Under intense international pressure, the Sudanese government and the biggest Darfur rebel group last Friday signed a peace accord in Abuja, Nigeria. Efforts are underway to bring the two smaller rebel factions that rejected the deal into the agreement.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, the United Kingdom’s International Development Secretary, Hillary Benn, and many African leaders were in Abuja to help the African Union mediators. Zoellick said the deal could be “a very important day of hope and opportunity for the poor people of Darfur … but it is only a step.”
The peace agreement is indeed an important first step. The prior negotiations, including a 2004 cease-fire, had been in vain, and the current negotiations dragged on for two years. Without this accord, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would worsen and the entire region, including Chad, could be destabilized.
The settlement includes a cease-fire; disarming of the government-backed, mainly Arab janjaweed militias; integration of rebel forces into Sudan’s army; compensation for war victims; and a majority of legislators from rebel factions in the three state governments in Darfur. But the rebels’ demand for a new vice presidential post from Darfur was not met.
Claming that Khartoum had neglected and marginalized their region, the insurgents in Darfur took up arms in February 2003. The government responded with repressive measures, followed by the onset of the janjaweed campaign of ethnic cleansing and atrocities on non-Arab civilians – mass killing, pillage, rape and burning of villages.
The fighting has taken a heavy toll, with 200,000 killed and more than 2 million driven from their homes. Suffering extreme deprivation, including severe malnourishment, the displaced refugees are at the mercy of the elements and handouts from the World Food Program and other aid agencies, while malnourishment increases. Because of a lack of funds, the WFP has announced it has halved Darfur’s rations.
The 7,000 peacekeepers sent to Darfur by the African Union are unable to provide security for the region, which is the size of France. Not only is their mandate limited to peacekeeping – and, in fact, there has been no peace to keep – but also they lack the necessary resources and wherewithal. The United States has proposed to replace the AU peacekeepers with a much larger U.N. force, perhaps as many as 20,000. Sudan had thus far adamantly objected, but with the peace settlement it has consented in principle to such deployment. President Bush has sought NATO’s help with troops, equipment and weapons for the peacekeeping force; Osama bin Laden has urged his followers to fight the proposed U.N. presence.
Without a strong peacekeeping presence in Darfur, the refugees and displaced persons will not be able to return to their villages. Where will these peacekeepers come from? In light of accusations of neocolonialism and other rhetoric coming from Islamic groups against the involvement of U.S. and Western governments in Darfur, George Shepherd, president of Africa Today Associates, considers it unwise to deploy Western forces, although he welcomes U.S. and NATO support for the African peacekeepers. Ideally, Islamic countries should provide the peacekeeping troops, as well as financial assistance.
The United Nations and the U.S. have imposed a travel ban and asset freezes against four Sudanese leaders. There is a strong movement in the U.S. to encourage sanctions in the form of divestment from Sudan. While China opposes sanctions, the U.N. Security Council did initiate several indictments of Sudanese leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. As those responsible for these crimes are brought to justice, these indictments for atrocities should be a powerful deterrent to perpetrators of such atrocities in the future.
Whether the carnage in Darfur is called “genocide” or “ethnocide” hardly matters. What really matters is an effective multilateral and comprehensive effort. Since the world community failed the people of Darfur, their only hope lies in the implementation of this fragile peace accord.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda@law.du.edu) is Evans University Professor and director of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
