GlobalTrek .:. 1983 to Present

Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts

Friday, July 27, 2007

Darfur: Our global shame

Summary: The time for action in Darfur was yesterday. Diplomacy has failed and yet, the world does not act. This is our global shame.

Update: Farrow calling out Spielberg on the Olympics has encouraged him to act. Well done, sir.

I've put off writing this piece for a few weeks now, thinking optimistically that the intervention force agreed to by the Sudanese government would be quickly mobilized and the atrocities would begin to end. My optimism was foolish and now I am confident that any diplomatic methods employed by any government or the U.N. are mere posturings to maintain operations and economic interests outside of Darfur including the 2008 Olympics in Shanghai.

What's spurred me to lose all optimism is not a single event, though while enjoying my crumpets and tea a few days before I am to explore Africa, I read an interview in the July 30th issue of Newsweek where Mia Farrow pleads for action. Acting as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF, Farrow recently visited Darfur to bear witness to what is happening and returns with a rightfully scathing opinion of the world's response.

As referenced in my overview post about Sudan & Darfur, I again refer to Dr. Eric Reeves, an expert on the conflict:

"There is no effective leadership of the international effort to provide a meaningful peace process in the wake of the disastrous agreement that emerged from Abuja, Nigeria last May. To be sure, there has been a welter of “conferences” and “initiatives”---in Paris, in Addis Ababa, in Accra, in Cairo, and several in Tripoli (the most recent this past April, the next scheduled for mid-July). But there is no plan, no “roadmap,” although a flimsy two-page document does exist with the absurdly overstated title of “Joint AU-UN Framework for a Road-map for the Darfur Political Process, DRAFT 10 May 2007: Work in Progress.” But this document is nothing more than a hasty assemblage of generalized exhortations and vague goals. It is holds no party accountable in any meaningful way, either in observing a cease-fire or seriously committing to peace negotiations."
None of the senior U.N. negotiators even reside in Sudan.

Two days ago, a draft U.N. resolution was circulated related to the joint AU/U.N. force that was already agreed to by the government of Sudan. The draft is a "watered down" version of one previous; it "drops the threat of sanctions if Sudan fails to comply with the resolution" and puts the insertion of the force back until the end of December. FIVE FULL MONTHS FROM NOW. Still, Sudan's UN ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem protested the new draft claiming that it still included "hostile language".

This comes from a man who represents a government that has, to this day, continued to use air raids to intentionally bomb civilian populations in Darfur - many times disguising their planes to look like U.N. aircraft.

I'm done listening to efforts of diplomacy. Mass killing continues in Darfur, and those in power tip-toe around Sudanese officials for no other reason than fear. Such is not the way in which my great nation was intended to act in the face of a just cause. Like Carl Wilkens, the only American to stay in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994, I am so angry at America; "America the beautiful, America the brave". Like Wilkens, "
I [am not] angry with America, America's people, like that. I [am] angry with our government. I [am] angry with people who [can] do something, even the simplest things, and they [don't]."

Our leaders cower in the face of an atrocious regime that has time and again shown they have no intention of attaining a peace. Farrow notes:
"Intervention should have happened in 2004 and it didn't. So should NATO come in? Anyone should come in! The United Nations and all member states should [act] in a matter of days when we see a government slaughter its own people. That should be an automatic trigger; it shouldn't be deliberated for years."
I, Dominic Cronshaw, as a citizen of the world am calling upon you to act. Be you Michael Jungman or Geremy Kornreich; be you busy director or inquisitive student; be you wealthy or be you poor; be you political or be you conveniently apathetic; be you international or be you homebody - I'm calling on you to be a catalyst for the action needed to end the murder, rape and torture in Darfur.

Take the time to read Dr. Reeve's recent article. Get on the phone and call your representatives. If asked to, leave a message and then call back until you've gotten him/her on the phone. Exclaim: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!". Grill your representatives, hard, on why they have not achieved their stated goals in relation to Darfur. Tell them you are ashamed of them and they have failed you; abused your confidence and neglected your objectives.

Sometimes, as sadly found by Paul Rusesabagina at the Milles Collines in Kigali, shaming them into action is the only way to make anything happen.

Sources / Pic credits: BBC News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Time Magazine

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Sudan & Darfur: Then, Now and ...


Summary: This post is as distilled a version of the conflict in Darfur as I can adequately produce without trimming critical detail. Genocide, despite vows of the developed world to act, continues today. Take copious notes and bare witness.


Darfur is an area in Western Sudan, the largest country in Africa and 10th largest in the world. Most of the Western world has had little reason to pay much attention to the hot, arid nation through the middle of which runs the grand Nile. My earliest exposure to the Sudan came in the early 90s when, during my avid basketball card collecting, I came across the massive center for the Philadelphia 76'ers, Manute Bol. At 7'7" and only 200 lbs, Bol was unlike any other human being I'd ever seen; a giant with skin so dark it seemed he was always in the shadows. Beyond Bol, Osama Bin Laden spent five years in the Sudan after his departure/expulsion from Saudi Arabia in 1991; under international sanctions, Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia provided that the government pardon him; a condition the Saudis refused.

Sudan has a long and utterly fascinating history of influence and conflict. As with any place, history adds rich detail to the comprehension of current events, but I shall leave most of it for your own private study. One intriguing fact: in the North of Sudan, researchers found what is thought to be the world's oldest evidence of warfare dating back to the 12th millennium B.C.

Skipping 12,000 years of history, we fast-forward to the 7th century A.D. when the well-established split between northern and southern Sudan came to be and led to not one, but two vicious and bloody civil wars.

The source of the divide between North and South can be traced, in part, to religious influence. If asked what religion features prominently in Sudan, many would likely say Islam. Despite this being true, Islam didn't arrive in Sudan until around 651 A.D. when the governor of Egypt raided northern Sudan and, not finding much of value, continued towards the Red Sea; an area rich in gold and emeralds. Subsequent to the discovery of riches, an influx of Arab miners began as well as a transition of the economic structure to feudalism. Slavery became a critical aspect of the economy and a shameful piece of Sudanese culture. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the British, French, Belgians and Egyptians all laid claim to various areas of Sudan and led numerous missions to back up their claims.

Due to the size and ecological hostility of Sudan, most of the activity of foreigners occurred in the North leaving the semi-nomadic tribes in the South relatively uninfluenced. This aspect becomes critically important after 1898 when the British, through concessions from the Belgians and French, essentially ruled the entire of the Sudan (though their influence was limited in the South).

In 1943, the British began preparing the North for self-rule by dividing the area into six provinces. Three years later in 1946, the British reversed this decision and announced that the North and South would be ruled under one government situated in Khartoum in the northern part of the country. On top of the vast geographic separation from Khartoum and while most of the bureaucrats and politicians from the South had been trained in English, the new government's official language was to be Arabic. Of the 800 governmental positions vacated by the British in 1953, 4 were given to southerners. This neglect and unfair treatment of the South brought about the first civil war.

Though there is much information about the first civil war, which began in 1955 and continued for 17 years, I shall not cover it here. While it undoubtedly influenced the climate and saw the first calls for southern secession, it is the 2nd civil war that offers more insight into the Sudan of today.

In 1989, and with the backing of the same Islamic fundamentalist party (NIF) who had protected Bin Laden during his time in the Sudan, a coup brought to power a military junta that, unlike previous coalition governments, was wholly unwilling to compromise with the South. The leader of the coup was then Colonel Omar Hassan Al-Bashir who immediately made himself not only a General, but President, Chief of State, Prime Minister and Chief of the Armed Forces. In 1991, Bashir's government introduced a new penal code based on Shar'ia law which included amputations and stonings as punishment. This, however, is only the beginning of the horrors seen in the 1990s.

On the pretext of fighting the southern rebels, the National Islamic government of the Sudan deployed its regular armed forces as well as its militia to attack and raid villages in the South and the Nuba Mountains and take cattle and slaves. Food and supply shipments were systematically shut off by the North. Along with an estimated 2M civilians killed since 1983, over 200,000 southern women and children are thought to have been taken as slaves. The strife and following lack of investment in the South has led to what human rights organizations call a "lost generation" which lacks educational opportunities, access to basic health care services, and has few prospects for productive employment. In 2002, the U.S. accused Sudan of genocide for acts committed during the civil war.

In 2003, as international aid poured in, a second conflict was beginning; one which would grip the world's attention and bring about more mass killings of civilians in Sudan. Much like in Rwanda in 1994 where over 800,000 people were killed and with an estimated 400,000 more Sudanese dead, governments and various groups argued back and forth over whether a genocide was occurring. World leaders chastised the Sudanese government and evoked ineffective sanctions while the world asked, pleaded and demonstrated en masse for immediate action. To this day, it has not come. The following is the story of Darfur.

Situated in Western Sudan, Darfur covers an area comparable to the State of Texas. From the 14th century, Darfur saw foreign invasions similar to those seen in northern Sudan including a Turko-Egyptian invasion which was quashed by Muhammad Ahmad's Islamic Mahdist rule. In 1898, a British Field Commander worth checking out named Herbert Kitchener ended Mahdist rule and brought about an Anglo-Egyptian co-dominium which would rule all of Sudan until 1955 when Sudan was granted independence (see above). In the face of disproportionate development and support of the Nile Valley, disenfranchised Darfuris were preyed upon by various political groups and factionalism took root.

