Darfur – Stop the killing, or pay the price

By Jack Straw*, The International Herald Tribune

Feb 16, 2006 — ABUJA, Nigeria The three-year crisis in Darfur has already claimed between 70,000 and 400,000 lives. It will only be solved through a political settlement which tackles the underlying causes of the conflict. That is what the parties at the current peace talks in Abuja, whom I addressed on Tuesday, are supposed to be trying to achieve. We in the United Kingdom support that peace process, and I announced last week that we will provide it with a further £1 million in funding.

Progress in the talks has been far too slow. Although the original cease-fire was signed in April 2004, the parties failed to meet the Dec. 31, 2005 deadline set by the Security Council for an agreement. This is now the seventh round of talks.

And the parties have not honored their commitments. They signed a cease-fire; but there is no cease-fire in Darfur. The government of Sudan and the rebel movements break it every day. Attacks continue, including on humanitarian convoys and on the African Union mission – the very people who are there to help the civilians affected directly by the war.

Meanwhile the people of Darfur continue to suffer. Around two million are now in camps. Many more are homeless or displaced. Innocent people are still being killed. Women and girls are being raped. Children are dying.

The only people who have the power to stop this are those who gathered around the table in Abuja. They must end the haggling and posturing and start taking real action to put Darfur back together again.

A good start would be taking the following five specific actions:

First, declare their positions and deployments as they are committed to doing.

Second, respect and observe the ceasefire in Darfur. The Sudanese government bears primary responsibility for the events in Darfur and for the failure to ensure the security of its citizens. It needs to cease its own offensive operations and rein in the janjaweed militias. But of late it is the rebel movements who have been most guilty in launching new attacks: they have got to stop their fighters.

Third, stop attacks on the African Union force and humanitarian convoys.

Fourth, facilitate the work of the humanitarian agencies, not undermine it.

And fifth, bring to justice the perpetrators of atrocities.

At the same time the parties must reach an agreement that stops the conflict for good. There is well-founded cynicism in the international community that they are serious about this. For example, the Sudanese ministers are at the talks but the leaders of the rebel movements are not.

The parties in Abuja now have to make a clear choice. They can choose to reach an agreement. That means concluding one in Abuja and implementing it on the ground. If that is done, the international community will help with humanitarian and developmental assistance, with practical support and political encouragement.

Or they can choose not to reach an agreement. The result will be more death and misery and a lost opportunity to build a better future for the people they claim to represent.

There will be direct consequences for them, too. The international community is not going to allow individuals responsible for gross human rights violations or blocking the peace process to escape the consequences. We know who these people are.

There is already provision for sanctions against such individuals under UN Security Council Resolution 1591. The Security Council’s sanctions committee is already considering several members of the Sudanese government and the rebel movements. Other names can, and will, be put forward. The United Kingdom will not hesitate to do so. Nor do we rule out additional UN sanctions if the parties fail to make progress.

And the International Criminal Court, with the full support of the Security Council, is pursuing allegations of war crimes and grave human rights abuses. They too will be watching closely who does and who doesn’t do what in Darfur over the coming months.

The international community’s patience is limited. If the parties do not reach an agreement soon we will need to start looking at the alternatives. Those alternatives will leave some of the parties in Abuja, and the absent leaders, with a smaller role to play than they would have achieved had they taken part and reached an agreement.

We are not there yet. The international community is serious about wanting these talks to succeed. The people of Darfur need them to succeed. The parties gathered in Abuja have a duty to deliver.

* (Jack Straw is Britain’s foreign secretary.)