The genocide in Darfur has shocked, but not wholly surprised, the world. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, has long been one of the most strife-ridden in the world. After suffering a prolonged civil war that commenced in 1955 and was not formally over until 1973, Sudan plunged back into another one ten years later. For about 22 years, warring factions in the north and south engaged in a bloody conflict that took more than 2 million lives before a formal peace agreement was reached in January 2005. By that time, however, another war was raging in the Darfur region in western Sudan.
1. Genocide. The conflict that has since been decimating the population in Darfur since at least February 2003 is a large-scale government-sponsored operation. It is not a religious crusade, since the people on both sides are Muslim. Rather, the Sudanese government and Arab militia known as the Janjaweed have been systematically annihilating non-Arab, African tribes in the region (the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit). There are numerous other combatants, including the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), two local rebel groups fighting against the government repression of non-Arabs. The death toll in this tragedy has mounted to between 200.000 and 400,000 people and over 2.5 million more have been displaced – together representing nearly half of the previous population of the region (estimated at around six million). Moreover, the violence has spread to the neighboring Chad, and refugees are fleeing to the Central African Republic, which is embroiled in its own internal conflict.
 2. International and United States Response. In April 2004, the African Union mediated a ceasefire and two months later sent in a small monitoring team. As violence continued unabated, In October 2004, the mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was expanded to protecting civilians. AMIS troop levels have been gradually increased up to about 7,000, probably less than a third of the minimum force with any hope of establishing and maintaining. Non-African donors, including the United States, the European Union and lately the Arab League, are financing the AMIS force, which has recently been costing approximately $40 million a month.
Meanwhile, on July 22, 2004, both Houses of the United States Congress declared that the atrocities in Darfur constituted "genocide;" and on December 9, 2006, the Senate passed another such resolution calling for a series of actions. At least six dozen bills and resolutions were introduced in the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 108th and 109th U.S. Congresses dealing with Darfur. Several Bush Administration officials and other prominent individuals in the United States have likewise manifested concern over the genocide in Darfur, as have tens of thousands of concerned Americans.
Little has come of this activity. When, in February 2006, President George W. Bush made overtures to other countries and spoke of "stewardship" by the North Atlantic Treaty organization in Darfur, his comments were quickly "corrected" by the Pentagon and rebuffed by European Allies. While NATO has provided some logistics and transport critical to AMIS, the current attitude from European NATO allies was effectively summarized by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who said that Darfur would, as far as NATO is concerned, "see a continuation of the support we are giving now to the African Union."
For a while it looked like the situation might be improving slightly. In early 2005, the number of government attacks on civilians decreased, partly because the majority of targeted villages were already destroyed and their inhabitants displaced. On April 25, 2006, in Resolution 1672, the U.N. Security Council voted for targeted sanctions on four Sudanese individuals (a former Sudanese military commander, a Janjaweed militia leader and two rebel leaders). These sanctions include travel bans and freezing foreign bank accounts and other assets. No active duty or serving Sudanese officials have, however, been placed on the sanctions list. The Security Council did, however, refer a larger list of names to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who announced in December 2006 that he will soon bring cases against the worst offenders.
3. Darfur Peace Agreement. With regard to ending the atrocities, on May 5, 2006, the Sudanese government signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) with a faction of SLA. Unfortunately, however, instead of improving after that, the situation drastically deteriorated. As of early 2007, there are more than a dozen splinter factions of the SLA and JEM. The rebel movements are sharply divided between those supporting and opposing the DPA, with a number of the latter operating under aegis of a loose known as the National Redemption Front (NRF).
4. United Nations Resolution 1706. After fighting worsened last summer, on August 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1706 providing for transition of AMIS to a U.N. operation, by bolstering the existing United Nations Mission in Sudan (UMIS). The Council authorized strengthening UMIS by up to an additional 17,300 military personnel, 3,300 civilian police and 2,000 more security personnel. Resolution 1706, however, "invite[d] the consent" of the Sudanese government to the deployment, which consent was not forthcoming from Khartoum. Quite the contrary, Sudan adamantly objected to the resolution, which it claims will violate Sudanese sovereignty and turn the country into "another Iraq." As the diplomatic stalemate continues, deteriorating security and targeted attacks on humanitarian aid workers have severely limited all ability to alleviate the suffering of embattled civilians. Meanwhile, as of the beginning of 2007, the Sudanese government persists rejecting all United Nations and Western assistance beyond some token technical advisers and military observers.
The question naturally arises as to how Sudan can continue to defy world opinion. The United States has imposed economic sanctions since 1997, many states, universities and other institutional investors have been exerting pressure on the business community by divesting their holdings in companies operating in Sudan, and the United Nations has repeatedly condemned Sudanese government operations in Darfur. A major part of the answer lies with Petrodar, a Chinese-Malaysian-United Arab Emirates oil partnership and investments by Kuwaitis, Saudis, Indians and Pakistanis in the Sudanese petro-economy. With the resulting oil exports, more than half of which go to China, the Sudanese economy is expected to grow 13 percent this year.
