Seeking a Just and Sustainable Peace for Darfur
Of late, public debate on Darfur has focused on getting peacekeepers on the ground. No question, there is a definite need to protect the people of Darfur from further atrocities. But its worth asking -- what peace will the “peacekeepers” have to keep? Peace must be made before it can be kept, and that task requires sustained, high-level commitment to diplomacy and motivation for Khartoum to transition from genocidal control of the country to participation in democratic control of the country. A major step towards that goal will be the day that the UN-AU hybrid force is able to legitimately call itself a protection force AND a peacekeeping force. That night, the people of Darfur will no doubt sleep easier.
Peace is More Than the Absence of Violence
The rebel movements in Darfur -- the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudanese Liberation Army and Movement (SLA) -- were founded largely in reaction to decades of systematic political and economic oppression by successive regimes in Khartoum. This marginalization of Darfur (and the south and east of the country) has been orchestrated by a regime in Khartoum largely made up of tribes from the north. Because those tribes are largely Arab, there is a definite racial component to this oppression. But race has been exploited by General Bashir and his cronies in Khartoum to maintain its stranglehold on political power not the other way around. Even post-CPA Khartoum holds 52% of the seats in Parliament yet it represents only between 3% and 10% of the total population.
In 2005, my colleagues Tom Perriello and Ricken Patel traveled to Darfur and the region to develop a strategic and peaceful end-game for the conflict. The main point of view they heard from civilians including women’s councils in rebel-held territory was that the people of Darfur would rather go back to war than accept a peace agreement that keeps them oppressed. These civilians were not bloodthirsty war-mongerers. They were farmers and mothers, teachers and fathers who were driven to take up arms as a result of political oppression. Can you imagine the people of Darfur wanting to continue to fight and die if they were offered the chance to live in a democratic peace?
Protection AND Peace
There has been a lot of press this week about the recent up-tick in violence, civilian deaths and the accompanying need for a ceasefire. A ceasefire is essential not just for protection but also for peace. The leader of the main SLA faction, Abdul Wahid has refused to join the upcoming peace talks in Tripoli until the people of Darfur are protected from further violence. He is seen as one of the most prominent opposition leaders and his continuing influence is grounded in his popularity amongst those Darfurians who have suffered most from the conflict. Regardless of Abdul Wahid’s position but more so because of it, we must push our leaders to provide the troops, economic and logistical support needed so that the hybrid force deploys ASAP.
Nevertheless, our advocacy efforts now must be multi-faceted and focus on much more than ending the killing. Khartoum would be content ending the killing with a peace agreement that locks in their undemocratic control over the country. So as we advocate for the rapid deployment of the hybrid force, we must also ensure that our leaders ‘ante up’ and commit sustained resources for the diplomatic efforts that are necessary to negotiate a fair peace agreement.
With Liberty and Justice for All?
It’s also worth asking -- what would a fair and lasting peace agreement look like? To a large extent, resolving the conflict in Darfur comes down to a simple numbers game. Right now the make up of Parliament is: 52% National Congress Party (NCP, lead by General Bashir), 28% Southern Sudan, 20% Rest of the Country (including eastern and western Sudan which includes Darfur). The South fought for decades to get 28% representation which is about proportional to its percent of the total population of the country. However, if Darfur gets the same peace deal as the South (i.e. proportional representation), which is the only deal that is remotely fair, where would those 20% of the total Parliamentary seats come from? Do you take it away from the South and potentially reignite that war? Do you take it from everyone else in the country leaving them more oppressed? Or do you take it away from the central government in Khartoum which has, by the most conservative calculations, 5 times the representation it deserves. But if Khartoum has to give up even 3% of the total number of seats, let alone 20% of the total, then it loses its undemocratic control over the country. This is the impetus that drives the genocide in Darfur; an attempt by Bashir’s regime to maintain its stranglehold on political power. Furthermore, a lasting peace agreement would not just set up a temporary democratic structure. It would set up a framework for recurring elections and a monitoring system to ensure that those elections occur smoothly, fairly and peacefully.
An Offer Khartoum Can’t Refuse
This is where we (i.e. the international community) come in. Khartoum will only give up its stranglehold on political power if it’s given an offer than it can’t refuse and that entails pressure. There are a number of options along a continuum of non-military intervention.
