news analysis advocacy
AfricaFocus Bookshop
New Gift CDs
China & Africa
tips on searching

Search AfricaFocus and 8 Partner Sites

 

 

Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!         More on politics & human rights | economy & development | peace & security | health

Print this page


Visit AfricaFocus Bookshop US | UK

Sudan: More Resolutions - Actions Delayed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Mar 27, 2006 (060327)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

"The international strategy for dealing with the Darfur crisis primarily through the small (7,000 troops) African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is at a dead end. ... the international community is backing away from meaningful action. ... If the tragedy of the past three years is not to be compounded, the AU and its partners must address the growing regional crisis by getting more troops with greater mobility and firepower on the ground at once and rapidly transforming AMIS into a larger, stronger UN peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate focused on civilian protection." - International Crisis Group, March 16, 2005

On March 24 the UN Security Council voted unanimously to ask the Secretary-General to plan ways to reinforce the African Union mission in Darfur, and to present a report by April 24. But without substantially increased pressure from the international community, including the United States and African countries, the Sudanese government is likely to continue to gain delays in any action to curb the violence against civilians in Darfur and neighboring Chad.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains a March 17 opinion piece from allafrica.com by John Prendergast and Colin Thomas-Jensen on "Matching Rhetoric with Action in Darfur," and the executive summary and recommendations from the latest report from the International Crisis Group (http://www.crisisgroup.org), which contains specific proposals on an interim international stabilization force.

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on Sudan, visit http://www.africafocus.org/country/sudan.php

For current news and opinion on Sudan, see
http://www.sudantribune.com and http://allafrica.com/sudan

Notable recent statements on Sudan include the statement issued by the World Bank, United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund after a donor's consortium meeting in Paris on March 9-10 http://allafrica.com/stories/200603160661.html
and a speech by U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi after a visit to the area
http://allafrica.com/stories/200603170788.html

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

Matching Rhetoric with Action in Darfur

March 17, 2006

By John Prendergast and Colin Thomas-Jensen

Mr. Prendergast is Senior Advisor to the International Crisis Group, the global conflict prevention organization. Mr. Thomas-Jensen is Crisis Group's Research and Advocacy Officer for Africa

http://allafrica.com/stories/200603170100.html

Last month, in the town of Mershing, South Darfur, there was chaos and carnage. On a scorching day in February, four hundred Janjaweed militiamen attacked, firing indiscriminately on civilians, destroying homes, and looting livestock. Eight hours after the initial onslaught, the Janjaweed returned for a second round of mayhem, assaulting women and children and looting the town's main market.

Following a terror-filled night, the 55,000 residents of Mershing fled for their lives. Thirteen infants were trampled to death and 220 children separated from their families in the exodus. The day after, here in Washington, a senior State Department official told journalists that "there isn't large-scale organized violence taking place" in Darfur.

President Bush has called for a doubling of the number of peacekeeping troops in Darfur and said that the transition from the current African-led force to a larger, more robust UN peacekeeping mission will require significant NATO involvement. This pronouncement is laudable, but likely to be viewed as yet another example of schizophrenic U.S. policy on Darfur.

The administration's rhetoric has been consistently inconsistent with its actions and with the reality on the ground. Despite the government of Sudan and their proxy Janjaweed militias' sadistic campaign to murder and displace Darfur's non-Arab civilians, some U.S. officials continue to heap disproportionate public blame on Darfur's rebel groups for the lack of security. Although the rebels frequently commit atrocities against civilians and should be censured, Khartoum's counterinsurgency strategy has caused the deaths of more than 200,000 people and displaced two million more.

While U.S. diplomats have credited Sudanese officials with "acknowledging what's taking place in Darfur," Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir recently said that "the so-called Darfur conflict is an invention by foreign interests." Indeed, the Sudanese government has made numerous commitments to disarm its militias and prosecute war criminals, only to flaunt its disregard for these obligations by denying responsibility and continuing to support the Janjaweed. Government helicopters that provided air support for recent Janjaweed attacks on civilians in eastern Chad confirm that this patron-killer relationship remains intact.

Some U.S. officials blame this growing insecurity on "tribal" violence, the same code language that previous U.S. administrations used in Rwanda and Bosnia as they twiddled their thumbs in inaction. Further, "tribal war" denotes anarchy, removing clear culpability for atrocities.