5. 2007 Ceasefire. Nevertheless, on January 10, 2007, the government in Khartoum and the leaders of several rebel groups, including both the JEM and the SLA/SLM), signed a 60-day ceasefire. The agreement was brokered by New Mexico Governor and former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, at the urging of the Save Darfur Coalition, in a one-day visit to Sudan. During the 60-day period, United Nations and African Union were to mediate the ceasefire and the warring factions to meet to talk about a durable peace within the framework of the May 2006 DPA.
6. June 2007 Security Council Agreement. On June 17, 2007, The United Nations Security Council and the Sudanese government reportedly reached agreement on the major details of a proposal to send more than 20,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur. The force is to be under United Nations command, with its day-to-day operations being run by the African Union. The issue had been a sticking point for countries that might contribute troops to the operation but balked at being under African Union command. At the time of this writing, however, further details have not yet been announced, except that it is not anticipated that the new force will be sent to Darfur until next year.
7. United Nations Genocide Convention. The parties to the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, including the United States, have undertaken to eliminate genocide wherever and whenever it may occur. Calling-it-what-it-is the first step. While the mass media tends alternatively to refer to the situation in Darfur as "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide," the United States and several other countries have confirmed that it is the latter. Unfortunately, however, the United Nations has failed to go this far, and Resolution 1706 has thus far been largely thwarted by the Sudanese Government. People are still being killed at the average rate of ten thousand per month, and the death toll and dislocations over a four-year period having reached staggering numbers.
End the Genocide.
After World War II, the international community said "never again" in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. President William J. Clinton described United States inaction in response to the genocide in Rwanda as "the biggest regret of my administration." And yet, the deaths, dislocations and destruction continue, and there is little prospect of decisive international action to stop these atrocities.
The only realistic hope for stopping the genocide in Darfur appears to be massive military intervention with at least 20,000 troops such as now reportedly agreed between the United Nations and the Sudanese government. The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is already in Darfur, but AMIS is a small and under-equipped contingent of about 7,000 with a limited mission. It is insufficient to protect aid workers, let alone to prevent further atrocities. Of course, this United States and other countries should continue to underwrite this effort on an interim basis, but effective peacekeeping will require several times the 7,000 AMIS troops.
Through all available diplomatic and other means, the United States should promote the deployment of an adequate multinational force to the Darfur region immediately. There are international troops – including Muslim troops from a number of countries – available to the United Nations for this purpose. Decisive U.N. action has, however, effectively been blocked by Chinese, Russian and other deference to the wishes of the Sudanese government and the opposition of Khartoum to additional U.N. peacekeeping troops. Upon expressly recognizing that genocide is ongoing in Darfur, the United States Congress urged North Atlantic Treaty Organization action, and many members of Congress have also pressed for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to impede the bombings by Khartoum. NATO should have the capability to establish civilian protection immediately, particularly with the new NATO Response Force, but European Union countries have manifested considerable apathy in this regard. The credible threat of a non-consensual intervention by either the U.N. or NATO might impel reconsideration of Sudanese government intransigence with respect to Resolution 1706.
There are a number of other tools the United States can use to try to exert pressure on the Khartoum regime. Financial and travel sanctions are already in place and can be strengthened. Also, many U.S. institutional investors are doing their part through divestment of interests in companies operating in Sudan. For such measures to have any realistic chance of effecting changes in policy, however, the European Union, the Arab League, the United Nations and other international actors will have to undertake similar initiatives – which seems unlikely without heavy advocacy by the U.S. government (and maybe even irrespective of any such prodding).
Oil diplomacy may also hold the key to ending the genocide. In consequence of its huge investment in the Sudanese oil industry, China in particular has great influence over the government in Khartoum,. While China is itself scarcely a model of human rights, this is a far cry from genocide. Further, the instability in Sudan as a result of the crisis in the western region of Darfur and its spread to Chad and other neighboring countries threatens to undermine the fragile peace agreement inked in southern Sudan, thus promoting renewed upheaval throughout the country. Such widespread chaos will endanger Chinese oil production facilities and other major business interests in the country -- especially if instability leads to rebel groups amassing more power, as happened n Nigeria, and tearing up oil contracts with Chinese firm.
The 60-day ceasefire agreed to in January 2007 through the good offices of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and the Save Darfur Coalition offers a new ray of hope. Still, the genocide in Darfur remains a most distressing situation, with little prospect for real improvement in the near future. The United States should remain resolute and not forget the lessons of World War II and regrets over Rwanda. The annihilation of any ethnic population diminishes us all, and a sizeable United Nations force is urgently needed to bring some stability and an end to the genocide in Darfur.
|
*****
Back to Women and Minorities.
|
