[wvns] Sudan: Fragile Situation in Darfur
Facing a fragile situation in Darfur
By Marie Besancon
August 9, 2007
The Boston Globe
DARFUR has grabbed the attention of the nation. Activist groups
have done remarkable jobs of raising awareness of human suffering
and have deterred starvation for millions of people in Darfur.
Millions of dollars in aid -- mostly from the United States -- have
reached this group of displaced people. However, this success is
fragile.
Advocacy groups can violate the "do no harm" mandate when they
attempt political recommendations that make no empirical sense in
the context of the country, its regime, and the conflict. They
cause harm to efforts by those working on the ground and on the
peace process. They act on incomplete information and send mixed
signals to the Sudanese government. In addition, they send oblique
signals to the rebel groups, implying that the United Nations and
the United States will sweep in and put them in power. This has
stunted the peace process.
By imposing sanctions on the Sudan, the United States applies stick-
shaking pressure on the central government -- only one group in a
multiparty civil war. Unfortunately, it does not hold unilateral
power to stop the war, and sanctions harm potential allies.
Throwing "bellicose rhetoric" of military action at the central
government, according to Alex De Waal of Harvard's Global Equity
Initiative, only makes Khartoum more belligerent, more hard-liner,
and less cooperative. It is saber-rattling while 2 1/2 million
people's livelihoods and cultures disappear in the camps only to be
replaced by a creeping institutionalized culture of handouts from
the West -- destroying citizens' ability to work while the men sit
waiting for their guns.
The warring groups fight on. In addition, rebel groups now attack
the African Union and the nongovernmental organizations, stealing
their vehicles and further obstructing humanitarian aid. The
militias fight each other and the rebels. The central government is
unable to control and disarm the proxy troops they have unleashed,
and can't control their own troops at times.
At a recent rally, General John Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese charge
d'affaires in Washington, pointed out that a large percentage of
the Sudanese Armed Forces that conducted the brutal campaign
against the South were indeed from Darfur. This factor complicated
any possibility of counterinsurgency by the government forces
against the rebel uprising in Darfur.
The government's poorly chosen and much-regretted strategy of the
moment was to hire the landless Bagarra nomads (Janjaweed) who had
prior grievances against the largest Darfur tribe, the Fur, to
squelch the rebellion. These same Janjaweed groups had been armed
by Libya in the 1980s during its campaign to 'Arabize' Chad. This
brutality has simply changed patrons. Libya is now happily arming
the Justice And Equality Movement rebels (JEM) while talking peace.
If the United States gave a quarter of the time, money, effort, and
high-level diplomatic attention to reaching a peace agreement that
it has on UN force rhetoric, no-fly zones, and threats to invade
Darfur, there might be peace. Realistically, it would take several
years to gather and deploy 20,000 blue hats in Darfur. Without a
political settlement, UN troops would be introducing yet more arms
into an already chaotic situation.
Though a UN troop presence might bring the rebels to the peace
table, it does not constitute a sustainable solution to a
multiparty civil war. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005
that brought an end to the 21-year North/South civil war introduced
important institutional changes that map out security and power-
sharing arrangements. These arrangements must be extended to Darfur.
The United States engaged an extremely effective A-team to start
the peace talks in Darfur with Robert Zoellick, but rushed a
solution before the rebel groups had time to assess the agreement
offered them. Then the United States dropped the ball.
Peace in a nation that has been at war most of its 50 years of
independence is a long and complicated process. If the United
States is not prepared to stay the course in finding solutions and
then in helping the parties involved to learn the new processes of
power-sharing and democracy, it risks losing its alliance with the
moderates and reformers who are rapidly siding with the hard-
liners. We have already seen the consequences of US actions without
strategic mission plans and endgames.
Marie Besancon is a fellow with the International Security Program
of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment