Darfur
The ongoing crisis in Darfur Province in western Sudan has raised serious concerns
about a major humanitarian disaster, with an estimated one million people displaced and
more than 140,000 people forced into neighboring Chad. There are no reliable estimates
of the number of people killed as a result of the conflict. The government of Sudan has
denied or severely restricted access to relief officials in Darfur. Some observers and
U.S. officials estimate that between 10,000-30,000 people have been killed over the past
twelve months. U.S. officials assert that an estimated 320,000 could die by the end of
2004 (2004!!!!) irrespective of the international response.
The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups
emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Darfur. The Sudan
Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) claim that the
government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic groups in Darfur. The
government of Sudan dismisses the SLA and JEM as terrorists. The conflict pits the three
African ethnic groups, the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit, against nomadic Arab ethnic
groups. Periodic tensions between the largely African-Muslim ethnic groups and the Arab
inhabitants of Darfur can be traced to the 1930s and most recently surfaced in the 1980s.
Successive governments in Khartoum have long neglected the African ethnic groups in
Darfur and have done very little to prevent or contain attacks by Arab militias against
non-Arabs in Darfur.1 Non-Arab groups took up arms against successive central
governments in Khartoum, albeit unsuccessfully. In the early 1990s, the NIF government,
which came to power in 1989, began to arm Arab militias and disarm the largely African
ethnic groups.
Darfur is home to an estimated 7 million people and has more
than 30 ethnic groups, although these groups fall into two major categories: African and
Arab. Both communities are Muslim, and years of intermarriages have made racial
distinctions impossible. Fighting over resources is one of several factors that has led to
intense infighting in Darfur over the years. Many observers believe that the NIF
government has systematically and deliberately pursued a policy of discrimination against
and marginalization of the African communities in Darfur, and has given support to the
Arab militia to suppress non-Arabs, whom it considers a threat to its hold on power. In
2000, with the ouster of the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, and a split within the
Islamist Movement, the government imposed a state of emergency and used its new
authority to crack down on dissidents in Darfur. By 2002, a little known self defense
force of a largely Fur-dominated group emerged as the SLA, challenging government
forces in Darfur.
With the NIF regime internally in turmoil and mounting international pressure to end
the North-South conflict, the SLA and JEM were able to gain the upper hand in the initial
phase of the conflict against government forces in early 2003, and appear well prepared
and armed. The rebels also enjoyed the support of the local population as well as officers
and soldiers in the Sudanese army. A significant number of senior officers and soldiers
in the Sudanese armed forces comes from Darfur. The SLA benefitted from outside
support, including from fellow Zaghawa in Chad and financial support from Darfur
businessmen in the Persian Gulf. The government of Sudan has accused Eritrea and the
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) of providing support to the SLA.
The government of Sudan also accuses the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, of
having links with JEM. Some observers say that Turabi, through his supporters, provides
political and financial support to JEM. In late March 2004, Turabi, along with a number
of senior army officers, was arrested. The government claimed that Turabi was behind
an attempted coup, although officials in Khartoum seemed to back away from that claim
by mid-April 2004.
In mid-2003, the
government of Sudan significantly increased its presence in Darfur by arming the Arab
militia, the Janjaweed, and by deploying the Popular Defense Force (PDF). The
Janjaweed, under the direction of regular government forces, reportedly unleashed a
campaign of terror against civilians.2 The Arab militia engaged in what United Nations
officials described as “ethnic cleansing” of the African ethnic groups of Darfur. Men
have been summarily executed, women have been raped, and more than 100,000 have
been forced into exile in neighboring countries.3 In early February 2004, the government
launched a major military offensive against the rebel forces, and by mid-February 2004,
President Omar Bashir, in a nationally televised speech, declared that the security forces
had crushed the SLA and JEM, and offered amnesty to the rebels.
The forceful expulsion of the mainly African ethnic groups from their homes was
done in a deliberate, sequenced, and systematic way, according to a briefing paper on the
Darfur crisis by the Office of U.N. Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan.
