Sudan's Strife

Human rights groups and the U.S. government estimate that 750,000 people have been internally displaced, 110,000 have fled to neighboring Chad, and up to 10,000 have been killed. The ethnic cleansing has been a response to a year long uprising by two black rebel groups: the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). They accuse the government of neglecting the region in favor of Arab-dominated ones. Last week, a 45-day cease-fire was reached, providing for prison exchange and unfettered access to the region by humanitarian workers, who have been continually obstructed by the government.

An April report by Human Rights Watch paints an appalling picture: entire communities slaughtered; bodies dumped in wells to contaminate water supplies; women and girls raped; mass looting. Human Rights Watch has pinned the blame on the government, saying it has trained, armed, and financed nomadic Arab militias known as the “janjaweed.” The raids by the janjaweed are often preceded by aerial bombings, presumably by government forces.

The Human Rights Watch report came out on April 2, just days before the 10-year anniversary commemorations of the Rwandan Genocide. The U.N. and Western powers -- no doubt concerned that Sudan could become another Rwanda if the international community again does nothing to exert pressure on the perpetrators -- sharply criticized the Sudanese government. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan drew the parallel between Rwanda and Sudan, saying that reports out of Sudan "leave me with a deep sense of foreboding," and that "the international community must be prepared to take swift and appropriate action" if the Sudanese government continues to obstruct aid efforts in Darfur. Annan clarified that the U.N. may go as far as military intervention in Sudan if diplomatic efforts fail.

The E.U.’s top military official Gustav Hägglund, in an interview with the Financial Times (subscription), said that:

"Sudan is on the list of the U.N. [for some form of peacekeeping mission]…There is no reason why the E.U. could not go to, for instance, Sudan. I see it to be very possible…"

Last year, the E.U. deployed a military mission to Congo; it was the organization’s first mission outside of Europe. In the future, rapid deployment of 1,500 person “battle groups" may become more widespread in E.U. peacekeeping operations -- the scope of which is a matter of debate within the E.U. The U.S. State Department has so far only offered "logistical support" to the African Union. President Bush, in a statement, said:

"I condemn these atrocities, which are displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and I have expressed my views directly to President [Omar al] Bashir of Sudan…"

U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland has called the events in Darfur "ethnic cleansing" (as did Annan) and will head a U.N. mission to Darfur on April 18-21. The UN says it needs $115 million in humanitarian aid for Darfur and $30 million to aid the refugees stranded in Chad.

Human rights groups have cautiously welcomed the 45-day ceasefire but are skeptical of the government's commitment to its terms. Roger Winter of the U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that 100,000 people will die in the coming months because of malnutrition and disease, even if all fighting ceases. The ethnic groups driven out -- the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa -- had their lands destroyed and their water supplies contaminated. Even those who fled to Chad are not safe from attacks by the janjaweed, who have raided the refugee camps. The attacks threaten the "spillover" of the ethnic violence into Chad, which is home to populations from all the ethnic groups to which the Sudanese refugees and their attackers belong. Human rights groups also note that the international community must not allow the government to make permanent the displacement of the refugees. As Human Rights Watch said in a statement:

"Human Rights Watch is concerned that the Sudanese government has entered into the ceasefire only because it has largely completed the forced displacement of the targeted ethnic groups from rural areas. It is feared that the government will manipulate humanitarian aid so that displaced people are forced to stay in the government-sponsored camps and be prevented from returning home to farm their lands. Some reports indicate that rival ethnic groups of Arab extraction are settling the villages and lands from which African residents were violently evicted.

Human Rights Watch confirmed that government janjaweed militias continue to control much of the rural area, imposing checkpoints and demands for payment on civilians or refusing them passage to their villages. They also block the paths of civilians trying to flee to Chad as refugees for safety."

The U.S. has leverage over the Sudanese government. Under the Sudan Peace Act, which Bush signed in October 2002, the president has the authority to impose sanctions against Khartoum and boost U.S. aid to the rebels should the government be found not negotiating in good faith.The "southern deal" is expected to be reached before April 21st, by which date the U.S. will decide whether or not the parties have been negotiating in good faith and if sanctions on Sudan are warranted. The rebels have dropped their demand that Sharia law not be applied to non-Muslims in the capital, Khartoum. There will be a six-year period of autonomy before a referendum on independence.

The U.S. should use its leverage as a broker in the southern talks, to force the Sudanese government to account for its abuses in Darfur. Unlike Rwanda, Sudan and Chad have oil, surely another reason -- besides shame over the inaction in Rwanda -- for the West's alarm over the atrocities in Darfur. Whatever the reason, the international community's concern must now be backed up with continued pressure on Sudan and the delivery of humanitarian aid. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof puts it:

"I'm not suggesting an invasion of Sudan. But it's a fallacy to think that just because we can't do everything to stop genocide, we shouldn't do anything. One of the lessons of the last week is how little it took -- from Washington, the U.N. and the African Union -- to nudge Sudan into accepting a cease-fire and pledging access for humanitarian workers."

If the West has truly learned the lessons of Rwanda and is sincere in its pledges of "never again," it will act to prevent further atrocities in Sudan. If it does not, Sudan will become another shameful monument to Western inaction.