One of the great challenges in brokering a peace deal for the people of Darfur is understanding and overcoming the various political cleavages that have emerged in the region. The Darfur Peace Agreement, signed in May of 2006, was heavily criticized because it was only signed by one of the major rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM). Indeed, in the recently released book Not On Our Watch, John Prendergast and Don Cheadle indicate that, rather than bringing the region closer to peace, the Darfur Peace Agreement reflected a successful effort by the Khartoum regime to bring the leader of the SLM, Minni Minnawi, under the government’s sphere of influence.
Given the complexities on the ground, it is difficult to grasp clearly how the recent agreement of five rebel factions to unite in preparation for future peace talks will affect the political dynamics in Sudan. The new group, called the United Front for Liberation and Development (UFLD), has emphasized the importance of inclusiveness and has urged other factions to join it. However, at this time the BBC reports that “several major rebel groups remain outside the new alliance.”
Whether the UFLD is a truly inclusive alliance or the result of a power play by the Eritrean government, policymakers must be sensitive to the political developments as they consider the optimal course of action. One can only hope that the innocent civilians in Darfur are not being exploited by political opportunists looking to benefit from the humanitarian crisis. Whatever the long-term political solution may be, the priorities of peace, protection, and punishment must be realized.
A BBC article on the revelation of a vast underground lake in Darfur sent waves through the Darfur advocacy community yesterday. According to geologist Farouk El-Baz, “Access to fresh water is essential for refugee survival, will help the peace process, and provides the necessary resources for the much needed economic develoment in Darfur.” His comments seemed to provide the upside to a report issued last month by the UN Environment Programme, which noted that without addressing environmental degradation, violence in Darfur is unlikely to subside. That point was also emphasized in the video posted below by an audience member at last week’s performance of “In Darfur” in Central Park.
But just as quickly as hopes were raised, they were partially deflated with the publication of a second BBC article in which French geologist Alain Gachet indicates the lake in question has likely been dry for thousands of years. And even if substantial water reserves are present, acknowledges El-Baz, it will take at least three years to access them. Lack of resources, particularly water, has surely contributed to Darfur’s woes. Rebels rose up in 2003 due to political marginalization and the correlated economic underdevelopment of the region. Arab pastoralists were susceptible to mobilization into Janjaweed militias in part because ousting black Darfuri farmers seemed a viable solution, at least in the short term, to their own economic desperation.
But while geologists battle out the hypotheticals and prepare for the drilling of 1000 wells in Darfur that will eventually clarify the truth, Darfur analysts question any solution that presents itself as a panacea.As Julie Flint, co-author (with Alex de Waal) of Darfur: The Short History of a Long War,reminds us, characterizing the Darfur crisis as a resource conflict “whitewashes the Sudan government,” which has brutalized its people across two decades and throughout the country in an attempt to maintain a strangehold on power. Better access to water in Darfur might placate many would-be rebels and Janjaweed members. But it will not address the grievances of those determined to struggle against a regime that is fundamentally anti-democratic, not will it strip the ruling National Congress party of its repressive methods.
A long-term solution to conflict in Darfur will need to address political power-sharing as well as access to resources. And environmental solutions must go beyond the drilling of wells in Darfur to address broader issues of climate change and drought, or they will be mere bandaids.
This has been a week of hopeful developments in the Darfur region. Darfur rebels met in Asmara to form a united front, and UN and AU officials are currently meeting in Tripoli to begin planning for a new peace process, promising initiatives that will be discussed in this blog later this week. But what we’d like to highlight today is the work of a small group of American activists is on the ground in Chad, using technology to build connection betweens Americans and Darfuri refugees. The team is composed of volunteers from Stop Genocide Now, a grassroots community dedicated to working to protect populations in grave danger of violence, death and displacement resulting from genocide. In 2005, the group launched i-ACT, “an interactive broadcast project, to expose and raise awareness about the horrors Darfurian refugees.” In 2006, they followed up with “From America With Love”, a “video card” that conveyed to refugees expressions of solidarity from concerned Americans. They aim to use video and the internet to promote two-way exchange between Americans and Darfuris.
Gabriel Stauring, Connie Stauring, and Yuen-Lin Tan, three members of Stop Genocide Now, are currently in Chad for ten days, where they arrived on July 10. They post video messages every day recounting stories from the camps, bearing witness to the experiences and survival strategies of the Darfuris they encounter and calling for political change. Today’s message was a powerful video for You-Tube’s “Ask the Candidates” campaign (below).
Check out their blog, and draw inspiration from this very grassroots effort to break down barriers between Americans and the all too often nameless, faceless refugees who are portrayed as silent victims in the mainstream media.