The report describes the mechanisms used to cleanse the area of non-Arabs by “total
disengagement of administration and suspension of all government services.” These
include suspending most government functions, including payment of salaries to
government workers, and abandoning basic government services, such as health care and
law enforcement. According to the United Nations, once government officials leave
these communities, the people are then accused of being rebel sympathizers and are
targeted by government militias. The Janjaweed burn villages, loot the properties of the
non-Arabs, abduct children, rape women, and prevent people from returning to their
homes
In September 2003, the
government of Sudan and the SLA
signed a cease-fire agreement
mediated by President Deby of
Chad. The agreement collapsed in
December 2003. In early April
2004, the government of Sudan and
the SLA/JEM agreed to a cease-fire
and political dialogue to peacefully
resolve the conflict. The
government of Sudan agreed to
negotiate with the rebels after
considerable international pressure.
The negotiations were conducted
under the auspices of President
Idriss Deby of Chad and assisted by
the African Union. The United
States and other international
participants played an important
role in facilitating the negotiations, although the government of Sudan delegation walked
out of the talks in protest when the head of the U.S. delegation began to deliver his
opening remarks.
The parties agreed to observe a cease-fire for a period of 45 days, renewable
automatically if both parties agree. In late May, the parties renewed the ceasefire
agreement. The agreement appears to be holding, although the government of Sudan was
accused of violating the agreement.5 Nevertheless, the humanitarian situation in Darfur,
according to many observers, continues to deteriorate, largely due to repeated and
deliberate denial of access for NGOs to the affected areas by government officials.
Moreover, monitoring mechanisms agreed to by the parties are yet to be implemented, and many observers fear that continued delay could unravel the cease-fire agreement. As part
of the agreement, the African Union, with the help of the United States and the European
Union, was tasked to deploy a monitoring team in Darfur and establish a Joint
Commission, consisting of the two parties, Chad, and the international community.
American and European Union officials argue that the monitoring team must be
independent and credible.
The international community’s response to the Darfur crisis has
been slow and ineffective, in part because of the government of Sudan’s repeated refusal to allow relief workers into Darfur. It was not until late 2003, almost one year after the crisis erupted, that some members of the international community began to speak about gross human rights abuses and a widespread humanitarian crisis in Darfur. According to some analysts, the Bush Administration did not consider the Darfur crisis as a priority; instead the Administration was largely focused on the talks between the government of Sudan and the SPLM. The first statement on Darfur by the White House was issued in early April 2004. Others point out that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officials spoke of a growing humanitarian crisis and visited the area in late 2003.
Administration officials were reportedly concerned that forceful statements or measures against the government of Sudan could undermine the peace process between the GOS and the SPLM. Some U.N. officials, however, have been forceful in their statements and have publicly expressed concerns about the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Darfur. The United Nations Resident Humanitarian Coordinator consistently reported to headquarters about gross human rights
violations in Darfur. In a letter dated March 22, 2004 to the State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sudan, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Mukesh Kapila, wrote that “the war in Darfur started off in a small way last year but it has progressively got worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt is being borne by civilians. This includes vulnerable women and children...The violence in Darfur appears to be particularly directed at a specific group based on their ethnic identity and appears to be systemized. This it is akin to ethnic cleansing.” The African Union and the Arab League
did not make public statements on the Darfur crisis until the signing of the cease-fire agreement. In late April 2004, the United Nations Human Rights Commission
expressed its views on the Darfur
situation by adopting a Chairman’s Statement supported by the
overwhelming majority of Commission members. The statement was adopted with 50 in favor, one against (U.S.), and two abstentions (Australia and Ukraine).
The U.S. delegation sought, unsuccessfully, a stronger resolution
on Darfur. Two amendments offered by the United States were defeated,
while a motion to suspend further discussion on a U.S.-supported draft
resolution was approved by members of the Commission. The European
Union, led by France, and the African Group voted for a statement that simply expressed concerns about conditions in Darfur. Meanwhile, the release of a highly critical Commission report on human rights conditions in Darfur was delayed in order to secure access for a U.N. delegation to Darfur. The report, however, was leaked to the public, although it was not made available to Commission members during the debate on Sudan.6 A U.N. official later stated that it was better to delay the release of the report and secure access to the region than to inflame the situation.
