Peace Watch

The Sudanese Hecatomb
Are massive crimes against humanity going unchallenged?

April/May 2006

Three recent events at the Institute have brought into focus the realities of Sudan’s complex humanitarian and political conflicts. The events included compelling firsthand accounts of the killings in Darfur, in western Sudan; analysis by one of Sudan’s leading public intellectuals on the religious component of the conflicts; and forceful advocacy from NGO representatives for a greater UN and U.S. role in stopping the crimes against humanity.

In December 2005, the Sudan Peace Forum at the Institute convened with Sloan Mann of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Michael Chu of the UN Organization for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, and Jonathan Morgenstein of the Institute.

A Sudanese refugee in tears after fleeing political violence in Darfur, Sudan.

The panelists painted a grim picture of what is happening in Darfur. Militia groups are increasingly attacking civilians and internally displaced people. Rape remains grossly underreported because of stigma and bureaucratic hurdles. The African Union’s mission in Darfur is increasingly under attack from Sudanese forces allied with the government. The number of bandit attacks on civilian and commercial trucks carrying humanitarian supplies has increased to an average of ten to fifteen per week. Because of the insecurity, humanitarian activity has slowed and even ceased altogether in some areas.

The UN mission is far too limited in troop numbers, equipment and training, finances, and mandate to keep the peace in Darfur, participants said. For example, compared to NATO’s mission in Bosnia and Kosovo, where there was more than one soldier Darfur, there is one African Union soldier for every eighty-eight square kilometers. And the mission is vastly underfunded, a problem not helped by the U.S. Congress’s apparent decision [subsequently amended] to cut the $50 million earmarked for the effort.

In March 2006, Africa Action executive director Salih Booker and the head of mission for the embassy of Sudan, Khirir Ahmed, gave very different interpretations of the causes and consequences of the conflict in Darfur. David Smock, the Institute’s vice president of the Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution, moderated the session.

Booker argued that Darfur had become a killing field, with a death toll surpassing 400,000. He argued that the United Nations needs to assume leadership of the peacekeeping force in the Sudan for three reasons: to stop the killing, rape, and displacement of people; to provide humanitarian relief currently shut off because of the violence; and to facilitate the return of refugees and internally displaced people and help them reconstruct their homes, communities, and livelihoods.

There is a peacekeeping “apartheid” in place, Booker said, with the international community saying, in effect, “We are not prepared to intervene in African conflicts.” Booker said that the U.S. government has refused to pressure the Khartoum government because of its help in the “so-called war on terror.” This logic is sadly reminiscent of the Cold War, Booker maintained, when the United States supported corrupt dictators because of their professed anticommunism.

Ahmed observed that the Sudanese government rarely has a chance to mount a public defense of its actions. He argued that the situation in Darfur is far more complicated, and that the “whole blame” cannot truthfully be laid on one party or another. He pointed out that the United Nations and various governments— Canada and Germany, for example—have declared that what is happening in Darfur is not genocide. And he suggested that the conflict there is really a continuation of long-standing conflicts between different groups over grazing rights.

Smock invited Charles Snyder, a long-standing member of the U. S. foreign policymaking community, to make a few remarks about U.S. policy toward Sudan. Snyder said that he was heartened by recent U.S. efforts, which have brought the “full panoply” of American power to bear on resolving the conflict in Darfur. “I think you’ll see that we’re fully engaged, USAID is engaged, the State Department is engaged, the Defense Department has studied what can be done to radically alter the situation.” But, said Snyder, the government is focused on taking practical measures, not on assuming high-minded positions for their own sake. The ideal, said Snyder, is to have “an African solution to an African problem.”

In February 2006, the Institute hosted a meeting with the Sudanese scholar al-Tayib Zain. The head of the Sudan Inter Religious Council (SIRC), Zain provided a message of hope that contrasted with the dire warnings of speakers at other events. SIRC had hosted, with the Institute assistance, a path-breaking conference for Christian and Muslim leaders in July 2005 to prepare an action plan for Sudanese religious leaders to help implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Zain also provided useful background on the conflicts in the Sudan, noting that the north-south political divide, the differential levels of development, and the perception of a cultural gap were all artifacts of the colonial era. Islam in Sudan was traditionally influenced by Sufism, said Zain, with its emphasis on peace, tolerance, and cosmopolitanism.

SIRC’s efforts are based on real, not theoretical, discussions about interreligious issues, Zain emphasized. He noted that the efforts of SIRC were vital in stemming violence and rioting after the tragic accidental downing of the helicopter carrying Sudanese rebel leader John Garang. “We called religious leaders— Catholics, Episcopalians, and leaders of the Ulama association— and all of them agreed to address the public and calm them down. We published their statements in the press, and put them on TV and the radio. The accident happened on Monday. By Thursday, we had calmed things down.”