Global Policy Forum

By Eva Dadrian*

For the past two weeks, the intensified violence in Darfur, Western Sudan, the restrictions imposed on humanitarian aid to 1.4 million people, and the expulsion of senior aid officials from two of the most renowned international humanitarian organisations are the dire result of the past and present failure of the United Nations Security Council, the United States, the international community and the African states.

By refusing to act on the extensive documented evidence of the atrocities, war crimes and human right abuses committed against the black African civilian population of Darfur, the United Nations Security Council has dried its crocodile tears on the empty slogan of "Never Again" that it proclaimed six months ago when commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, and turned its back on the people of Darfur. None of its resolutions on Darfur has made any impact on Khartoum in stopping the violence and the ethnic cleansing in the region. In addition, the United Nations has not put any pressure on Khartoum to fulfil its commitments stipulated in the Joint Communiqué jointly signed with the UN Secretary General in July 2004, regarding the "immediate disarming of the Janjaweed and other armed outlaw groups". Have we forgotten the Resolution on the armed conflict in Darfur adopted by more than 100 African human rights organisations during the 34th Session of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, at Banjul (Gambia)? That was only a year ago, in November 2003.

It is true that collective decision-making is all very well but what do you do when the culprit is part of the collective? When Sudan, for example, sits on the African Union's Peace and Security Council as it debates alleged atrocities by Sudan government-backed militias and then comes to frustrate the efforts of that same Peace and Security Council to monitor the cease-fire in Darfur? Could it be possible that because we, Africans, do not agree with the policies of Washington, London or Paris, we are ready to sacrifice the lives of our own people and hence reject any human rights resolution condemning an African state? This is exactly what happened at the UN General Assembly in Nairobi ten days ago. A draft resolution which could have denounced the killings and the ethnic cleansing that is still taking place in Darfur was frustrated by developing countries including almost all Islamic and African states. Is Africa saying to Sudan "Maalesh (never mind, in Arabic) - do not "fully and unconditionally respect your obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as well as other regional and international human rights treaties to which you, Sudan are a State Party".

The African Summit held in Tripoli (Libya) in October 2004 was claimed to be 'an important step to settle the crisis peacefully' and part of "relentless efforts" to settle the Darfur crisis in order to introduce the best model in facing other African problems. "Global support will be more effective and useful than threatening sanctions." It is said that it is Khartoum's legitimate right to solve its internal crises and no one can contest the Sudanese government's prerogative to deal with issues pertaining to its national security. Yet, time and again, the Sudanese government has proved its inability to finding a peaceful solution to the Darfur problem. Khartoum has made many promises to international visitors, to African leaders, to the UN, but has delivered nothing. It has failed - one would even say "refused" - to rein in the Janjaweed militias that it has unleashed against the black African population of Darfur. It has systematically stopped and restricted the humanitarian efforts. It has expelled aid workers. It has bombed and killed its own citizens. It has blocked all regional and international mediation efforts to solve the crisis.

Whenever confronted with real facts on the ground, the Sudanese government officials are always prompt to deny, reject, accuse, condemn and blame others, yet they have not found a proper answer to the Darfur crisis. When last July, the UN Security Council passed a first resolution condemning the atrocities perpetrated against the people of Darfur, Khartoum was angry. Later in September, the Sudanese vice-president was fuming when the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution on the violence in Darfur. As extraordinary as it may appear, Khartoum is always "right" while the African Union, the United Nations, the international community, the humanitarian organisations, the media and the people of Darfur are always "wrong".

The Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Ismail says that the African Union (AU) has not fulfilled its commitment towards Darfur, particularly regarding the expansion of forces it promised to send to help in monitoring the ceasefire and protecting civilians. Yet, only a few weeks ago, Khartoum not only imposed "restrictions" on the African Union troops, but also was refusing to allow the same AU troops to fly into Darfur. The Sudanese government's onslaught on the AU does not stop there. Nageeb al-Khair Abdel-Wahab, State Minister at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sudan, has labelled the recent AU report on the renewed clashes in Darfur as "unfair and imbalanced" whereas the report holds all the warring parties - the government, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) - responsible for violating the security and humanitarian protocols signed in Abuja, Nigeria (October 21 to November 10, 2004).

Though western mediators acknowledge that the issues in Darfur "need to be worked out" they fail to understand that these are not "manageable" disputes that can be handled "as they arise". Time and again, analysts have made it clear that the issues at stake, not only in Darfur or in the South, but in Sudan in its entirety, are related to "structural" matters and to how Sudan can be governed and not who is to govern Sudan. The viable solution to be found needs to be "proactive" and long term so to avoid the recurrence of the problems. A "reactive" and short-term solution would only solve the problem "temporarily". Sudan has been mis-governed since independence by interest groups and political ideologues that are today trying to keep their hegemony despite and against all common sense. Whether it comes under internal pressure from opposition parties or it concedes to pressure from the international community, Khartoum's position in dealing with its problems is unlikely to change. The government of Hassan El Beshir is determined to maintain its hold on power at any cost and force its policies on the Sudanese people by all means, except national dialogue. Let's be serious. Khartoum is not interested in global support.

Human rights activists, observers, analysts and US officials have all condemned the extremely weak and meaningless United Nations Security Council resolution (Nairobi). Now, Khartoum and the militias it has armed have "carte blanche" to continue their vicious treatment of the black African people of Darfur with impunity. They can kill, burn, rape, displace people, usurp their land and propagate racial hatred in the province.

About the Author: Eva Dadrian is an independent broadcaster and Political and Country Risk Analyst for print and broadcast media, who currently works as a consultant for Arab African Affairs (London) and writes on a regular basis for African Analysis (London), for Al Ahram HEBDO Echos Economiques and Al Ahram Weekly (Cairo) and contributes to Africa Service BBC WS (London).

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.