Darfur In Human Figures
How many people have died as a result of the conflict in Darfur? The answer to this question has been of much debate. And immense care is required in estimating and reporting mortality figures so that effective policy prescriptions can be developed for aiding the people of Darfur in the short-term and bringing peace with justice in the long-term. Yet activists should not lose sight of the fact that despite disparities in estimating and reporting the actual number of deaths as a result of the crisis, the death toll does not change the reality that a fair and inclusive political process is the only lasting solution for the people who are actually living through this crisis.
There has been much debate about the number of people who have been killed by armed actors and the number of people who have died as a result of other aspects of the conflict in Darfur. This debate is not purely academic and the results of which have concrete ramifications for the situation on the ground in Darfur and the region. Immense care in reporting such figures is essential in part because there are major differences between types of deaths caused by violence and those caused by disease and hunger. As such, different policy prescriptions follow; stopping massacres demands a very different response to stopping disease and hunger.
With respect to the total number of deaths caused by the crisis, estimates range from the insultingly inaccurate 9,000 put forth by the Government of Sudan to upwards of 400,000. I won’t repeat the various arguments in the debate; they’re available online and linked below. Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that over 200,000 people are estimated to have died and at least 2 million have been displaced from their homes. These are the statistics provided by the United Nations and they don’t rule out the possibility that the numbers might be higher.
As a caveat throughout this debate, it is important to note that reliable total mortality numbers are hard to come by. Methods for estimating deaths as a result of hunger and disease during a humanitarian crisis are quite well developed. However, methods for estimating violent deaths are much less refined. This is in part because access to regions in which there is active armed conflict or even the imminent threat of armed conflict are less accessible and by definition violent and unstable and as such provide less than optimal conditions for rigorous scientific data gathering.
Yet behind the numbers are human stories which should also be carefully incorporated into our understanding of and responses to the crisis. The people of Darfur are more than numbers. A fair and lasting resolution to this crisis must entail ownership not only by political and military leaders but also by civilians. One part of that process entails learning about the crisis through the words of Darfurians.
Testimony taken by European Commission aid workers in 2006:
We met 40-year old Samira in the health centre at the camp in Darrech. She was accompanied by her sister Mutera and a friend, Asha. She had a distant expression, as if thinking about something far outside the room. Why did she come to Darrech we asked?
“I come from a very tiny village called Tasha in North Sharia. It was early in the morning just over two years ago when we heard shouting and shooting outside our tuku (house). We looked out and saw men wearing police uniforms riding horses and camels. They were burning houses. My husband went outside holding our five-year old son, Walid. He was immediately shot several times. One of the shots hit Walid’s leg.”
“I was very frightened but my son was still alive so I reached out and took him from his dead father arms. Then I ran away with my other children. The first day we stayed hiding in the trees. We knew we had to move on, but we did not know where to go and Walid was injured.”
“My children didn’t know what was happening and were constantly asking questions. For me, the only option I could think of was to walk to Nyala and to try and get some help. So we did. I walked for three days, with two babies on my back and Walid in my arms. My sister was with us and she helped with the other children. I later heard that some friends buried my husband.”
“We had no food and – even worse – no water. It was hard to keep going. And then some farmers helped us. I didn’t cry at the time. My eyes were dry and I couldn’t feel anything. I was just exhausted.”
“When we arrived here, we were brought to the hospital. My child is now an invalid - but we are alive.”
As she finishes her story, the tears start to run down her face.
--
As we wrap our minds around the enormity of this crisis, we constantly remind ourselves that behind the numbers there are brothers and sisters, birthday parties and marriages, grandparents and friends just like Samira. There is a shared humanity in this crisis that extends beyond the borders of Sudan, across the Sahara, across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean.
There is also a shared sense of gross inhumanity in this crisis. Yet Darfurian voices should not be relegated to a cacophony of “victims’” voices. Darfurians are not just suffering from this crisis. Darfurians are a strong and determined people and there are many in the region and outside the region including people like Suliman Baldo, Omer Ismail and Salih Mahmoud that have legitimate and credible contributions to make for resolving the crisis. Darfurian voices, especially those of women, organized civil society and local leaders, must be included in the pending peace process. Any lasting peace agreement will only survive if civilians have ownership over the process and ownership over the outcome.
I look forward to your comments, our discussion and my next posting, International Dimensions: It’s not just about China.
Many thanks and best, BNR.
