Protective force needed, despite UN and Sudanese government announcement

The UN and the Sudanese government have jointly issued a statement saying they have agreed as to how the violence in Darfur can be halted.

This announcement seems premature, at best, given the real challenge of halting the far-reaching and genocidal campaign that has been unleashed. Here are two fascinating and very different accounts of the situation in Darfur--one writer pro-government and one convinced that genocide is being intentionally carried out by the government. Both writers agree that the militias cannot be disarmed anytime soon, and that doing so will require very strong and area-wide enforcement.

The first is a candid interview held in the Sudan Club in Dubai a week ago, with North Darfur Ruler (Wali), Othman Yosuf Kibir.

What are the government's plans to solve the problem?

"The government opts for the establishment of law and order, return of the displaced, restructuring of the disrupted social fabric and the infrastructure and disarmament of tribes. The government's authority must be established and the tribal friction must be stopped."

What about the one-month disarmament condition put by US ?

"If the US and the UK came forth with all their might to Darfur, they will not be able to bring about any disarmament there within that limited time-frame, because everyone in Darfur is armed to the teeth. No one will give up their weapons until the government fully establishes a comprehensive security in the region. The government will have to virtually buy off those who bore arms, but to affect this we need at least three years."

A similar conclusion is reached, from a much less sympathetic observer, in "Counter-Insurgency on the Cheap" by Alex de Waal writing in the London Review of Books. Please read the entire and beautifully written piece. Excerpts:

The atrocities carried out by the Janjawiid are aimed at speakers of Fur, Tunjur, Masalit and Zaghawa. They are systematic and sustained; the effect, if not the aim, is grossly disproportionate to the military threat of the rebellion. The mass rape and branding of victims speaks of the deliberate destruction of a community. In Darfur, cutting down fruit trees or destroying irrigation ditches is a way of eradicating farmers' claims to the land and ruining livelihoods. But this is not the genocidal campaign of a government at the height of its ideological hubris, as the 1992 jihad against the Nuba was, or coldly determined to secure natural resources, as when it sought to clear the oilfields of southern Sudan of their troublesome inhabitants. This is the routine cruelty of a security cabal, its humanity withered by years in power: it is genocide by force of habit.

And so,

The biggest help would be peace. In theory, there's a ceasefire; in practice, the government and Janjawiid are ignoring it, and the rebels are responding in kind. The government denies that it set up, armed and directed the Janjawiid. It did, but the monster that Khartoum helped create may not always do its bidding: distrust of the capital runs deep among Darfurians, and the Janjawiid leadership knows it cannot be disarmed by force. When President Bashir promised Kofi Annan and Colin Powell that he would disarm the militia, he was making a promise he couldn't keep. The best, and perhaps the only, means of disarmament is that employed by the British seventy-five years ago: establish a working local administration, regulate the ownership of arms, and gradually isolate the outlaws and brigands who refuse to conform. It took a decade then, and it won't be any faster today. Not only are there more weapons now, but the political polarities are much sharper.

A detachment of 60 African Union ceasefire monitors is in Darfur with a slightly larger number of African troops providing security for them. So far no one is providing security for Darfur's terrified civilian populace. If troops are to be sent from outside Africa, this should be their mission. If the local intelligence is good, and a political process is afoot, the hazards should be minimal. But reconstituting Darfur will be slow, complicated and expensive. Understanding what has been lost may be a good place to start.

We must continue to press sharply for an outside protective force from the African Union, as the minimum necessary foundation for an international rescue that stops the genocide and begins the process of reweaving the torn fabric of life in Darfur.

UPDATE: US Secretary of State Powell op-ed on Darfur and Sudan in the Wall Street Journal, reprinted in the Sudan Tribune, no subscription needed.

Comments

[Renee in Ohio]

I don't know if you have this information already, or if it is helpful to you, but I just found this site today:

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

I also posted about the genocide in Sudan at The Village Gate and someone suggested the following:
---
It is small, but it's what we can reasonably do: send a small check/money order to Oxfam or AI, organizations that have people on the ground, effectively and compassionately delivering services to Sudan to meet needs relating to both hunger and injustice:

Oxfam America
Donor Services Dept.
26 West Street
Boston, MA
02111-1206
---
Here is the home page for Oxfam International:
http://www.oxfam.org/eng/

Here is their Q and A page explaining how they are helping in Sudan:
http://www.oxfam.org/eng/campaigns_emer_sudan_q&a.htm

[Bobo the anal kid]

The sudanese can lick my shaved beard, cause theu have no self esteem