The first is targeted divestment. Targeted divestment explicitly excludes the vast majority of companies in Sudan, including those tied to the agricultural sector, distribution of general consumer goods, promotion of non-oil-related infrastructure development in underprivileged regions of the country, and those involved in the provision of goods and services intended to relieve human suffering or to promote welfare, health, education, and religious and spiritual activities. Its aim is to put maximum pressure on the most egregiously offending companies whose business deals underwrite the genocide and line the pockets of General Bashir and his cronies. For more information please see: http://www.sudandivestment.org/home.asp.
The second is targeted sanctions. Targeted sanctions such as asset freezes and travel bans on key NCP leaders who have already been identified by UN-sponsored investigations as responsible for atrocities in Darfur is another in the series of actions that the international community can apply on Khartoum. Targeted sanctions, like targeted divestment is only aimed at those with the most control over stopping the repression of the people of Darfur. And as I noted in an earlier comment, they can be used effectively even if the leaders of the regime in Khartoum would be perfectly happy never leaving Sudan. For example, targeted sanctions can include not just the leaders of the regime but also their wives and children. It’s not uncommon to see the wives of authoritarian and military (and other) rulers traveling to London, Paris or New York to go shopping. It’s also not uncommon to see these guys’ children in expensive boarding schools in Switzerland, the US and elsewhere. Point being, targeted sanctions can hit hard and hit close to home.
Likewise, the threat of legal accountability including investigations and indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not only one mechanism for providing justice for the people of Darfur. It is also a credible means of acknowledging that specific individuals may very well not be fit to participate in democratic governance. Indictments by international tribunals of alleged war criminals who also happen to be senior political leaders have been useful in the past not only for bringing more than a modicum of justice for the victims but also for rebuilding a macro faith in the rule of law and for facilitating peace. The cases of Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic are the two most recent and relevant examples. Balancing peace and justice is not an easy task and I would be thrilled to discuss this further with folks in the comments section of this blog.
The main alternative to pressuring Khartoum to agree to a fair peace agreement that confers on Darfur equal representation is either continued oppression and violence in Darfur or a violent overthrow of the regime in Khartoum. Both of those options would be costly for the people of Darfur but also for the international community that would likely be pushed to intervene to stop what unfortunately could be a return to violence of genocidal proportions.
Regional players
Yet, oftentimes, activists and governments in the West/North act as if resolving conflicts such as the one in Darfur can be best done by them and them alone. That attitude is not only dangerous but counterproductive. One of the best preventive measures for such crises is empowering civil society so that states can actually be governed by the people and for the people. Having said that, I’m no isolationist. Number 10, L’E’lysée and the White House amongst others must indeed spare no effort in securing a just and lasting peace. (It’s not essential -- potentially problematic -- for all these actors to be physically at the table but they should be involved nonetheless.) But there is a great deal of leverage over the Bashir regime located physically much closer to Khartoum.
The African Union played a less than stellar role in pushing through the DPA. But, under the current joint mediation team structure the AU can play a constructive role in the upcoming peace talks in Tripoli. Constructive engagement by Nigeria, which hosted the DPA, Libya which is hosting this round of peace talks, Egypt and Eritrea, which has effectively been the capital of a Darfurian government in exile, is also necessary. A lasting peace will be more likely if neighboring states have ownership over the final peace agreement.
Yet regional leverage does not just come in the governmental variety. Civil society groups throughout the continent are playing a significant role in mobilizing governments throughout Africa to act and mobilizing their citizens to become more aware and more engaged. For example, check out some of the activities organized by the Darfur Consortium of NGO’s for this past Sunday’s Global Day for Darfur at: http://www.darfurconsortium.org/DfD4.eventsummary.htm. Plus they partnered with South African jazz legend and goodwill ambassador for Darfur, Hugh Masekela to host a concert coinciding with the 27th Summit of the Southern African Development Community in Lusaka, Zambia. I can’t think of many things that could be more fun than pairing activism with great music.
Getting our hands dirty: Diplomats on the ground
Overall, the effective functioning of the joint mediation team led by Jan Eliasson and Dr. Salim Ahmed Salim is absolutely critical to the success of the current peace talks. Similarly essential is sustained, full-time, high-level diplomatic pressure from the international community, regional actors and civil society especially women’s groups, IDPs and local leaders. This does not necessarily mean that all these groups get a seat at the peace table. That would be unwieldy. But they should work in concert with each other within the UN-AU framework and have ownership over the process and the final outcome document.