Links for further reading on the mortality debate:
Alex de Waal article entitled Deaths in Darfur: Keeping Ourselves Honest
CRED report entitled Counting the Deaths: Mortality Estimates from Multiple Survey Data
Save Darfur response to criticism of their mortality reporting
Eric Reeves article entitled Darfur Mortality: Shoddy Journalism at the New York Times
A paper published in the magazine Science by John Hagan and Alberto Palloni in September 2006 entitled Death in Darfur
Recent ruling by the British Advertising Standards Authority on the use of the 400,000 figure
Thank-you for posing such an important question. This is important because there are people that are agitating for western intervention in Darfur that are clearly using highly inflated numbers. Kristof I believe has said 'more than 300,000' though nothing near that number has been documented. Good estimates are as high as 100,000 and most of those died more than two years back.
Why is this number important. Well if we intervene in Darfur then we could question why no one is advocating western intervention in the Congo where at least 1 million and perhaps 2 million people have been killed there in civil war over the past 10 years.
September 19, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly would be nice if conflicts could be solved by people of Darfur sitting down and talking; the Dinka-Nuer reconciliation is a sterling example of this. I don't see much sentiment for that, including the existence of accepted honest brokers, in Darfur.
As with an earlier post, I must come back to the question, "if there was to be an intervention, how can it be supported logistically?" That's a question not often asked at the "policy" level, but is very real operationally.
Alternatively, if everyone in the west hears the personal story of every displaced person in Darfur, what do you propose be done with that knowledge?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good post. But I think we're past the point of "raising awareness." We need to move towards a discussion of what we should do, can do and want to do.
And I guess we need to realize that since the US has taken one on the chin recently that we're not up for much more than sending some logistical support for peacekeepers and maybe some negotiators. Maybe that's enough. I hope it is.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 19, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Thanks. This is what I was trying to address in my post in the other thread at this table-for-one. Raising emotional consciousness is probably a good thing, but I think that exists to a significant extent.
Classic international pressures, like ICC indictments when the al-Bashir government isn't going to extradite, or blanket economic sanctions ignoring the realities of the South as a lever, don't seem to have much effect.
Modern high-tech militaries will generally help about as much as sending Tomahawks (the missiles, not the axes) against Comanches (the tribe, not the helicopter): Tomahawk cruise missiles are programmed to hit a specific fixed place. You might be able to identify janjaweed pillaging a village or leaving a pillaged village, and engage them direct-fire weapons such as cannon and rockets, but that assumes a lot of helicopters or vehicles on patrol. Helicopters especially, and practical vehicles, need lots of fuel and maintenance. How do you get fuel, parts, etc., into Darfur, not for an occasional raid but to establish that the Mounties, Texas Rangers, etc., are in town?
Transport flights from Nigeria, without the ability to refuel in Darfur, can't carry much cargo. This isn't the Berlin Airlift over short distances. If the transports could stage out of Khartoum International, with a refinery and pipeline nearby, that would be much more efficient, although it would be best to have a forward logistical base and airfield nearer Darfur (e.g., Babanusa). Even then, you want to start spreading the infrastructure into Darfur proper. I haven't seen this addressed, and I can't be the only person aware of the need.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it difficult to believe that anyone would suggest sending in military forces to aid the secessionists. If any western Christian forces arrived the war would be transformed immediately from a civil war between two Moslem factions into Jihad against the crusaders. Even if we were not bogged down in Iraq, does anyone think any good could come from that?
September 19, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since there are both pro- and anti-secessionist factions (SPA and JEM at one point in time), mostly from the Fur and other pastoralist peoples, fighting the janjaweed but also occasionally fighting each other, it's even worse than you suggest -- like Iraq, it isn't a bipolar conflict.
China recently talked about making manpower available, although the mission was unclear. China does have quite a bit of experience building infrastructure, and also protecting the people doing the building -- not necessarily doing either gently.
One wild card in this situation is that substantial amounts of underground water recently has been discovered in Darfur, which could make farms flourish and have better pasture for nomads.
Oil is a big question mark. There are potential oilfields east of Darfur in the Kordofan area of central Sudan, and there's oil in Chad west of Darfur. There hasn't been serious oil exploration in Darfur, but it's not unreasonable to think it might share geologic resources with areas on either side of it.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to thank hcberkowitz for providing detailed insights into the situation in Darfur. The links were extremely helpful.
Given where GW and his buddies have left the military, the US will only be playing a support role. Foreign "adventures" will be limited for the foreseeable future.
September 19, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any oil there?
