Time to rethink Darfur

By Musa A Murawih

November 19, 2008 — The International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir last July on genocide in Darfur brought a new twist to the horrifying conflict in western Sudan. After a five-year debate that largely ignored the complexity of the conflict, the indictment raised an uncomfortable question: Would bringing al-Bashir to justice be incompatible with bringing peace to Darfur? The African Union and Arab states, which objected to the indictment, think it would. But most Western governments and Darfur advocacy groups wanted al-Bashir punished first. While it is absolutely necessary to bring justice to Darfur, focusing on al-Bashir now would be like insisting on capturing the predator first, before rushing the bleeding victim to hospital.

Focusing on al-Bashir ignores the root causes of Sudan problems, which can be summed up in two words: bad governance. The outrage over Sudan government’s crimes in Darfur, while absolutely justified, should not be allowed to define the search for lasting solutions. Darfur root causes are the same that ignited the 1983 war in South Sudan, in which far more people were displaced or slaughtered, their villages burnt and livelihood destroyed. Any approach that takes Darfur out of its Sudan context can only migrate violence from one part of the country to the other. Let’s remember the Darfur violence broke out at a time when the war in South Sudan was about to end. Similarly, a keyhole solution for Darfur could migrate the conflict to the country’s East, where an uneasy peace in currently holding. The Sudanese Nubians in the far North might also ponder opening yet a new war front.

The two most urgent tasks for Darfur should be focusing all energies on negotiating a peace agreement between the government and the dozens rebel groups, and preparing the country for the key 2009 elections. While achieving these two goals would not be easy, the odds of a negotiated solution look far more promising than those of the present UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Whether it is the Sudanese government’s obstructionism, or the international community’s failure to support, the mission could not deliver.

What makes a negotiated peace approach more viable is that both the government and the rebels principally agree to it. It is also good for the rest of the country. It would deprive the Sudanese government from portraying the conflict as the US-led West, targeting yet another Muslim country. Additionally, the financial cost of reaching an agreement would be much less than the cost of standing and operationalizing the current mission. On the other hand, any UN-authorized military action in Darfur could alienate many Sudanese, unite the country behind al-Bashir, push the government to nullify the 2005 peace agreement with the South, and trigger greater violence in Darfur, possibly resulting in even more atrocities.

A peaceful solution for Darfur crisis goes hand in hand with preparing the country for next year’s elections. Last July, the major political powers in the country reached an agreement with the government on the all important, new electoral law. This is a key achievement that needs to be built on to level the field for 2009. If the international community’s efforts were re-channeled to make the elections a success, we could see al-Bashir’s National Congress Party forced to share power, or even in the opposition. Current indications suggest the South’s Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) enjoys significant following in the North. Northern key parties, including the Umma and the Democratic Unionists, could form an alliance with the SPLM and other smaller parties to effectively sideline the National Congress.

Some might say al-Bashir indictment is now making Sudan more responsive to pressure. But history tells us Khartoum is just bending with the wind. Others might argue the government would continue its brutal campaign while peace talks drag on. In fact, naming and shaming the government for failure to work for peace would likely be more effective. It would deprive it from its African and Arab/Muslim allies and weaken its domestic support. If the government failed to carry out its agreed-on peace responsibilities, it can only undermine itself. It would show the world, including Africans, Arabs and Muslims, that it is not the West that is hindering peace in Darfur, but the Sudanese government. At that point, the world would know it has exhausted the search for peace, and even a military intervention would find greater support and be clearly justified.

The writer is a Sudanese-American researcher and a Washington, DC-based senior global media strategist