Saving Darfur

Saving Darfur

October 23, 2006

Since 2003, more than 300,000 people have died in Sudan and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes. Now, although it hardly seems possible, the situation is getting even worse. The United States pushed hard for a May peace agreement that was eventually signed by one rebel group and the Sudanese government and though the government agreed to restrain and disarm the Janjaweed militia, attacks on civilians continued. And now the New York Times reports a new rebel alliance has declared "all previous cease-fires are no longer in effect" and "are making brazen, direct and successful attacks on soldiers." The government is expected to "turn again to Arab militias called Janjaweed to wage its counterinsurgency campaign." The country is on the precipice of "all out war" with "millions of displaced people and refugees caught in the middle." The deteriorating situation underscores the moral imperative for strong international diplomacy and pressure, including much more aggressive action by the United States.

• In an attempt to silence critics, an outspoken U.N. envoy was expelled. Another bad sign: the Sudanese government has "ordered the chief United Nations envoy [Jan Pronk] to leave" by Wednesday. The New York Times reports the move was prompted by this post on Pronk's blog, where he described how Sudanese armed forces "had suffered two major defeats with extensive casualties against rebels in Darfur in the past six weeks" and "had collaborated with the feared Janjaweed Arab militias." According to the U.N., Pronk will "depart before then and said he would need the permission of the Sudanese government to return." Pronk has been "outspoken in reporting on the killings, rapes and other atrocities in Darfur."
  
  
• The Sudanese government continues to resist the presence of U.N. peacekeepers. The government refuses "to allow United Nations peacekeepers into the country" to relieve the undermanned 7,200-member African Union force. In recent days, "the Sudanese government has been engaged in a frenetic game of diplomatic brinkmanship, trying to convince the international community that there is no need for a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Darfur, approved by the Security Council in August." Meanwhile, the Sudanese "army and its Arab militia allies, the Janjaweed, are reported to be massing in the north." While the U.S. and others call what is occuring in Sudan genocide, the Sudanese government describes it as part of the "war on terror."
  
  
• The international community has failed to act. John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group writes "the stalemate over the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping operation...can be traced directly to the international community’s failure to apply strong diplomatic and economic pressure on senior officials of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to end the killing, negotiate amendments to the flawed Darfur Peace Agreement, and accept U.N. troops." Up to this point the international response has been characterized by "tough rhetoric with limp follow-through."
  
  
• There are steps the United States can take now. There is direct action that the United States could take right now to respond to the deteriorating situation. Prendergast suggests: 1) "Apply asset freezes and travel bans to NCP [Sudanese government] leaders responsible for atrocities in Darfur," 2) "Investigate the offshore accounts of the NCP and its affiliated businesses to facilitate economic sanctions against the regime’s commercial entities," and 3) "Explore possible sanctions against the petroleum sector." The goal of these actions would be to pressure the government to "get a muscular, mobile, U.N. force on the ground." And others are calling for even tougher action, arguing that what was good enough for Kosovo is good enough for Darfur and proposing that only targeted air strikes can get Khartoum's attention. (More details on what the U.S. can do from the International Crisis Group.)