September 19, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. When looking at the mess in Darfur, I like to remember that other Sudanese people have managed amazing reconciliation, starting at the Dinka-Nuer Reconciliation process at the Wunlit Conference. To quote one chief of the traditional enemies,
Interestingly, while the participants are a mixture of traditional animists, Christians, and Muslims, Christian groups did have a continuing role in brokering the reconciliation. The process went even further at a 2002 meeting in Washington DC, under the sponsorship of the Church of the Brethren. This is something to remember when flaming about Christian dominionists -- there are also Christian peacemakers.
Northern Sudanese groups had also turned Baqqara Arabs, who make up the janjaweed in Darfur, loose on these tribes and the Shilluk, in the interest of clearing them from the working oil areas.
I wouldn't sell US support capabilities short. An Air Force RED HORSE (see link for the fairly painful acronym expansion squadron, with appropriate supplies, could transform several airports in Darfur, starting with El Fasher and then Nyala. Still, there is no simple way to get a road, railroad, or pipeline into Darfur for regular supplies of petroleum products, which is essential for any sustained peacemaking or even humanitarian effort.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best anyone can say is "maybe". Oil has been found on both sides, the Kordofan region of Sudan and in Chad. I don't think that security has permitted any significant oil prospecting in Darfur.
Recently, there's been a discovery of major underground water under this arid area, which could transform it with systematic drilling and irrigation. I might note that some of the best experts in the world, on irrigation, are Israeli.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben: Syvanen makes a valid point that you might want to address.
No one questions the horror that is Darfur but the Democratic Republic of Congo (always a good sign when a country manages to shove both Democratic and Republic into its name...) is so, well, look at the figures. In 2006 the Lancet reported 4 million deaths in 10 years. That's 20 times your Darfur estimate.
So, to put it crudely, why should we care about Darfur when no one seems to give a damn about a much worse catastrophe?
Why the selective outrage?
Oil? Is that it? The Big China Threat? Is Congo's sin not to have oil?
September 19, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without overemphasizing China, it's well to note that the largest oil consortium, the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, has ownership split roughly among China, Malaysia, and the world's largest democracy, India. While India's national petroleum company has been buying up the interests of Western companies that have bailed out for human rights reasons/stockholder protest, India generally has managed to keep a fairly low profile about its involvement in Sudanese oil. Malaysia's involvement seems more financial than operational.
India, however, has been getting involved in infrastructure, such as the optical fiber control network that runs along the pipeline. Alcatel and Siemens, as European companies, also have major roles in communications and electrical infrastructure.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 19, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep coming back to my position that the US cannot possibly be the world's peace keeping or police force. We would bankrupt ourselves trying. The UN was established specifically for situations like now exist in Africa. Why is the UN so impotent that we even think about US intervention in African disputes? And, the corollary to that is, what options does the UN have?
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 20, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy,
One reason that the UN is so impotent, I think is the Cold War and how the US responded to it. We wanted to run the security show and so we basically encouraged our allies not to build up much military capability. There were decades of "let us handle it" policies from the US. Because of that, the most credible international forces tend to have a large US component.
I agree with you. We can't be the world's policeman. It's just that we spent decades insisting that we were and everybody else reacted naturally by saying "Okay, if you want to spend an insane amount of your GDP on your military, go ahead..."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that the UN has no forces of its own. That being said, I believe that the argument that the US should do things is more generated by the US ("Team USA is #1") than by anywhere else. Elsewhere, there may be the same sort of faulty logic shown in "if we can send a man to the moon, we can stop teenage pregnancy (or whatever)", possibly by foreign nationals that say "if you have the troops for Iraq..."
Remember that there have been significant NATO forces in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As far as Sudan, there may be areas where the US is especially competent in an area of assistance (e.g., airlift, air base construction), but the US really hasn't been significantly present in Sudan since the original oil discoveries, where the US oil company would not stay due to security concerns.
Other countries that are actively involved in Sudan, and quite capable of things from humanitarian relief to infrastructure engineering to military measures, include:
A very big question: what about the Arab League? While some of the conflict is about Arab and non-Arab peoples, the Arab League, AFAIK, has had no involvement with Sudan. The bulk of Sudanese international communications goes out via optical fiber cables to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and they use the ARABSAT satellite. Even were the League not to participate, there still should be reasons for the neighbors including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Libya.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 20, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gujarat riots killed 1,000 people...
Alcatel is French.
September 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the population of India, I'd call that peaceful. On a population basis, one might compare them with the rioting in France or Denmark. Further, the riots in Gujarat appear not to have been started by radical Islamists. The casualties of Hindu and Sikh violence are much greater. Do we need to compare with the former East and West Pakistan?