Sudan's ruling party has traditionally employed a divide-and-destroy strategy to eliminate enemies, and claims of anarchy in Darfur are self-fulfilling. Sudanese military intelligence agents manipulate local ethnic divisions and exacerbate tensions, and then the government blames the bloodshed on lawlessness and tribalism. The U.S. government must recognize that ethnic violence is not the root cause of the conflict but a deliberate tactic of the barbaric braintrust in Khartoum.

What is behind all this rhetorical contortionism? The answer is simple: the Bush administration wants to look tough on Darfur without jeopardising Khartoum's cooperation on counterterrorism. Many of the Sudanese military intelligence officials who offer information to the CIA are the principal perpetrators of atrocity crimes in Darfur, responsible for arming, training, and unleashing the Janjaweed on innocent civilians. But the administration cannot justify this moral sacrifice on national security grounds: it is in U.S. interests to oppose a regime it accuses of genocide.

It is not too late for this administration to act. The U.S. and European Union are leading the international effort to deploy a robust UN force. The African Union's recent communiqu? has paved the way for UN deployment. While the UN prepares its mission, the U.S. must do three things urgently:

  • First, the administration must work with congress and with other donor nations to ensure that the AU mission in Sudan (AMIS) is fully funded until the UN deploys. The U.S. should also provide logistical support and assist the AU with intelligence gathering to enhance the mission's ability to protect civilians and monitor an enhanced ceasefire agreement.
  • Second, President Bush should appoint a special envoy to increase the level of pressure on the warring parties to negotiate an enhanced ceasefire agreement, reach a comprehensive political settlement through the AU-facilitated Abuja negotiations, and persuade Sudan to accept and the AU to confirm transition of AMIS into a strong UN peacekeeping mission. Without U.S. leadership and pressure, the peace process and the transition to a robust UN force have little chance to succeed.
  • Third, the U.S., in consultation with the AU, should work with its allies to identify a nation or nations to lead an advance UN-Mandated stabilization force of some 5,000 troops to buttress the AU and focus on the Chad-Sudan border enhancing civilian protection efforts. President Bush needs to secure greater U.S. support for this intervention.

Some of the residents of Mershing have returned to their homes, but many have chosen not to go back for fear of further Janjaweed attacks. Speaking about Darfur, President Bush said recently that, "There has to be a consequence for people abusing their fellow citizens." One could hardly blame Mershing's displaced and vulnerable civilians for thinking that the President's comments are more hollow rhetoric that leave them with no homes, no future, and no hope.


To Save Darfur

Africa Report N 105

International Crisis Group
http://www.crisisgroup.org

Nairobi/Brussels, 17 March 2006

Executive Summary and Recommendations

The international strategy for dealing with the Darfur crisis primarily through the small (7,000 troops) African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is at a dead end. AMIS credibility is at an all-time low, with the ceasefire it could never monitor properly in tatters. In the face of this, the international community is backing away from meaningful action. The African Union (AU) yielded to Khartoum's pressure on 10 March 2006 and did not ask the UN to put into Darfur the stronger international force that is needed. If the tragedy of the past three years is not to be compounded, the AU and its partners must address the growing regional crisis by getting more troops with greater mobility and firepower on the ground at once and rapidly transforming AMIS into a larger, stronger UN peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate focused on civilian protection.

The battlefield now extends into eastern Chad, and the escalating proxy war between Sudan and Chad threatens to produce a new humanitarian catastrophe on both sides of the border. Inside Darfur humanitarian access is at its lowest in two years, civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence, and political talks are stalled. Fighting is most intense and civilians are at greatest risk in West Darfur along the Chad-Sudan border, where a major invasion by Chadian rebels appears imminent, and in southern Darfur in the Tawila-Graida corridor.

The Sudanese government bears primary responsibility for the deteriorating situation. It is still making little effort to stabilise matters, rein in militias or secure roads from bandits and rogue elements. In violation of numerous commitments, it still uses offensive air power, supports militias and stokes inter-communal violence as part of its counter-insurgency campaign.

