Saving Darfur
Leader, The Guardian
April 1, 2005 — In the course of an interview last week, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice described the tragic events in Sudan’s Darfur region as “really just a horrible situation”. A few days ago, the House of Commons international development committee underlined just how horrible, with its estimate of 300,000 deaths since the conflict broke out and its description of the world’s response to Sudan’s humanitarian crisis as “a scandal”. That was business as usual for the international community in its approach to Darfur’s horrors: hand-wringing and outrage in various measures, and what seems like a combination of impotence and inquietude. Yet the greater surprise is that at the same time there have been signs of the international community moving to tackle Sudan’s nightmare, after many months of inaction.
First, the United Nations’ security council approved the deployment of 10,000 troops to the south of the country, to monitor the peace deal there that ended a 20-year civil war. That may not directly help the black farmers and families in Darfur, under attack from Janjaweed militia tacitly backed by the government. But by supplying more troops it provides ballast to stabilise the country, increases the UN’s involvement and gives help to the Africa Union’s small force trying to keep the peace in Darfur.
Second, the UN also voted for sanctions against the perpetrators of violence in Darfur, where brutal killing and a deadly brand of ethnic cleansing has been carried out since February 2003. Darfur has become the site of what many – including Colin Powell, when he was the US secretary of state – described as genocide. The security council resolutions allows travel bans and asset freezes to be levelled at those who commit atrocities or break ceasefire conditions. At the same time, the central government in Khartoum is barred from conducting military flights in the region, or from sending arms to the area without the UN’s permission.
Third, and most extraordinary of all, was the news yesterday evening that the US was to drop its objections to a resolution allowing the leaders of the violent counter-insurgency to be brought before the International Criminal Court. If true, that would represent a mile-wide change of heart by the Bush administration, which has previously resisted anything that it saw as lending legitimacy to the ICC. Although the court has received widespread international support, it has become a bete noire among US politicians on the right, afraid that its soldiers or civil servants overseas could be exposed to malicious lawsuits. Yet the ICC was created precisely to deal with events such as Darfur, and a US security council veto of referrals to the court would turn America’s attempts to halt the violence into hollow words.
The US’s action is a welcome surprise given its sponsorship of the two earlier resolutions, and shows a commitment to multilateralism in a week when the UN has been battered by attacks on its leadership. Meanwhile, it was China and Russia that shamefully abstained on the vote to impose sanctions on leaders of the killing gangs. China, an eager customer of Sudan’s oil output, appears to have blocked an oil embargo, which would have bought unequivocal economic pressure on Khartoum.
The destruction and killing visited on Darfur might best be understood as ethnic cleansing along the lines seen in Kosovo, rather than the spasm of violence that gripped Rwanda. That means stopping the killing and the flight of an estimated 2 million people from the region will be messy and time-consuming. The best solution remains an African one: more support for the African Union, and encouragement for it to send larger peacekeeping forces. The sooner that is done, the better for Darfur.