Alcatel is multinational, with most of their communications development in Italy. I've had the distinct pleasure of working with documentation written by an Italian programmer, translated by a French editor, into English, with a possible stop in Taiwan somewhere in the way.
I believe the appropriate comment would be that in international affairs, nobody's prefect.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another of my perpetual gripes: why must every question about world problems immediately degenerate into a discussion about military "solutions" to those problems? There are very few world problems for which a military solution is even possible, let alone desirable. The UN is utterly impotent if they must address all problems militarily - that puts them back into the 1940's mentality which the UN was formed to break away from.
So, I am back to the same question: what are the options the UN has for resolving any of the current problems in Africa?
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clausewitz, of course, wrote the maxim that war is an extension of national policy by military means. Current thinking, however, poses means for national (and presumably multinational) policy enforcement to include diplomacy, economic measures of all sorts, covert operations, psychological programs including propaganda from white to black, multinational alliances, public health services and law enforcement.
I thought alternatives I was mentioning, where the military units I thought plausible were specialized non-combat such as RED HORSE airfield construction, had a substantial nonmilitary component. In particular, economic measures ranging from infrastructure improvement to presenting the North with the reality that the oil of the South need not flow northward are viable.
Other economic/development activities, in the relatively arid Darfur region, include the "1,000 wells for Darfur" program based on the water discoveries of Farouk el-Baz, one of the most distinguished geologists around. In his case, the meme "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." is more relevant, as he was the principal geological investigator for the Apollo Program.
Rebuilding railroads, with outside groups training locals, is another economic measure with the potential effect of development along the railroad, helping secure fuel supplies for peace forces. In a situation such as this, I'd think of peace enforcers rather than peacekeepers; peacekeepers are authorized to use force in other than self-defense. Rwanda had peacekeepers that weren't even allowed to confiscate arsenals and radio stations that Gen. Dallaire knew would be used in an outbreak of violence.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 20, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The saga of Bernard Kouchner the current French FM is I believe instructive in the dangers lurking in advocacy of humanitarian intervention. Currently he is the loudest hawk on the planet calling for war with Iran if they do not submit to western demands. Before that he was a co-founder of doctors without borders (a model of nonviolent humanitarian intervention) but he then began to advocate war in some circumstances. He is one of the founders of the concept of humanitarian war. It is as if once he tasted the nectar of war to solve a problem he has become intoxicated with aggression to solve any problem.
This business in Darfur has all the characteristics of the build up to humanitarian war. First to highly publicize (and exaggerate) some human atrocities, oversimplify the politics of the region, then set up the cry 'we must do something', followed by suggestions for military intervention.
In my first post here I asked why western humanitarians are so concerned with Darfur when none even mention the mass killings in Congo. Since no one offered an answer, let me offer a speculative one. And that is the primary motivation for intervention in Darfur is not the humanitarian crisis, but rather the opportunity to expand the war against the Islamic moslems. It is part of WWIV. I am not saying that the many people who have flocked to this cause are not motivated by their own humanism, but that they are victims of propaganda being spread for another agenda.
September 21, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For myself, I have had a professional interest in Sudan, and educated myself on the problems of that nation and its Darfur region. There is too much suffering on this poor planet for one person to encompass all injustice.
If you review my posts, over a significant period, on Darfur, you will note a constant theme pointing out that those counseling intervention tend to ignore logistics. Without a clear logistical plan, any operation in Darfur is doomed.
In contrast, the DRC is not landlocked, and has more infrastructure. I have not studied the situation there, in any detail, since the early seventies, and do not consider myself entitled to an intelligent opinion on it. I have, however, stayed abreast of Darfur. Look hard in my posts, and see if I have ever advocated "humanitarian war". Indeed, you will find a number of examples of why traditional military approaches would be futile.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have found your posts extremely knowledgeable and even handed. You have never advocated war as a solution there. However, I do believe that the Darfur movement is influenced by some who do not share your very well expressed concern for welfare for the people of the Sudan.
September 21, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farouk El-Baz is getting support for drilling from NGOs like Doctors w/o Borders as well as UN, and at least a little continuing press coverage, at New Scientist.
The article also mentions the huge, but very deep aquifer that was filled by the Nile, the Nubian sandstone aquifer. It will always cost more to drill 1,000 meters than 100, but it's there.
The Darfur aquifer dates from 5,000 years ago or more. Makes one think that Eden was merely the rich, wet times after the retreat of glaciers.
September 21, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink