Here are Sarah Lasenby's
notes of a talk she attended on 25 May 2005 in Magdalen College, Oxford. The
speaker, Leslie Lefkow of Human Rights Watch, published his book 'Darfur in
Flames' in 2004.
Leslie Lefkow highlighted the difference between the international response to genocide in Rwanda and to the situation in Sudan, a land that was well known to the US Government and of course the UK. There is therefore less excuse for not getting involved to prevent this crisis becoming a catastrophe.
Sudan has 40 million people in a country 10 times the size of Britain.
Darfur is twice the size of Britain with 6 million people. There is an increasing ecological crisis especially in the north of Darfur.
There are problems about access to water. Because aid has enabled the farmers to have bore holes and grow some crops round the year this has impeded the pastoralists from traversing the area as they have for centuries in the dry season. This interrupts their migration patterns and the feeding of their animals.
The resolution of the Darfur crisis has been very much effected by post conflict issues in South Sudan where in Jan 2005 there was a peace accord with billions of dollars agreed for reconstruction. No one wants to upset this delicate situation. The war in South Sudan has been conducted as a war "to drain the sea from the fish". They have used aerial bombardment followed up by militias looting the livestock and burning the villages plus rape.
In general the Sudanese army is poorly trained and the situation is complicated bcause many of them come from Darfur. All the infrastructure is very poor both in S Sudan and in Darfur. This means that militia with camels and horses are used, backed by the Government. These men come mostly from smaller landless nomadic groups, some have migrated from Chad. They are rewarded by land and livestock taken from the displaced. (The larger groups have not become involved)
There are misconceptions that in Darfur it is African agriculturist against Arab pastoralists; it is not as simple as this - there is little to distinguish the Arabs from the Africans as the non-Arab groups are much less ‘African’ than in South Sudan. Some of the Arab tribals are pastoralists and farmers.
The conflict is largely a political and national problem although there are also resources at stake. There has been poor political management for decades with a decay of local governance since the present Shia government came to power 15 years ago. There is serious failure of the central government to resolve any of the problems in Darfur; instead they are exacerbating things.
The non-Arab people in the centre of Darfur complained about harassment - the state response was imprisonment of the Sudanese Liberation Army who had attacked military installations because of grievance against the government. The government decided to manipulate these local grievances and armed local Arab militia who were mainly drawn from the smaller tribal groups. The government has sent helicopters to shoot the people after the militia have burnt a village and this has increased the terror. The Jangaweed and the Government are one.
Human Rights Watch does not describe this as genocide as they cannot find evidence of ‘intent to wipe out’ a people. There is no Government policy though there are individuals who could be charged with crimes against humanity etc. The Sudanese Government call it tribal conflict.
In terms of international action it is rather serious that the US says they
do not feel they have a responsibility to act even though they have said they
think it is genocide. This has serious implications for the future if such killings
break out, as previously the international community thought it should always
act to prevent genocide.
Meanwhile the UN Security Council has taken some action and the African Union too. Because the area is so enormous it will take very large numbers of peacekeepers on the ground to enable people to return in safety to their villages. Both the Chinese, who are involved with Darfur oil, and the Russians who do not want the international community to raise the issue of Chechnya, have interests. France, Holland and UK have trade interests.
Meanwhile 2 million people are being kept in camps mainly in Sudan and also in Chad. There is great misery and in particular the use of rape both of women and children. This is by the militia initially but also by others in the camps. The health situation of these women is very serious. They desperately need more specific medical services for women and children who have been exposed to sexual infections including HIV.
Maybe NOW could consider a delegation to our MPs to get them to raise this
specific medical need as a matter of urgency.