Darfur: Genesis of the political crisis
By Kwathi Ajawin
Nov 21, 2006 — The fact that we can assemble here at George Mason University to talk about people in Darfur in Sudan demonstrates the peak of humanity and the universal brotherhood. This is a clear manifestation of loving ones neighbor as oneself. We are commanded to love our neighbors and in this era of advance technology and communications our neighborhood has expanded beyond imaginable limit. It is a human obligation to speak up against the malevolence in Darfur. I must caution though that we must be positive and part of the solution and not part of the problem.
For my conscience and my belief in teamwork, I have accepted the invitation to join this panel to help create awareness of Darfur and with hope of creating understanding as we endeavor to reconcile different knowledge and expertise.
Darfur has been a political stronghold for Umma Party with considerable Islamists. The current struggle in Darfur will change the political dynamics in Sudan as Darfurians may have a say over their own land for the first time since the independence of Sudan.
In 1990’s, the SPLA/M failed to win over Darfur and since then only handful Darfurians have joined the Movement, so you can see that Darfur is an important political constituency.
As the current leaders of Darfur are breakaway from Northern Parties, the northern Sudanese elites are terrified especially that Darfur have wave the African banner for the first time and most likely to form its own political parties. The so-called Arabic identity of Sudan is now sinking sand. We should have to wait to see whether Sudan is diverging or converging, but for sure a political tectonic in the political landscape is foreseeable.
After the Machakos Protocol leading to the CPA it becomes palpable to Darfrians that being Muslims does not protect them from Marginalization and some leaders felt left out in the cold because the CPA has concerted the power in the hands of National Congress Party (52%) and SPLM (28%), added to that is some elements of uncertainty as South Sudan might opt for secession in 2011. It is in this context plus local concerns that the Darfuris turned their guns against the friends of yesterday bring the war to Khartoum’s backyard. We should focus on the Political and Economical rights of Darfurians and time will tell whether the African vis-à-vis Arab Identity is to be taken seriously in this war.
* Security and Peace Making:
Pressure must be exerted on the GoNU and National Redemption Front (NRF) and urge them to immediately declare a cessation of hostilities and engage in a direct peace talks to enhance or renegotiate the DPA.
GoNU must immediately disarmament the Jaanjweed Militia in light of DPA.
US must adopt Andrew Natsios Doctrine:ANDREW NATSIOS: “Our real interest here is not what it is called or what it looks like in terms of its helmet, but how robust and how efficient it is. If it is in a United Nations helmet and it is not robust and efficient, then it is not particularly useful. If it does not have a United Nations helmet, but it is very competent and very aggressive, then we have fulfilled our intention, so I think that is what we should look at; what it is going to do as opposed to the number of the resolution.”
The implementation of UN Resolution 1706 need a lot of Diplomacy and direct negotiations between Washington and Khartoum, and anything less will cause unnecessary frictions. The government of Sudan has rejected the resolution and any attempt to implement it without Khartoum consent might Iraqnize the situation or might destabilize not only Darfur but also the whole region, as the war might expand into Chad. It might also lead to chaos if the central government collapses.
Our efforts should focus on the possible approach to bring peace and security to Darfur.
The state Department (Secretary Rice) policy of tough talk was a bad diplomacy that had prolongs the suffering of Darfurians. Rice approach of implement 1706 or confront America must be replace with Andrew Natsios approach of robust and efficient regardless of Blue or Green berets.
The White House have invited the First vice-president Mr. Salva Kiir and also invited the current Senior Advisor Mini Minawi. Why not invite President Al-Bashir to the White House for talks? This dividisive policy had unnecessarily prolonged the suffering of Darfuris.
Immediate cessation of Hostilities between Darfur factions:
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said, ” The fighting among rebel forces, for example, is ‘one snapshot’ but she said that was a ‘not uncommon effect of the end of a war’ as groups jockeyed for position in negotiations.” (Washington Post, November 4, 2005)
The same internal conflict was expressed by the former US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick “‘it’s a tribal war,’ Zoellick said. ‘And frankly I don’t think foreign forces want to get in the middle of a tribal war of Sudanese.'” (ABC News [on-line], November 9, 2005)
Part of the security deterioration and humanitarian crisis is a result of that Jockeying for positions according to Ms. Frazer, or what Mr. Robert refers to as tribal war. Therefore, pressure must be exerted on the Dafurians factions to stop the inter-factional fighting.
Activists should support the DPA: The Road to peace in Darfur is through promoting the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and not working against it. Any talk against DPA might fuel internal conflict that Robert Zoellick described as a tribal war or jockeying for position according to Ms. Frazer in the above quotations. We should isolate those who advocate against the DPA, because to reject peace mean to preach war and those who do so for sure do not have Darfurians interest in their hearts.
African Union Capabilities:
As Secretary Rice said ” US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the capabilities of the African Union (Senegal, July 20, 2005): “The African Union has the lead in [responding to the Darfur crisis]; we have tried to help and will continue to try to help, but I think Africans believe this is a conflict best resolved on the ground by Africans.” (Agence France Presse [dateline: Dakar, Senegal], July 20, 2005)
We should not dwell much on the color of the cat or the color of the helmets. It is time for the GONU to make a political compromise with Darfur. The international community must not forget that the CPA and DPA are two separate documents, therefore the UN mandate in the South is completely different from Darfur, which still part of the political north until further notice.
Universities and US firms must invest in Sudan:
The advocacy for Divestment needs to be revisited as at this particular phase; engagement is powerful and better than disengagement. Divestment is hurting US interest in Sudan’s Oil industry and deprive US from a potential leverage. It also emboldens Sudan as its oil friends do some services that are vital for the Sudan Major partner (NCP) in the Government of National Unity (GoNU).
We should help create a culture of Democracy, as the Sudanese will be heading for elections in two years. Democracy is more than just casting ballots. US have a role to play through its institutions. Divestment slogan must come down. We must learn from Hamas and Iraq and therefore must make sure that any party joining the Democracy club will abide by Democracy standard (Multi-party, freedom of speech, assembly, press, human rights and etc.) and help create an environment in which Democracy can fest and grow. You do not want to see that the first government action after winning the election is the detention of the opposition leaders and the journalists, Or the act of defying the International rules. Democracy can mean never again to Genocide and marginalization in Sudan.
We must be careful not to abuse the term “International Community” as the term is preserved by some intellectuals in different parts of the world to mean the US and Europeans interest.
The Islamic world has turned a blind eye and look to the other side regarding the suffering of the Muslims in Darfur. Blessed are those who have stood up for the people of Darfur.
To all the activists who lobby for Darfur let’s not forget that our air-conditioned houses are not the desert-heated camps of Darfur so let put the Darfur’s people interest above our theories and activism. The people in Darfur want peace and a fair share of Power and Wealth in Sudan, and not a regime change.
To the humanitarian agencies the work must be carried out with integrity and faithfulness, so no one will accuse the Humanitarian agencies of exaggerating the situation on the ground in order to get more funding. The history of the Humanitarian work in Sudan is full with organizations that either became part of the government or part of the rebels to the point that some NGO workers were nickname commanders.
As many elites in the north are stereotyped and are resisting the change, I see many good people in Darfur who want to do the right thing with courage and perseverance. I see courageous universities students like you who stand by the side of Darfurians and help them! Remember, it is not about regime change, but ending the marginalization, building peace and democracy. Let’s urge the US administration to stop its divisive approach and engage Khartoum in direct talks.
God bless Darfur!
* This paper was presented at George Mason University on November 15,2006. The author is a Sudanese activist and a church leader based in Washington. Hebe reached at [email protected]