Tireless and sustained pressure by the United States and others brought Southern Sudan the CPA and an end to Africa’s longest-running civil war. That sustained level of commitment is again needed in Sudan. It’s clear that the regime in Khartoum does respond to appropriately targeted pressure and the right balance of carrots and sticks. We now face our best opportunity yet to help ensure that Khartoum never again has the power to commit genocide or to prevent its own people to choose their leaders in free and fair elections. Our efforts will ensure that this opportunity does not slip away.
I look forward to your comments, our discussion and to tomorrow’s posting; Darfur: a test case for Web 2.0 Activism.
Many thanks and best, BNR.
Thank-you Ben for making your position perfectly clear; it is now much easier to address. Your use of "genocidal" to describe Khartoum's control over Darfur says that you accept the genocide charge. This is not universally accepted and there is really no evidence for it. A very bloody civil war to be sure, but systematic genocide no. That is why the UN does not use this term.
Also you identify strongly with the grievances that the people of Darfur have against the central government and seem to agree that they have the right to continue their civil war for secession if their grievances are not properly addressed. You have, in fact, declared yourself a partisan in another peoples struggle for self determination. But why, of all the nationalist struggles for self determination in the world, are you asking us to support this one. Why not the Kurds in Eastern Turkey, the Tigres in Sri Lanka, the Tibetans in China, the Palestinians in the Israel, the Chechans in Russia, the Adzeris or Arab tribes in Iran or any number of other liberation movements. See just making the list sort of makes my point. There are too many justified struggles for self determination for us to intervene unless we want to be embroiled in endless war.
You admit that there are two side to the violence and that Khartoum is powerless to stop the war unless it gives into the Darfur insurrectionists demands. This also means that the insurrectionists are deliberately keeping the violence alive. Thanks for bringing this up. In the save Darfur propaganda bombarding the west the Darfurians are innocent victims of genocidal violence, not active participants in a civil war.
September 21, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that sanctions and threats of ICC prosecution are things I've heard about many times, for many places. Military threats also are popular, especially when there is no real plan or endgame. I suggest looking at the effect of sanctions on Saddam's behavior, as well as today's situation in Iraq, the latter resulting from a lack of planning.
Given how many such conflicts go unresolved, I look for original solutions.
I can think of quite a few things, such as a root canal. Without knowing you better, but having seen you introduced as an "activist", I get nervous when I hear about activism, when that seems to be a full-time occupation rather than being directed at solving a particular problem.
In developed countries, I find that mass demonstrations in major cities, rather than smaller simultaneous demonstrations (or other local activities) that legislators cannot rationalize as "well, that mob doesn't include my constituents", tend to be energizing for the true believers but not nearly as much for moving the center. It isn't meant to be an endorsement of al-Qaeda to note that one of their signatures is near-simultaneous attacks in multiple places. Sorry, the concert and activism combination sounds more like things I've been seeing since the sixties. They have changed some things but not others.
While they might appear to share some aspects of external sanctions, such close-to-home activities as the Montgomery bus boycott had real effect, partially because they were prolonged and continuous. Small demonstrations at Congressional district offices here could make much more difference than tens of thousands in Washington DC.
The situation in Sudan isn't a completely zero-sum game, but I see no way that the situation will change significantly without losses in the National Congress Party's (al-Bashir's) power. You suggest that he will not give them up.
Segue to the wonderful music from Cabaret, specifically "Money Makes the World Go Round". Divestment in Sudan hasn't had a great record, when, for example, Canadian Talisman Petroleum pulled out of GNPOC, Indian interests simply bought them out.
Why not wealth creation rather than sanctions? Don Bacon mentioned that the largest ice cream factory in Malawi is Chinese. China appears to consider investment one of its major tools, rather than self-righteous keeping of treats away from the kiddies of Khartoum. I again cite the possibility not of sanctions, but of selective investment in South Sudan. The North-South situation is different than before the Power-Sharing Agreement, given that the South has a right to a 2011 referendum to secede. Are you assuming now that the referendum will be as honored as was the 1956 never-held referendum to reunify Vietnam?
I keep hearing concerns that the North-South civil war will reignite, but whenever the South develops, the more autonomous it may be. It is the North that used conventional military force against the South, more conventional than in Darfur, and first-world militaries are fairly competent at quickly taking out third-world conventional forces. I'm not proposing this be done, but I still don't here any support for what I regard as something different: considered investment in a region, rather than sanctions and divestment against a country.
