|
Simon Roughneen, The Voice, 25th February 2006
While the United Nations’ Security Council ponder
options for a UN-led force to take over from the African Union in
Sudan’s troubled Darfur region, from the comfort of their
New York Plaza headquarters, as many as 5,000 people in Darfur are
dying every month.
Almost three years to the day since the Darfur conflict
began, 2 million people remain displaced, driven from their homes
and farms by a government-backed militia known as the Janjawid,
and caught in the crossfire between government troops and Darfurian
rebel groups. And their plight looks set to worsen with recent fighting
forcing aid agencies to suspend their operations on security grounds.
The international aid agency GOAL was among the most recent casualties,
forced to suspend part of their work in the wake of the tragic death
of their nutritionist, Sudanese Hadja Hamid, who was killed in a
helicopter crash during an evacuation from the fighting.
And worse, between 200,000-400,000 people are thought
to have been killed. Various news, TV, NGO and UN reports and ample
anecdotal evidence suggest that rape is commonplace, with hundreds
of thousands of Darfur’s women having suffered.
One thing Darfur illustrates is that humanitarian
relief cannot be divorced from security and politics. And irrespective
of the bigger picture considerations of all actors, on the ground,
and internationally, the first consideration for all concerned should
be the Darfurian people, upon whom this conflict has exacted a terrible
toll.
Naïve as this may sound – given the scale
of the human loss so far – putting civilian protection first
could potentially provide at least a spring-board for effective
dialogue on the politically-divisive issues. If better co-operation
could emerge – on the ground and internationally – then
a sounder relational platform might be in place for an effective
conflict resolution process.
The rebellion began after years of localised Arab-African
clashes over land use amid a context of diminishing resources. The
Darfurians accuse the Khartoum government of socio-economic marginalisation
and of favouring the encroachment of nomadic Arabs into settled
African farmland in Darfur.
The Darfurian rebels – the Sudan Liberation
Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) are comprised
of Muslim African ethnic groups – the Fur, Zaghawa and Massaleit
- from the western region of Darfur in Sudan.
The situation is complicated by cross-border ethnic
ties with Chad, where the ruling Zaghawa tribe speaks the same language
as the Zaghawa in Darfur. In addition, Chadian rebels are operating
from Darfur and in eastern Chad, threatening to undermine the government
in N’djamena.
Sudan and Chad have accused each other of backing
each others’ rebels. And the international dimension does
not end there. Libya and Eritrea have been accused of providing
logistical assistance to the rebel groups.
For at least a year after the conflict broke out,
the world failed to notice or acknowledge that something was wrong.
Not until summer 2004, when the then-US Secretary of State Colin
Powell and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visited the region, did
anything of consequence happen diplomatically. But even then, the
will was not there to maintain this momentum.
In the meantime people were being killed, raped and
displaced – mostly by the Janjawid, to the point where Powell
went on to term what was happening in Darfur as “genocide”.
Since 1983, a larger civil conflict between the government
and the south Sudanese rebel movement has caught international attention
intermittently – 2 million people died and at least 4 million
remain displaced. As Darfur was being destroyed by a new war , regional
and global actors were struggling to put together a north-south
peace deal to end an older war. The agreement was finally signed
in January 2005.
Peace talks on Darfur have taken place in Abuja in
Nigeria, but have been slow to produce any progress and the rebel
groups disagree among themselves about how to proceed.
The African Union (AU) has a peacekeeping force on
the ground. However the organisation lacks the money, materials,
and mandate needed to effectively protect civilians.
The UN is seeking a western-equipped and manned force
with an effective mandate to protect civilians and help bring peace.
No-one knows whether or not this will happen, and to the extent
necessary. In any case it won’t happen soon.
A decisive move now by the international community
– particularly the US – but including major Arab and
Muslim states – is needed. Otherwise nothing is likely to
happen either politically or in terms of assuring all Darfurians
that they will be fed, given adequate shelter and healthcare, and
protected from Arab militias or from military confrontation between
rebels and government.
Recently the US has adopted a Janus-faced public stance
on Darfur. Senior State Department officials stated that even if
genocide had taken place some time in the past, it does not mean
it continues to be the rule there. But then Secretary of State Condoleeza
Rice restated the old position that, in the US view, genocide had
occurred. Now Presidetn Bush is pushing for some NATO involvement
in the region, either as back-up to the current African Union force,
or as part of a future UN peacekeeping operation.
In the meantime, Darfur’s people will remain
at the mercy of a volatile security situation. If it becomes apparent
that a UN force will take over from the AU, all sides may seek to
gain as much ground militarily as possible in advance.
More fighting will mean more displacement, more death.
And more and more of Darfur’s 8,000 aid workers will be unable
to work, unable to deliver supplies, and be pushed away from the
people who need assistance most.
Securing access to the vulnerable and getting assurances
about their rights is a recurring problem in conflict zones. And
clearly nothing sustainable for Darfur, in long-term, is possible
without ending the fighting, procuring a settlement, and transforming
the conflict.
But for now the focus must be on protecting people
and at least providing their basic needs in terms of shelter, food,
healthcare, sanitation. All protagonists must agree on whatever
mechanisms are necessary to ensure this. This means the west should
provide more money and military material, and men if necessary,
and that Sudan’s government and rebel groups agree to more
foreign troops in their midst– if they cannot ensure Sudanese
civilians are protected.
|