Security elements from Khartoum are supporting the well-armed Chadian rebels in Western Darfur, while President Deby in N'djamena scrambles to bolster his position by reaching out in turn to the Darfur rebels. A failed coup attempt against Deby on 15 March further underscored the fragility of the Chadian regime. Clashes in eastern Chad between Sudan-backed insurgents and Deby loyalists would not only have drastic consequences for civilians of both countries but could also lead to the complete breakdown of peace talks in Abuja and reignite all-out war in Darfur. But the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), the principal rebel group, has increased its ceasefire violations over the past six months, and some elements are more committed to the battlefield than to the Abuja talks. Insurgent dissension plays into Khartoum's hands and contributes to growing lawlessness.

The AU failed earlier this month to take the timely and decisive action required to reverse these trends. Instead it extended the AMIS mandate to 30 September 2006, neglected to amend it for better protection of civilians and made no provision for either more African or UN troops to come into Darfur to stabilise the situation over the next half-year. While it repeated its previous acceptance in principle that AMIS would eventually have to be replaced by blue helmets, if only because donors' willingness to subsidise it is running out, it appeared impressed by Khartoum's complaint that anything other than an African mission would amount to colonialism and its threat that Darfur would become a "graveyard" for any multinational force sent without its agreement.

The AU did usefully commit to making a stronger diplomatic push to deliver an enhanced ceasefire and a peace agreement at the Abuja talks in the next six weeks. It will be important for the U.S., the European Union (EU) and the UN to follow up consultations held in Brussels in advance of that decision and lend their full weight to the effort. But it would be a mistake to delay strengthening international forces on the ground in the belief that such agreements as desirable as they would be would remove the need for them. Any agreements would be fragile, requiring proof of goodwill by the parties, vulnerable to multiple spoilers and unlikely to forestall the looming border conflict, which has its own dynamics.

The U.S., the EU and others need, therefore, to act without delay on three fronts to:

  • provide the necessary financial and technical assistance to the AU through at least September 2006, and to help AMIS implement the key recommendations for internal improvements outlined in the December 2005 Joint Assessment Mission report and affirmed by the AU on 10 March;
  • do the heavy diplomatic lifting to persuade the AU and the UN Security Council to authorise the immediate deployment of a stabilisation force, ideally some 5,000-strong, as part of a phased transition to a UN mission to be completed in October 2006, to focus on monitoring the Chad-Sudan border and deterring major cross-border attacks, and on bolstering AMIS's ability to protect civilians in the Tawila-Graida corridor; and
  • persuade the Security Council to authorise immediate planning for a UN peacekeeping force of at least double the present size of AMIS, equipped to fulfil a more serious military mission, provided with an appropriately stronger mandate, and ready to take over full responsibility on 1 October 2006.

This is not ideal. Crisis Group has long contended that because AMIS has reached the outer limits of its competence, and a UN mission authorised today would not be fully ready to take over from it for some six months, a distinct and separate multinational force should be sent to Darfur to bridge that gap and help stabilise the immediate situation. We have argued, and continue to believe, that NATO would be best from a practical military point of view. Unfortunately, political opposition to this in Khartoum, within the AU and even perhaps within the Atlantic Alliance itself, means it is not achievable at this time.

What we now propose, therefore, is a compromise driven by the urgent need for a more robust force in Darfur. A militarily capable UN member state - France seems most promising since it already has troops and aircraft in the area - should offer to the Security Council to go now to Darfur, wearing blue helmets, as the lead nation in the first phase of the incoming UN mission. It could be joined from the outset by forces from one or two other militarily capable UN members (and would probably need to be if the desirable target of around 5,000 personnel for this force is to be achieved). This stabilisation force would be a self-contained, separately commanded UN mission with identified functional or geographic divisions of responsibility that would work beside AMIS and through a liaison unit at its headquarters until arrangements were in place for a 1 October transition to the full UN mission. That full mission would need to be recruited from the best AMIS elements as well as a wider circle of Asian and other member states - no easy task at a time when several large UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and elsewhere have exhausted the capabilities of many contribution candidates.

The U.S. and other NATO states should respond generously and quickly to requests from it or AMIS to provide logistical help as well as regular access to satellite imagery, air mobility and close air support, especially to deter or react to egregious movements of men or heavy weapons in the border area.