The GNPOC oil participants have no special love for either the NCP or the SPLM. If Port Sudan became unusable as an export terminal, but there was an alternate export route, perhaps through South Sudan and Kenya to the port of Mombasa, oil money might start shifting. Note that the French oil interests, not part of GNPOC, have been seeking a deal with the SPLM that French oil activity would be protected even if the South secedes.
This isn't at all clear to me. Oh, pressure affected them -- military pressure from the SPLM, the inability to cleanse the oil areas of Dinka and Nuer, and other back-pressures that, in particular, threatened their oil revenue. Remember that Bentiu, the heart of existing oil production, is in the South, not the North. It is the refinery and export facility that is in the North.
I'm afraid, Ben, that I hear more of the usual and no real answers for Darfur. Syvanen makes an excellent point: is the world doomed to constant warring because smaller and smaller groups seek self-determination? How well is that working between Israel and Palestine?
Tell me how an independent Darfur would function. Sierra Leone, with a pleasant climate, a strategically located seaport, mineral resources, and decent agriculture when things are allowed to grow, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. How, then, will a arid region, with potential but undeveloped oil and water, landlocked with no transportation routes for fuel, be remotely viable?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Must every language have its own country?"---is my favorite version of that question. (I don't know the answer.)
I do expect plenty more war, since population is likely to test Malthus, practical fresh water will be dear, oil of course, and climate change makes it all more interesting. We may get lucky and avoid wars by having a good plague, instead.
In principle Earth could sustain many more people. Resource control by the winners of wars will exclude many from the possible efficiencies.
September 21, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attributed to Clemenceau, along with the equally insightful "A language is a dialect with an army", and, after WWI, "God was satisfied with ten points. Wilson wants 14." There are some good lines from French diplomats, including Talleyrand's "Above all, gentlemen, no zeal."
Apropos plagues, some decisions seem to require the wisdom of Solomon. For example, the genetic variant that made the 1918-20 influenza pandemic so lethal has been sequenced. There was a major debate whether to publish it to let a wider range of infectious disease specialists think of a way to beat it, versus the potential of someone using it in biological warfare. Since there are well-known "forbidden experiments" that could take life back to the cockroaches, such as splicing the Type A botulinus toxin gene into normal enteric E. coli, I don't think publication increased risk.
Incidentally, what was called the "Spanish flu" now seems to have begun in crowded US Army camps with troops about to go to Europe. For some strange reason, the media have constantly associated the current "highly pathogenic" avian flu, which is of serotype H5N1, with the Spanish-American flu, a variant of H1N1. Whatever sells advertising, I guess.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your third and I hope not final post, you finally get to the meat of what we need to be debating. We all agree that the situation there is terrible. But we don't agree about what responsibilities the U.S. has and what the U.S. can or should do. I hope you'll hang around for a little discussion because I think that despite your thoughtfulness on the issue, you made a big mistake this week.
You wrote about Darfur as if it's in isolation. You provided no context at all. And in the U.S. right now, no foreign policy discussion, or even domestic political debate, does not exist within the contextual confines of our current occupation of Iraq.
So, I'll address some of your suggestions, within that context.
First, you want a hybrid peacekeeping force made up of UN and AU soldiers. The AU obviously can't hack it alone. But can the UN hack it, if they have no American troops? Because I don't support sending a single American soldier, or even pilot (remember, a stealth fighter got shot down in Bosnia) while we are occupying Iraq. At the very least, our troops need to be out of Iraq before a new deployment in a new place. The only exception I'd make to that would be in response to a direct attack on the U.S. And I don't think that will happen.
Second, you say we need to pressure our leaders to make sure that both the peacekeeping and diplomatic issues in Darfur are given full attention. I say that we in the U.S. need to stay focused. If you're going to pressure your representative on any foreign policy issue at this point, make it "Bring the troops home from Iraq."
Also, please realize that within our domestic debates about Iraq, liberals have been falsely accused of hypocrisy for wanting to "abandon the Iraqis" and yet to "send troops to Darfur." We can't afford this distraction right now.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 22, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Divestment: Not much the US can do. The only US listed compsny that your divestment group says has a foreign subsidiary working in Darfur is Weatherford International.
Every other company is foreign. Most of the big holders of those stocks (mutual funds, pension funds) own them as part of an index, I'll bet. Since they own the positions passively, they don't have much incentive to sell the (and, indeed, adding a social component to a passive strategy, or any component to a passive strategy, kind of ruins the passive strategy).
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 22, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink