.

For the citizens of Sierra Leone these diamonds helped directly fund the horrific crimes of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the RUF/Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). These barbarians mutilated civilians, massacred their victims, and forcibly conscripted children into their ranks to serve as child soldiers. One of their most prominent purchasers was the then acting president of Liberia, Charles Taylor.

It was this bankrolling of crimes against humanity that ended up having Charles Taylor becoming the first head of state to be formally charged with such crimes in an international court since Nuremberg. This was the first case in which a tyrannical savage (former state leader) was brought to justice in decades. And yet the legacy his time in power had left upon the region would not be so easily forgotten.

During Charles Taylor's run for presidency in Liberia a savage civil war broke out. What was supposed to be a civil election process had turned into a barbaric battle for total power over the country and it's resources. Charles Taylor only "won" the election by threatening to restart the war if he was not elected. Thus the savage took power under threat of more blood shed.

So what does this have to do with the ethnic violence in Guinea?

Every since Charles Taylor's insurgency against the setting president of Liberia in December of 1989 the war criminal has drawn upon support from the Guerze tribes, known as Kpelle in Liberia. Taylor exploited the animosity that the Guerze tribal leaders had instilled in their people against the "newcomers", the Konianke people. Using this tribal divide, Taylor was able to build upon the hatred that already existed and work the tribal groups into ready-to-fight militias. This was a tactic that Taylor would again utilize during the rebellion against him in 1999 (later called The Second Liberian Civil War).

In successive struggles to maintain power the war criminal would continue to feed the hatred and distrust that fomented between the Guerze and Konianke people. In 1999's rebellious days Taylor would tell his loyalist that the Mandingo (considered to be Liberia's Konianke community) were the cause for the countries problems. Scapegoating the Konianke, Taylor then added to the accusations that Guinea was behind the rebellion in his country.

This legacy of mistrust and political hatred for one another has been left behind by corrupt politicians like Charles Taylor. It is one of the reasons that such ethnic tensions become strained to the point of violence in Guinea (and the region for that matter) during times of political elections. Any spark during these times leaves the communities of these two tribes susceptible to ethnic violence.

It is a reality in Guinea that the government has become far to aware of. In May there were more than 50 people were killed in violence resulting from ethnic and political protest ahead of the expected electoral process in Guinea. These deaths, not related to the incident above, were results of clashes between the Peuhl tribe and Malinke tribe. Yet both cases of ethic violence are heralds of the upcoming elections across the country.

Religion and Tribal Vengeance

When you talk about the "holy war" between Christians and Muslims in Africa you most often end up in Nigeria. The bitter struggle for control over the religious aspect of African society has nearly drawn a line between the Northern half of sub-Saharan Africa and the Southern half. With Arabic influences in the north and black African Muslims spreading their faith southward the battle for souls has turned into a bloody stalemate. Animist and people of local religions have been the bait for the two hungry armies as they bite at the bit in deadly head-on charges against their opposing faith. Nigeria is just the apex of this struggle.

For Guinea the clash between Islam and Christendom has left the country in a constant state of potential war. Christians in Guinea to this day hold deep prejudices against Muslims they view as "new comers" or interlopers. While Muslims in Guinea continue to find themselves as pawns in political struggles in Guinea and the surrounding area. The religious fervor on both sides however leaves the two communities far to willing and ready to fight one another at the drop of a hat.

When looking at Guinea it may not seem fair to compare it to the hellish state of affairs that is Nigeria at the moment. But it is completely understandable that the rolling battles of Guinea are just a short distance away from the entrenched wars of Nigeria. If the religious aspect of the feuds between Guerze and Konianke peoples is not formally addressed by both government and religious leaders the situation the two communities face is quite possibly more similar to Rwanda than Nigeria.

This religious divide that for the moment seems to act as an impasse is only further exacerbated by the ethnic divide. With the Guerze people compiling around 40 percent of the population in Guinea they act as the ethnic majority. And nearly since the initial independence of Guinea from France the Guerze people have been the political backbone of the country. This changed however with the succession of coups and deaths of one corrupt politician after the other. In 1984 when Lansana Conte (a member of the Susu people) took power the Christian population of Guinea found themselves under a Muslim ruler. For the Guerze community leaders the divide on religion took the forefront of the disputes between their community and the Konianke every since.

In the coming election this divide between religion and politics has narrowed even more. With the Konianke people backing Alpha Conde and the Guerze people backing the opposition the religious views of Conde are at the forefront of the political struggle. The Konianke only comprise somewhere around 30 percent of the population, so it is clear as to why they would back Conde. After all, Alpha Conde is a Mulsim from their own ethnic group. So it is seen that he would assure their community some stability in this long standing war between the two religious parties involved.

For the Guerze community leaders the presidency of Alpha Conde would be yet another Islamic leader who could reinstate a junta style government. The fears of living under Islam are palpable in the way these community leaders address the issue. Hate and vitriol spill from both sides, yet it is more prevalent in a community that seems to believe they have more to lose than their opponent.