This report is two years old remember. The situtaion is considerably worse now
UNICEF
about a major humanitarian disaster, with an estimated one million people displaced and
more than 140,000 people forced into neighboring Chad. There are no reliable estimates
of the number of people killed as a result of the conflict. The government of Sudan has
denied or severely restricted access to relief officials in Darfur. Some observers and
U.S. officials estimate that between 10,000-30,000 people have been killed over the past
twelve months. U.S. officials assert that an estimated 320,000 could die by the end of
2004 (2004!!!!) irrespective of the international response.
The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups
emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Darfur. The Sudan
Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) claim that the
government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic groups in Darfur. The
government of Sudan dismisses the SLA and JEM as terrorists. The conflict pits the three
African ethnic groups, the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit, against nomadic Arab ethnic
groups. Periodic tensions between the largely African-Muslim ethnic groups and the Arab
inhabitants of Darfur can be traced to the 1930s and most recently surfaced in the 1980s.
Successive governments in Khartoum have long neglected the African ethnic groups in
Darfur and have done very little to prevent or contain attacks by Arab militias against
non-Arabs in Darfur.1 Non-Arab groups took up arms against successive central
governments in Khartoum, albeit unsuccessfully. In the early 1990s, the NIF government,
which came to power in 1989, began to arm Arab militias and disarm the largely African
ethnic groups.
Darfur is home to an estimated 7 million people and has more
than 30 ethnic groups, although these groups fall into two major categories: African and
Arab. Both communities are Muslim, and years of intermarriages have made racial
distinctions impossible. Fighting over resources is one of several factors that has led to
intense infighting in Darfur over the years. Many observers believe that the NIF
government has systematically and deliberately pursued a policy of discrimination against
and marginalization of the African communities in Darfur, and has given support to the
Arab militia to suppress non-Arabs, whom it considers a threat to its hold on power. In
2000, with the ouster of the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, and a split within the
Islamist Movement, the government imposed a state of emergency and used its new
authority to crack down on dissidents in Darfur. By 2002, a little known self defense
force of a largely Fur-dominated group emerged as the SLA, challenging government
forces in Darfur.
With the NIF regime internally in turmoil and mounting international pressure to end
the North-South conflict, the SLA and JEM were able to gain the upper hand in the initial
phase of the conflict against government forces in early 2003, and appear well prepared
and armed. The rebels also enjoyed the support of the local population as well as officers
and soldiers in the Sudanese army. A significant number of senior officers and soldiers
in the Sudanese armed forces comes from Darfur. The SLA benefitted from outside
support, including from fellow Zaghawa in Chad and financial support from Darfur
businessmen in the Persian Gulf. The government of Sudan has accused Eritrea and the
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) of providing support to the SLA.
The government of Sudan also accuses the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, of
having links with JEM. Some observers say that Turabi, through his supporters, provides
political and financial support to JEM. In late March 2004, Turabi, along with a number
of senior army officers, was arrested. The government claimed that Turabi was behind
an attempted coup, although officials in Khartoum seemed to back away from that claim
by mid-April 2004.
In mid-2003, the
government of Sudan significantly increased its presence in Darfur by arming the Arab
militia, the Janjaweed, and by deploying the Popular Defense Force (PDF). The
Janjaweed, under the direction of regular government forces, reportedly unleashed a
campaign of terror against civilians.2 The Arab militia engaged in what United Nations
officials described as “ethnic cleansing” of the African ethnic groups of Darfur. Men
have been summarily executed, women have been raped, and more than 100,000 have
been forced into exile in neighboring countries.3 In early February 2004, the government
launched a major military offensive against the rebel forces, and by mid-February 2004,
President Omar Bashir, in a nationally televised speech, declared that the security forces
had crushed the SLA and JEM, and offered amnesty to the rebels.
The forceful expulsion of the mainly African ethnic groups from their homes was
done in a deliberate, sequenced, and systematic way, according to a briefing paper on the
Darfur crisis by the Office of U.N. Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan.
