More on Darfur

Posted by Chris

Via Keywords, I've found what appears to be a very solid piece on Darfur in the London Review of Books. From the very end of the piece:

A huge aid effort is grinding into gear. But the distances involved mean that food relief is expensive and unlikely to be sufficient. It's tempting to send in the British army to deliver food, but this would be merely symbolic: relief can be flown in more cheaply by civil contractors, and distributed more effectively by relief agencies. The areas controlled by the SLA and JEM contain hundreds of thousands of civilians who are not getting any help. As soon as an intrepid cameraman returns with pictures of this hidden famine, there will be an outcry, and pressure for aid to be delivered across the front lines. There's no reason to wait for the pictures before acting, although it's clear that cross-line aid convoys will need to carry armed guards.

The biggest help would be peace. In theory, there's a ceasefire; in practice, the government and Janjawiid are ignoring it, and the rebels are responding in kind. The government denies that it set up, armed and directed the Janjawiid. It did, but the monster that Khartoum helped create may not always do its bidding: distrust of the capital runs deep among Darfurians, and the Janjawiid leadership knows it cannot be disarmed by force. When President Bashir promised Kofi Annan and Colin Powell that he would disarm the militia, he was making a promise he couldn't keep. The best, and perhaps the only, means of disarmament is that employed by the British seventy-five years ago: establish a working local administration, regulate the ownership of arms, and gradually isolate the outlaws and brigands who refuse to conform. It took a decade then, and it won't be any faster today. Not only are there more weapons now, but the political polarities are much sharper.

A detachment of 60 African Union ceasefire monitors is in Darfur with a slightly larger number of African troops providing security for them. So far no one is providing security for Darfur's terrified civilian populace. If troops are to be sent from outside Africa, this should be their mission. If the local intelligence is good, and a political process is afoot, the hazards should be minimal. But reconstituting Darfur will be slow, complicated and expensive. Understanding what has been lost may be a good place to start.

Meanwhile, the International Crisis Group has released a set of recommendations on Darfur. The executive summary is well worth reading. The media release is below the fold:

Nairobi/Brussels, 23 August 2004: One week before the UN Security Council deadline for Sudan expires, it is clear the international community needs to get much tougher over Darfur. Failure now would not only mean many tens of thousands more dead in Darfur, but likely condemn Sudan to more years of war and further spread instability to its neighbours.

Darfur Deadline: A New International Action Plan,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, calls for the Security Council to adopt more forceful measures, most importantly to authorise the African Union (AU) to send a strong peacekeeping mission -- at least 3,000 troops, preferably many more -- to Darfur to protect civilians. To demonstrate its seriousness and help persuade the Government of Sudan to accept this mission, it should also impose an arms embargo on it and targeted sanctions against responsible regime officials and ruling party businesses, as well as establish an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate mass atrocities.

Such steps are immediately necessary because, despite dramatically increased international attention on Darfur, Khartoum has still not fulfilled its repeated commitments to neutralise the government-supported Janjaweed militias responsible for gross human rights violations and the massive humanitarian disaster. History has shown that Khartoum responds constructively to direct pressure, but it must be concerted, consistent and genuine.

"All we've heard so far are empty promises from Khartoum and empty threats from the international community", says John Prendergast, Special Adviser to the President at ICG. "The world spotlight has finally come to Darfur, but the action needed to end the killing hasn't followed".

On 30 July 2004, the Security Council finally passed its first resolution on Darfur, but it was misdirected. It placed a meaningless arms embargo on the Janjaweed but aimed no measures at the government behind them. A "Plan of Action" signed by the UN with the government days later left ample room for Sudan to avoid meaningful action within the 30-day deadline set by the resolution. Government officials continue to undermine roads toward peace.

The one bright spot has been the AU's increasingly energetic response. Its observer mission is on the ground, and the organisation seeks to deploy a peacekeeping force. The EU, the U.S. and others who have indicated a willingness to support this, logistically and financially, must convincingly demand that Khartoum accept and cooperate with the force. Urgent efforts are needed as well to help the AU start genuine political negotiations between the government and the two rebel movements about Darfur's root problems and to push the peace agreement in the south, which the Darfur crisis increasingly threatens, over the finish line.

"When the Security Council revisits the Darfur issue next week, the ultimate extent of the catastrophe will be decided", says Prendergast. "Whether the dead will be numbered in the hundreds of thousands, whether the costs will include more years of civil war, whether Sudan will spread instability throughout the region, all depends on decisions that must be taken quickly".

Posted by Chris at August 24, 2004 10:48 AM