Endless Misery

It is impossible for somebody in my position to adequately address the issues these two ethnic groups face in this upcoming election. It would be arrogant to say that I fully understand the nature to the conflict that exist between them. Yet at the same time I can honestly say that if neither side makes drastic changes in the way they view the other then the misery that has been Guinea's past will continue to be its future. Without compromise and some form of strong leadership, whether that be political or religious, an accusation of theft will always risk countless days of senseless violence and bloodshed.

As for the government of Guinea, there are serious steps ahead in the path to social and political reforms that are desperately needed. There is a clear hunger for democratic reforms amongst the people of this country. Yet whenever they show up to make their voices heard they have been met with religious and racial violence. It is a problem that everyone is watching yet no one seems willing to address.

If social and political reforms are not carried out immediately under the next president the country of Guinea should face more stringent criticism and economic reprisals from the UN and Western world. A government that would tolerate the senseless violence that has become the hallmarks of its electoral process cannot be treated with kid gloves. If we would not tolerate it within our own borders we must not make excuses for it when such atrocities are imposed upon other people.

In Guinea the endless misery of religious, ethnic, and political violence has been rewarded by a world that remains silent.

Want to learn more about this issue and others covered by Alder's Ledge? 

Follow us on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Or follow us on Facebook: Alder's Ledge

Source Documents
(note not all sources are listed)

Al Jazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/07/201371711358547118.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/2013531131553623253.html

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/guinea-violence-toll-idUSL6N0FN41520130717
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/guinea-violence-idUSL6N0FN3ZR20130717

All Africa
http://allafrica.com/stories/201307170237.html

Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/17/death-toll-in-guinea-ethnic-violence-rises-above-50-medic/

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/topic/international-justice/charles-taylor
http://www.hrw.org/node/106418
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/guinea1209web_0.pdf

Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0119/What-s-behind-Christian-Muslim-fighting-in-Nigeria

BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23335719

A Rose By Any Other Name

Why Their Name Is Actually Important
(part of The Darkness Visible series)

As the campaign of ethnic cleansing drags on in Burma the Rohingya continue to suffer from starvation, easily preventable diseases, and forced isolation. When the Rohingya do anything that the Burmese officials dislike they run the risk of prison time, attacks, and possible death. This is all compounded by the fact that according to the government of Myanmar there aren't any Rohingya within Burma to begin with. And it is this aspect of the genocide that shows where Burma has the most success at carrying out their campaign of ethnic cleansing.

For a government to "cleanse" their country of a given targeted community the end result would be exactly what Myanmar's leaders already claim... the complete absence of the targeted community. The act of attacking the very name of a targeted community gives the state the power to attack without impunity. It robs the targeted community of its very core identity thus breaking apart the unity that arise from ethnic and cultural bonds. This allows the wedge to be driven in and permits the state leverage against their helpless victims. This is the very reason Burma has set out to deny the Rohingya the right to their own name, their own identity.

This act of "cleansing" a society of a targeted community not only robs the peoples of their identity but leaves them helpless. A government who is simply attacking its own citizens is clearly unable to be stopped (example: Syria). It is only when the government's attacks can be linked to the identified stages of genocide that outside organizations can claim ethnic cleansing... or genocide. But if the targeted community officially exist, well the term genocide is difficult at best to apply to the government's actions. And complicity to ethnic cleansing is hard to prove if there is no ethnic group recognized in the first place.

In recent months more prominent leaders have come out with documents and public addresses that state that all either claim the Rohingya are actually "Bengali" or never have existed within Burma before. One of the key figures in this long line of government puppets has been Aung San Suu Kyi. Or to be more accurate, a spokesperson that spoke to the press on her behalf.

(Source: Global Post http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/myanmar/130501/suu-kyi-no-rohingya)

Once again the Euro poster child of democracy in Burma upheld the myths that Myanmar has been working so hard at establishing in world history books. Her statement, given through a spokesperson, coincides with the notion that Rohingya are nothing more than Bengali illegal immigrants that either established themselves during British rule or swept over the border as "economic migrants" (a term popular amongst Chinese leaders when talking about North Korean defectors). This once again leaves the world to assume that Suu Kyi truly does believe the propaganda her government has created or is more than willing to help spread it beyond Burma's borders.

However the main theory that Rohingya are immigrants or invaders isn't new. For decades now the Rakhine have been spreading myths like this one to discredit and isolate the Rohingya from the rest of Burmese society. And in an ethnocentric society, like that of Myanmar, the very idea of being an outsider is in ways worse than death itself. Once you have been made an outsider in a society that so desperately craves conformity you have no right to claim any given identity outside that  which has been handed down to you. For the Rohingya this denial of belonging to the Burmese society at large has been a tragic reality since the British left.