The report describes the mechanisms used to cleanse the area of non-Arabs by “total
disengagement of administration and suspension of all government services.” These
include suspending most government functions, including payment of salaries to
government workers, and abandoning basic government services, such as health care and
law enforcement. According to the United Nations, once government officials leave
these communities, the people are then accused of being rebel sympathizers and are
targeted by government militias. The Janjaweed burn villages, loot the properties of the
non-Arabs, abduct children, rape women, and prevent people from returning to their
homes
In September 2003, the
government of Sudan and the SLA
signed a cease-fire agreement
mediated by President Deby of
Chad. The agreement collapsed in
December 2003. In early April
2004, the government of Sudan and
the SLA/JEM agreed to a cease-fire
and political dialogue to peacefully
resolve the conflict. The
government of Sudan agreed to
negotiate with the rebels after
considerable international pressure.
The negotiations were conducted
under the auspices of President
Idriss Deby of Chad and assisted by
the African Union. The United
States and other international
participants played an important
role in facilitating the negotiations, although the government of Sudan delegation walked
out of the talks in protest when the head of the U.S. delegation began to deliver his
opening remarks.
The parties agreed to observe a cease-fire for a period of 45 days, renewable
automatically if both parties agree. In late May, the parties renewed the ceasefire
agreement. The agreement appears to be holding, although the government of Sudan was
accused of violating the agreement.5 Nevertheless, the humanitarian situation in Darfur,
according to many observers, continues to deteriorate, largely due to repeated and
deliberate denial of access for NGOs to the affected areas by government officials.
Moreover, monitoring mechanisms agreed to by the parties are yet to be implemented, and many observers fear that continued delay could unravel the cease-fire agreement. As part
of the agreement, the African Union, with the help of the United States and the European
Union, was tasked to deploy a monitoring team in Darfur and establish a Joint
Commission, consisting of the two parties, Chad, and the international community.
American and European Union officials argue that the monitoring team must be
independent and credible.
The international community’s response to the Darfur crisis has
been slow and ineffective, in part because of the government of Sudan’s repeated refusal to allow relief workers into Darfur. It was not until late 2003, almost one year after the crisis erupted, that some members of the international community began to speak about gross human rights abuses and a widespread humanitarian crisis in Darfur. According to some analysts, the Bush Administration did not consider the Darfur crisis as a priority; instead the Administration was largely focused on the talks between the government of Sudan and the SPLM. The first statement on Darfur by the White House was issued in early April 2004. Others point out that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officials spoke of a growing humanitarian crisis and visited the area in late 2003.
Administration officials were reportedly concerned that forceful statements or measures against the government of Sudan could undermine the peace process between the GOS and the SPLM. Some U.N. officials, however, have been forceful in their statements and have publicly expressed concerns about the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Darfur. The United Nations Resident Humanitarian Coordinator consistently reported to headquarters about gross human rights
violations in Darfur. In a letter dated March 22, 2004 to the State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sudan, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Mukesh Kapila, wrote that “the war in Darfur started off in a small way last year but it has progressively got worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt is being borne by civilians. This includes vulnerable women and children...The violence in Darfur appears to be particularly directed at a specific group based on their ethnic identity and appears to be systemized. This it is akin to ethnic cleansing.” The African Union and the Arab League
did not make public statements on the Darfur crisis until the signing of the cease-fire agreement. In late April 2004, the United Nations Human Rights Commission
expressed its views on the Darfur
situation by adopting a Chairman’s Statement supported by the
overwhelming majority of Commission members. The statement was adopted with 50 in favor, one against (U.S.), and two abstentions (Australia and Ukraine).
The U.S. delegation sought, unsuccessfully, a stronger resolution
on Darfur. Two amendments offered by the United States were defeated,
while a motion to suspend further discussion on a U.S.-supported draft
resolution was approved by members of the Commission. The European
Union, led by France, and the African Group voted for a statement that simply expressed concerns about conditions in Darfur. Meanwhile, the release of a highly critical Commission report on human rights conditions in Darfur was delayed in order to secure access for a U.N. delegation to Darfur. The report, however, was leaked to the public, although it was not made available to Commission members during the debate on Sudan.6 A U.N. official later stated that it was better to delay the release of the report and secure access to the region than to inflame the situation.
This report is two years old remember. The situtaion is considerably worse now
UNICEF
Comments