June 4: Darfur - Beyond the Headlines

Prevent War: Darfur - Beyond the Headlines

June 4, 2008

The Darfur region of Sudan is one of the most insecure environments on the African continent. It is estimated that more than 300,000 civilians have died and more than 2.5 million have been displaced since the conflict began in 2003. This Prevent War looks beyond the headlines at why the fighting continues in Darfur and what the U.S. government could do to help end the conflict.

Topics in this message:

  1. Five Years Later: Darfur Violence Still Rages
  2. Action: Urge the Bush Administration to Help End the Conflict in Darfur
  3. Additional Resources
  4. New Resources at FCNL.org

1) Five Years Later: Darfur Violence Still Rages

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in April entitled, “The Continuing Crisis in Darfur," frustrated senators kept coming back to two basic questions: Why hasn’t violence in Darfur stopped, and what more can the United States do?

Why Hasn't Violence in Darfur Stopped?

The obvious and primary reason is that the parties to the conflict do not see it in their interest to end hostilities. In concert with the international community, U.S. policy must focus on building support—among the Government of Sudan and the rebel groups—for a cease-fire and negotiated political settlement. Even a more robust response from the international community would not be able to quell the violence without cooperation from the parties to the conflict. Herein lie the difficulties – What actions can the U.S. take to push the parties towards peace?

Background

In 2003, two rebel groups from Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), violently revolted against the regime. The stated reason: Khartoum’s Arab elite had a stranglehold on power, resources for economic development and Sudan’s oil wealth. Since the war began, the rebel groups have fragmented into more than three dozen rebel groups or militias.

The Government of Sudan in Khartoum responded to the military campaign mounted by the rebels with indiscriminate retaliatory violence against civilians in Darfur, especially members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. As the original rebel groups mostly came from these ethnic groups, the government’s response was a form of collective punishment. According to most analysts, Khartoum’s repressive military campaigns in Darfur and other parts of Sudan is an attempt to keep economic resources and power centrally located within Khartoum’s Arab elite. If the conflict were to be resolved, Khartoum’s elite would likely lose power either through a greater sharing amongst the population of Sudan’s oil wealth or by a loss at the ballot box.

Increasing desertification has steadily reduced the amount of arable land in Darfur. Tensions between the Janjaweed—a nomadic ethnic group of African and Arab origins—and the sedentary farming communities in Darfur were already on the rise. Khartoum manipulated these tensions by enlisting the Janjaweed to help repress what it saw as a threat to its power and wealth.

With Khartoum’s backing, the Janjaweed raided villages in Darfur committing mass atrocities. Motives for the Janjaweed’s alliance with Khartoum range from the shared goal of ethnically cleansing Darfur to economic self-interest.

Negotiating an End to the Impasse

In 2006, the Sudanese government, key rebel leaders and mediators met to negotiate an end to the hostilities. The outcome was the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), which while imperfect, capitulated to some of the rebel’s demands. Instead of just keeping a lid on the violence, the DPA could have brought an end to the violence in Darfur. Unfortunately, key rebel leaders refused to sign the document or commit to a cease-fire.

Last November, international mediators and parties to the conflict convened for a new round of peace negotiations in Libya. These talks failed largely because key leaders failed to show up. The reason: the rebel leaders doubt the Sudanese Government’s willingness to negotiate in good faith. While the rebel leaders have reason to be extremely skeptical of Khartoum, the outright rejection of negotiations by the rebel groups hampers the peace process and undermines their credibility in the international arena.

Meanwhile, violence continues to increase in Darfur and throughout Sudan. At the beginning of May, JEM rebels led an attack in and around Khartoum. Sudanese armed forces responded with indiscriminate attacks and repression against Darfurians in Khartoum and western Sudan. After the attacks, JEM leader Khalil Ibrahim said he was not interested in a cease-fire and would continue to try to unseat the government in Khartoum. For his part, Sudanese President Omar al Bashir publicly rejected future negotiations with the JEM rebel leader and said that “the military option” is now the only solution to the crisis in Darfur. More recently, Sudanese government forces and Southern Sudanese troops clashed over a small oil rich town called Abeyi last week, a sign of increasing tensions between Khartoum and the government of South Sudan.

In 2005, Khartoum and the Southern Sudanese signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended the longest running civil war in Africa. While recent violence in Abeyi is a sign of a shaky peace, the agreement is often hailed as a success, and a model for peace in Darfur. Even if Khartoum signed the deal in 2005 primarily to appease the international community, as some skeptics claim, the signing of the deal reflects the power of the international community’s pressure to end the conflict.

2) Action: Urge the Bush Administration to Help End the Conflict in Darfur

The U.S. should build an international consensus among key countries like China, the U.K., and France to press the parties to commit to a cease-fire and a new round of peace negotiations. This “quartet” of powerful countries would need to bring pressure—the kind that helped end the North-South war in 2005—to bear on Khartoum to halt all military action immediately. The quartet will also need to urge key neighboring states with interests in Sudan—Chad, Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia—to help end the conflict. While pressing Khartoum to end the violence, similar efforts need to be made to urge key rebel leaders to attend a new round of peace negotiations, and commit to a political solution to the conflict.

On June 1st, the U.S. assumed the Presidency of the U.N. Security Council and with it the powers to set the global peace and security agenda. Members of the U.N. Security Council recently returned from touring hot spots in Africa, including Sudan. Urge the Bush Administration to use this time to take substantive actions to help end the crisis in Darfur. Take Action.

3) Additional Resources

Sudan’s Interlocking Crises – Stephanie Hanson (Council on Foreign Relations)

This article helps to explain the reasons for rising tensions in Sudan.

Why Darfur Intervention is a Mistake – Alex de Waal (BBC News)

Calls for a Kosovo-style aerial attack on Khartoum are wrongheaded says Africa scholar Alex De Waal. Rather, the U.S. should focus on “old-fashioned peace and peacekeeping and state-of-the-art humanitarian technology.”

4) New Resources at FCNL.org

110 Countries Agree to Cluster Bomb Ban, Despite U.S. Pressure

More than half the world’s governments agreed in late May to ban the production, use, stockpiling and export of all existing cluster munitions. Unfortunately, many of the major producers and users of these weapons, including the U.S., did not attend negotiations or sign onto the treaty banning these weapons.

House Rejects Measure to Fund New Nuclear Warhead

On May 23, the House rejected a measure to devote new funding to a Bush administration proposal to build a new nuclear warhead and revamp the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.

Securing the Peace – Trevor Keck and Ann Vaughan (Foreign Policy in Focus)

FCNL Prevent War authors make the case for a U.S. civilian response corps to provide rapid post-conflict reconstruction assistance to war-torn states.