THE CRISIS IN DARFUR

A CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION APPROACH IS REQUIRED

  
Sudan, one of Africa’s biggest countries is divided by religion “(70percent Muslim, 25percent animist and 5 percent Christian), ethnicity (between African and Arab origin Sudanese), tribe and economic activity (between nomadic and sedentary cultures)”. The conflict in Darfur has raised so much questions that it is not only important  to know about the nature and characteristics of the parties involved in the conflict, but also their prior relationships, the nature of the issues giving rise to the conflict, and the social environment within which the whole crisis is centered around.

     The country has been in near constant conflict since attaining independence in 1956. Most significant conflicts have been between the north and south, with first civil war lasting from 1956 -1972, and the second civil war from 1983 -2005. Darfur province became the latest chapter in Sudan’s civil wars when the Sudan Liberation Army, Justice and Equality Movement rebels took arms against the Sudanese government in February 2003. Rebels claimed years of political, economic and social marginalization of the region. The rebels made up of predominantly African sedentary tribes such as Fur, Zaghawa and Massaleit. After strings of Military victories in 2003, the Sudanese government responded to the rebellion by arming “Arab janjaweed” militia to clear civilian population bases of African tribes thought to be supporting the rebellion.

     Violence and broken cease fires continued between the year 2004 and 2005 despite intermittent peace talks and the presence of an African Union protection force from August 2004. “Divisions within the rebel groups not only exacerbated the conflict, but also hindered negotiations and therefore causing the displacement of over 2 million civilians and at least 180, 000 or more dead”. Humanitarian aid is also constantly disrupted due to the appalling security situation. Problems of enforcement coupled with the poor political will of some states to be bound by certain rules of law raises the questions: How does the International Community deal with such a complex crisis? What are some peacemaking and conflict resolution approaches that should be adopted in dealing with the Darfur crisis?     Paradoxically, the response to the above questions  remain a looming one, as the current international approach for dealing with the crisis through the African Union peace mission is at a dead end. On one hand its credibility is at an all time low, with a cease fire in tatters on the other hand, that it could not properly monitor. In the face of this, a constructive conflict resolution approach is needed by the international community to contain the situation in Darfur. While the UN and international non-governmental organizations are taking the lead in responding to growing humanitarian needs and authorizing accountability measures against those responsible for atrocities, the AU has a lead for reaching a political solution to the conflict. “The current AU mission must go beyond the strict terms of its mandate in protecting civilians and ensuring that humanitarian efforts are not affected”.   Under the numerous peace agreements, the assumption that the Sudanese government will fulfill its responsibilities and continued reliance on its cooperation as a pre-requisite for action against the “Janjaweed” militias which is allied are only “egregious self-deceptions”. Khartoum’s interest in seeking a lasting solution to the conflict is “disingenuous”, and it has “systematically flouted” numerous commitments to rein its proxy militias. It has consistently opted for “cosmetic efforts” aimed at appeasing international pressure, whilst minimizing the political dimension of the conflict and “inflaming ethnic divisions” to achieve her military objectives.

     Flawed also is the notion that the atrocities are African- only problems and therefore requires an African-only solution. The television images of women and children demand a broader and a robust international effort to enhance the ability of the African Union to lead. However, in view of the Sudanese government’s abdication of its sovereign duty, to the extend that the African Union cannot protect Sudanese citizens; the international community has the fundamental responsibility to do so. The following steps are therefore recommended for a lasting solution to the crisis in Darfur:

• A  STRONGER MANDATE FOR AU FORCES: The United Nations must strengthen the AU mandate to enable it to undertake all necessary measures, including offensive actions against any attacks to civilians and humanitarian operations, whether from militia operating with government or from rebels. This will lay the foundation for a robust intervention by an international force.
• A UN RESOLUTION FOR A 15,000 -20,000 PEACE KEEPING FORCE

This peacekeeping force will fall under the same mandate with the AU FORCE under one single command. The force will help in protecting civilians and stabilizing the situation by helping civilians return to their respective homes.

• The European Union, NATO and the United Nations should play an active role in preparing, deploying, sustaining and ensuring that this force is effective in the dispensation of its duty.
• The EU, AU and NATO should unanimously agree in enforcement measures, if Khartoum violates the UN Security Council ban on offensive military flights.
• CEASE FIRE: A quick negotiation of a single enhanced ceasefire document to remove ambiguities of existing overlapping agreements.
• IDENTIFYING AND DISARMING MILITIA

Begin identifying, defining and disarming both government militia and rebels.

To build even a greater leverage for a lasting solution to the crisis in Darfur, the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France and the African Union should collectively work together and share what it knows about Darfur. Collectively these aforementioned nations should further press much harder for a tougher sanction including prosecution against Sudanese government and rebel officials responsible of committing crimes against humanity. 

 NBThis article is strongly supported by facts from the following NGOs:a-      The International Crisis Group
b-      Transparency International.c-      Human Rights Watch.