For Suu Kyi to come forward with her statements is, in a manner of speaking, an attempt on the part of Burma itself to reinforce the divide between what it means to be Burmese and what it means to be on the outside looking in. It is a divisive step that capitalizes on the fears of Rakhine individuals and the Buddhists population of Burma at large. It is the step that alienates the Rohingya and at the same time degrades them below the level of what it means to be human within Myanmar. In effect, it is the marrying of the first stage of genocide (classification) with the third stage of genocide (dehumanization). A fact that I would believe an intelligent woman such as Suu Kyi could and would understand long before making such damaging statements.

The name, the identity, of any given population is a treasure that cannot be measured. However, as ironically as it might seem, it is also a commodity that is decisively measured when used as a tool against them. Jews, Armenians, Bosnians, and any community who has suffered the tragedy of genocide should be able to understand this. But for the rest of the world it is a tragic aspect of society that they cannot understand until they see it in action. With the Rohingya are sadly showing the world what it means to have the most valuable part of your cultural identity used as a weapon against you.

Enduring a campaign of "begalization" in which they are forced to sign away their cultural identity, the Rohingya are pleading with the world to keep their name. Those who resist the policies Suu Kyi's words lead to are beaten and tortured. Those who resist their tormentors wrath are killed. This is the reality of what it means to be denied the most fundamental rights a community would seek to preserve for its individuals.

If the world was to watch they would see the bravery in the humble resistance. By not signing away their culture, the Rohingya show courage in ways the rest of the world has yet to show. They are already starving as the Burmese refuse them food and water. They are already plagued with disease as the government of Myanmar prevents them access to medicines. And yet the Rohingya hold onto their name.

So what does a name mean? Why would anyone risk their very existence to keep something we in the Western world are trained to overlook?

Shakespeare romanticized the surname in his classic Romeo and Juliet:

"What is in a name? That which we call a rose 

By any other name would smell so sweet;"

~ Juliet

Our surname is after all the first sense of identity that we get beyond ourselves. It is the watermark of our ancestral past that links us to generation after generation of people we often idealize. That name is a point of personal affection and conflict for so many of us. Yet for all the emotions that might boil up within us it is a part of us that most of us could never depart from. It simply has that much of a hold on how we identify ourselves. 

The next form of identity we are often stuck with is also passed down through generation after generation of ancestors. It too has a name. That being the name of our cultural and ancestral past, otherwise known as our ethnic heritage. For many in America it can be as simple as our skin color. For others it could be as specific as the faith our ancestors passed along to us. And for some it is the specific ethnic heritage from where our ancestors immigrated from (ie; Irish, German, Chinese, ext). But wherever the name comes from, it is part of us. We have proven over time in our collective past that is something we are more than willing to fight for. It becomes part of us in ways that we don't realize till it is already too late to change. And at the same time the question remains, why should we?

In that same monologue however Shakespeare gives the reader the essence of what drives us to defend that name. He hints at how others attack that name, and subsequently us as well. 

"Tis' but thy name that is my enemy;"

~Juliet

We aren't built to separate ourselves from the names that are passed down to us. It is part of human nature to cling to the identities we are given from the first breath we take. From those waking moments when we first become aware of who we are and from where we came we find ourselves attached to those parts of our own identity. They are parts of our worth. They are what defines how we see ourselves and how we imagine others see us. So when asked to "refuse our father, and deny thy name" we find ourselves dumbfounded. The most alien of concepts is that of altering our identity to fit the desires of another person (even more alien when it is a faceless figure such as the state). 

For the Rohingya this must be one of the many reasons they find strength to fight for their name... their culture. At the very least I have to imagine that it is a driving motivation, for it is the best way I can describe it; how I can rationalize it. 

In the same monologue Shakespeare's words lead us to a major motivator behind ethnic cleansing. For countries such as Burma it is the name that becomes the enemy. When they are able to isolate the targeted community it becomes the name and not the human being that is subjected to death. By destroying the name of a culture, a community, the attacker can justify their actions without rationalizing their hate. It is that devastating relationship between the first and third stages of genocide that must be made for a government to tolerate the actions it first inspired. 

For this reason alone perhaps Shakespeare had no other way to end his classic play but in tragedy. We aren't capable of making that leap from our identity to betrayal so easily. And that is exactly what it is for those who are faced with this wretched decision. For them it is a betrayal to their own identity. It goes against the long heritage they have with their fathers and their father's fathers. It is a point in time where they are asked to deny their ancestors and take up the facade someone else would forced upon them. It is the cleansing of their name and purges them of some amount of self worth. 

"A glooming peace this morning with it brings;

The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head;

Go hence, to have more talk of these sad thing..."

If you would like to help you can follow the link below and read and sign the petition. Show your support to allow the Rohingya to keep their identity and help fight the Burmese campaign of cultural extermination. 

Petition created by +Jamila Hanan 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/allow_the_rohingya_to_register_their_name/