Michael Rubin Speaks on Sudan and Slave Redemption

Michael Rubin, adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a powerful Washington think tank with close ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), spoke on the topic “Sudan and the Controversy Over Slave Redemption” at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC on Dec. 6. Rubin, who entered the African nation illegally in order to talk to the Sudanese without a government handler, spent the last week of September in the Bahral-Ghazal region of southern Sudan. He is now an “expert” on the slave trade in the Sudan, although, due to jet lag from another trip, he had difficulty explaining just how it works.

The speaker also is an “expert” on Iran and author of Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami’s Iran, published in May 2001 by the Washington Institute as one of its “Focus on Terror” selections. In mid-June Rubin, who is a visiting Fellow at Hebrew University’s Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations in Jerusalem, returned from nine months in Iraqi Kurdistan. In numerous radio interviews and articles produced since his return, he recommends retaining sanctions in southern Iraq, removing sanctions on the people in the north who “have fulfilled their obligations,” and lifting the arms embargo for them as well. He also advocates turning the no-fly zones over Iraq into no-drive zones, as well—“similar to what we did in Kosovo.” Rubin, who did not visit southern and central Iraq, favors regime changes in Iraq and has suggested various ways to contain or remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussain.

During the course of his short stay in Sudan, in addition to uncovering evidence of thriving terrorist cells and training camps for supporters of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Egyptian al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya, Rubin said that he investigated the booming slave trade. Some private non-governmental organizations have engaged in “slave redemption”—paying a purchase price for the freedom of slaves. UNICEF and other groups argue that redemption perpetuates the slave economy.

“While the debate continues in the international community over how best to free the slaves in Sudan, no one there denies the existence of slavery,” Rubin told the audience. “I interviewed former slaves who bore scars from burning, slashing and, in some cases, amputations of fingers. Most of the women and girls spoke of gang rapes at the hands of Sudanese soldiers. Almost everyone described witnessing executions, usually of Christians and animists who refused to convert to Islam. There can be no doubt: the Sudanese government remains a host to terrorists, and continues to engage in the brutal ethnic cleansing of non-Arab Sudanese.”

When asked in what language he interviewed the former slaves, he said that some discussions were in Arabic. His comprehension of Arabic is excellent, he explained, and he would have noticed any errors in translations.

Rubin went on to describe the situation. Slave traders, who may be from the Sudanese government and its northern forces, “go around collecting people” in the south who are often Dinka tribesmen, women and children. Slowly, three or four at a time, the captured slaves are moved to a cattle camp or internment camp, according to Rubin. There they are gathered and raped. When the traders have collected 300-400 people, they are moved by train to farms outside major cities and put to work. Rubin later stated that slaves were divided into groups according to their home counties and moved to fields just outside their home villages. There they wait under a tree, sometimes in the rain, until someone pays for their release—the usual price is $35. They are then freed until the next time they are captured and re-enslaved.

During the very heated question-and-answer period, Rubin was asked if people posing as slaves just came from nearby villages and cheated visitors purchasing their freedom. He didn’t see anything like that, he said. When asked if paying for slaves encouraged slavery, he answered, “Maybe.” Another audience member asked what would happen if these money transactions or slave redemptions ended, to which Rubin replied, “If there was an abolition of slavery overnight, there would be no incentive to keep captives alive. There would be a bloodbath. It would be cheaper to slit [the freed slaves’] throats than to feed them.”

When asked why the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) didn’t rescue the slaves as they sat in the field awaiting redemption, Rubin replied that the SPLA would then have to feed them and get them home.

Rubin said slave redemption was a controversial issue between those in the activist community, like Christian Solidarity International, that work with rebel groups and local authorities to free slaves, and large non-governmental organizations like UNICEF, that prefer to work through the government. Organizations also disagree about whether enslavement is Khartoum’s policy or an outgrowth of tribalism, he added. United Nations and NGO estimates on the numbers of slaves, Rubin said, often differ by a factor of 10. He also charged that NGOs were unwilling to go to Sudan, as he had, to see what is happening on the ground with the slavery issue because they would be uncomfortable—implying they might miss the comforts of home.

Complicating the situation is the nearly 50-year civil war between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army in the mostly Christian and Animist south and the Islamic government in Khartoum in the north. One audience member questioned Rubin’s intentions and accused him of attacking the Sudanese government after Rubin claimed that its leaders had not cracked down enough on slavery.

Rubin argued that the U.S. should not work with any government not elected by its people. He said he was highly critical of any diplomatic rewards or carrots to Sudan, Pakistan, or Iran while the United States bullied Israel and India. Rubin took the opportunity to say that the Bush administration has provided “countless examples of bullying its friends [Israel] and coddling its adversaries [every other country in the Middle East].”

Another questioner suggested that rather than purchasing freedom, donors should invest money in resolving the conflict, and helping the devastated Sudanese economy recover after nearly 50 years of civil war.

—Delinda C. Hanley