After independence, three major groups inhabited Darfur: camel herders in the North, Arab cattle herders known as the Baggara in the East and South, and sedentery farmers known as the Fur in the central region (Darfur means "land of the Fur"). Beyond their lifestyles, the Baggara and Fur are markedly similar. Both have similar physical features and both practice Islam. In the late 1960s, periods of severe drought forced the camel herders and Baggara into the more fertile central region of the Fur. As competition for access to water and pasture intensified, small-scale raids turned into persistent battles among the different groups. Numerous attempts to create a peace failed.

Early in 2003, two local rebel groups known as the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM or SLA) accused Khartoum of oppressing non-Arabs. While the actual date of the beginning of the conflict varies by source (some as early as 2001), a commonly observed early major event was the raid on Al-Fashir in the southern part of Sudan. In the early morning hours of April 25th, 2003, a joint JEM-SLA force raided a government garrison and destroyed a number (4 or 7 depending on source) of bombers and gunships as well killing 75 soldiers, pilots and technicians and capturing another 32 including a Major General. The raid was a massive victory and unlike anything accomplished by another foe of Khartoum, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) during the 17-year civil war in the South. Khartoum had been completed surprised by the attack and was embarrassed.

During the middle months of 2003, the rebel groups used hit-and-run techniques to continue to strike at government installations winning 34 of 38 engagements. In the face of these numerous defeats, which added to the embarrassment and threatened control of Sudan, Khartoum altered its strategy from direct confrontation with the rebels to systematic attacks on the civilian populations from which the rebels came. The new approach added the use of the air force and a group of armed Baggara herders known as the Janjaweed (roughly translated, it means "devil on horseback") against non-Arab civilians. Note: Various other groups also inhabit Darfur and have been targeted by the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias.

Equipped by Khartoum with communication equipment and some artillery and with no rules of engagement, around 20,000 Janjaweed quickly and viciously lashed back at non-Arab villages while ignoring Arab villages. By the spring of 2004, thousands had been killed and over 1M Darfuris had been driven from their homes; their wells poisoned, crops uprooted, fruit trees cut down and their villages burned to the ground. Upwards of 100,000 Darfuris fled across the eastern border of neighboring Chad chased by members of the Janjaweed who clashed with Chadian forces at the border. Beyond more traditional means of violence, the Janjaweed have used rape as a weapon. Culturally in the region, raped women are considered unclean, and are ostracized. Women are even raped in open, public places to increase humiliation for them and their families.

The fleeing Darfuris have congregated in over 100 camps in both Darfur and Chad. These overcrowded camps for displaced persons are now home to more than two million people. They face serious shortages of sanitary facilities, medical supplies and, at times, even food and water. The threat of waterborne disease including cholera and dysentery adds an additional horrible element to an already hugely challenging life in these camps.

And so it has continued, amidst negotiations and sanctions, two-faced politics and private interests for three long years. The African Union has 7,000 poorly equipped and underfunded troops in the region; most accounts detail that they can do little but record atrocities and have little capacity to effect much, if any, protection for civilians. In late 2005, the A.U. said they had plans to increase the size of the force to 12,000 by spring 2006; the force remains at 7,000 poorly equipped and underfunded troops whose leaders are saying they cannot fund them much longer.

Just today, the government of Sudan has agreed to a much larger U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed to Darfur. Al-Bashir had previously categorically ruled out such a force and his agreement to this latest U.N./A.U. force is contingent on all troops being from Africa. U.N. officials say this will make fielding the force difficult, but beyond the difficulty Al-Bashir and the NIF have a long history of reneging on agreements; this force may be actively delayed until hundreds of thousands more are dead.

Today, Omar Al-Bashir is still the President of the Sudan and despite being head of state during two separate mass killings which have left over half a million Sudanese dead, is still being engaged in diplomatic conversations as well as receiving political and military support from countries including China and Russia. The U.N. has passed 16 resolutions on the Sudan. The New York Times reported that 'a confidential United Nations report says the government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and painting Sudanese military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft.

Quite simply, the A.U. is ill-equipped, under-funded and sadly incapable of ending the killing. The structure of the U.N. security council (as well as its historical pattern of failing to protect civilians from genocide) means that China can use its veto power to squash "overly-aggressive" resolutions. President Bush, in the face of all the evidence, on April 18th of this year threatened only sanctions. European leaders have also failed to bring an end to the violence.

What is absolutely, inarguably, completely and shamefully clear is that our leaders have the ability to stop the killing in Darfur.

They are simply choosing not to.

}---{}---{

Image courtesy of America Abroad Media. Various sources including Wikipedia, BBC, SaveDarfur.org, Africana by Robert Fay and a very good article by Dr. Eric Reeves. His site is a fantastic resource for research and commentary on U.S. and international responses to the crisis.