The effort to end the conflict in Darfur has led to advocacy on many different fronts, with constituents pressuring politicians and policymakers, as well as businesses and investors. Although Sudan is often portrayed as a poor nation with few resources, many international businesses are active in the region, investing significant amounts of capital in order to access and profit from the sizable oil reserves located there. Over the past few years, several organizations have spearheaded a state-by-state effort to pass divestment legislation that seeks to withdraw state investments from companies that are facilitating the genocidal campaign of the Khartoum government.
Divestment emerged as an important tool in the international struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s. Unlike the anti-apartheid movement, however, the current divestment campaign has been carefully tailored in response to concerns that a blanket divestment strategy would actually hurt innocent civilians in Sudan and crush the nation’s ability to reengage foreign investors in a ‘post-genocide’ world. The ‘targeted divestment’ strategy, as described here by the Genocide Intervention Network’s Sudan Divestment Task Force, encourages shareholder engagement as a first step. It also focuses on those companies deemed most responsible for supporting the Sudanese government. Sam Bell of the Genocide Intervention Network elaborates on the movement in this video. At this point in time over a dozen states have already passed divestment legislation. There is a concern, however, that the legislation passed thus far may be challenged by organizations like the National Foreign Trade Council who claim that state divestment is unconstitutional. Earlier this year, a federal district judge in the Northern District of Illinois struck down portions of the Illinois divestment law as a violation of the Supremacy Clause, the foreign affairs power of the federal government, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. This decision has cast doubt upon the viability of the divestment movement, but the outcome is being vigorously disputed by advocates across the country.
Divestment has the potential to financially cripple the leaders of the Sudanese government and make clear to businesses that ethical investing is important to people here. As the Chinese government has become more responsive to public concerns about its own economic activity in Sudan (largely due to ‘Genocide Olympics’ activism), it seems clear that the multifaceted advocacy approach is bringing real pressure to bear upon the Sudanese government. Although the government has been making concessions, the divestment movement should not lose steam. The Save Darfur Coalition’s Divest for Darfur campaign is continuing to lobby Fidelity to withdraw investments from Sudan, and is sponsoring a day of action on July 19th. To join the movement and find out more, find the event nearest you.
On June 13, the Sudanese government agreed to accept the deployment of a hybrid, 20,000 troop UN/AU peacekeeping force in Darfur, which would meet most of the requirements of last August’s UN Security Resolution 1706. Only months ago, Khartoum categorically rejected the presence of UN peacekeepers on Darfuri soil. What explains the turn-around, and does Khartoum intend to keep its promise?
A recent policy paper produced by ENOUGH suggests that uncoordinated efforts on the part of the U.S., France, and China have pushed Sudan toward a tipping point. Sudanese opposition politicians, including Hassan Al-Turabi, concur, arguing that Khartoum caved to international pressure in the form of President Bush’s Plan B as well as a U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored Security Council draft resolution pushing for multilateral UN sanctions.
But it is too early to celebrate Khartoum’s apparent change of heart. Mere promises to accept a sizeable peacekeeping force cost Khartoum nothing, and win the regime both unwarranted credibility and time. A UN/AU hybrid force has never been attempted, and requires brand new mechanisms for collaboration. Sudan has suggested the peacekeeping force be led by the AU, for instance, with UN troops playing a secondary role; Western powers disagree. Further, the regime has proposed the most troops should come from African countries. While the deployment of African troops backed by Western materiel and logistical support seems in many ways ideal – it would decrease the resonance in the Arab world of the claim that peacekeepers are a tool of Western imperialism – any bright-line limitations on troop contributors would only further delay the effective deployment of a force that, even in the best case scenario, will take at least six months to hit the ground. Further, by setting the stage for endless diplomatic dithering over details surrounding the peacekeeping force – which organizations like Human Rights Watch prefer to refer to as a protection force, noting that there is no peace to be kept – Khartoum may be erecting a handy distraction from international efforts to create cohesion among rebel groups and to jumpstart a new, multilateral peace process. Such a peace process could potentially be much more threatening to Khartoum’s strategic interests than the presence of possibly ill-equipped and mismanaged peacekeepers. Meanwhile, ENOUGH’s Gayle Smith writes in another recent report that “within days of agreeing to the mission, President Omer al-Bashir has publicly recanted his acceptance before audiences in Khartoum”, and an AFP report reveals Bashir’s recalcitrance in statements like the following: “We will fight against any attempt to impose international or Western forces ... if the West intervenes, we will have the right to resistance.”
The Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council, no less than Sudan, must be held to strict standards of accountability. In the video below, Michael Doyle reminds 24 Hours for Darfur that the Security Council and UN member states have a grim record when it comes to carrying through on peacekeeping pledges. Indeed, while the recent “G8 plus” meeting on Darfur was historic in bringing together major powers such as the U.S., France and China to discuss Darfur, little of substance emerged, and the African Union was not represented at the meeting. International powers have improved their rhetoric on Darfur, but it remains to be seen whether this rhetoric will be matched by decisive action.