The accord signed on 10 February 2006 in Tripoli by the presidents of Chad and Sudan accepted the need for a border monitoring force. The AU and the Security Council should build on this by passing the necessary resolutions. Simultaneously, planning should begin for the handover from AMIS to a Chapter VII UN peace-support operation and money be identified to guarantee that AMIS can remain in place until this happens. At the same time, the AU should continue to play a lead role at Abuja, while the wider international community pursues accountability by enforcing the UN sanctions regime and facilitating the work of human rights monitoring mechanisms and the International Criminal Court (ICC). A lasting solution to the Darfur conflict can only come with a three-part strategy to produce physical security, an inclusive political agreement and an end to impunity.

The consequences if these steps are not taken are all too easy to foresee: tens of thousands more lives lost, spill-over of the conflict into Chad and proxy wars that destabilise a wide swathe of Africa.

Recommendations

To the African Union:

1. Request the immediate deployment of a UN-mandated stabilisation force to help bolster the AMIS troops and focus on the Chad-Sudan border and the Tawila-Graida corridor.

2. Seek quick negotiation of a single, enhanced ceasefire document to remove the ambiguities of the existing overlapping agreements.

3. Begin immediately to map the location of forces in Darfur so as to manage and enforce the ceasefire better.

4. Begin immediately identifying, defining and profiling the government-allied militias.

5. Improve the reporting mechanisms and procedures for monitoring ceasefire violations and urgently revive and upgrade the compliance and sanctions mechanisms of the ceasefire.

6. Negotiate a series of humanitarian ground rules, in collaboration with the UN, to help hold the parties accountable for the protection of humanitarian operations in their respective areas.

To the United Nations Security Council:

7. Authorise a two-phase intervention in Darfur under Chapter Seven of the Charter, with the following elements:

(a) for the first phase, to be accomplished within a month, a lead nation would serve as the advance element of the full UN mission by sending the bulk of an initial 5,000 troops to Darfur, with three main stabilisation tasks:

i. interdiction of military activities across the Chad-Darfur border;

ii. protection of civilians in Darfur, primarily in the Tawilla-Graida corridor; and

iii. rapid-reaction support of AMIS forces until the transition to a full-fledged UN peace support operation in October 2006.

(b) for the second phase, immediate planning for a peace support operation of some 15,000 troops none of whom should be diverted from the mission of the existing UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) with a mandate emphasising civilian protection, ceasefire enforcement and monitoring of the Chad-Sudan border, to take over from AMIS as of 1 October 2006.

8. Strengthen the existing sanctions regime by implementing the recommendations in the 30 January 2006 report of the Panel of Experts.

9. Authorise the Secretariat's peacekeeping department (DPKO) to begin planning on an urgent basis and together with the AU both phases of this operation, with priority tasks to include:

(a) identifying areas for early cooperation in Darfur, such as immediate deployment of UN experts to help support the establishment of a functioning ceasefire commission secretariat and the deployment of human rights monitors and translators, including women, to help improve the reporting capacity of AMIS; and

(b) identifying the lead nation to deploy in the initial phase to support AMIS by performing the tasks set out in recommendation 7(a) above and serve as the advance element of the full UN mission.

To Donor Governments:

10. Convene an early pledging conference to ensure that AMIS is fully funded until the UN mission can take over in October 2006.

To the U.S., the EU and its member states and others with a strong interest in regional peace and stability:

11. Undertake major diplomatic efforts to:

(a) persuade Sudan to accept and the AU to confirm transition of AMIS into a strong UN peacekeeping mission as of 1 October 2006 and request in the interim dispatch of an advance force of some 5,000 blue-helmets to assist AMIS by performing essential stabilisation tasks;

(b) persuade the Security Council to authorise a mission of some 15,000, including the strongest AMIS elements and with a strong Chapter VII mandate focused on civilian protection; and

(c) identify the lead nation to contribute the bulk of the advance element to assist AMIS and perform essential stabilisation tasks immediately upon Security Council authorisation, and be prepared to help with all necessary material and logistical support.

12. Concurrently with efforts to strengthen international forces on the ground, pursue the other elements of a coordinated three-part strategy to resolve the Darfur conflict by:

(a) reinforcing AU efforts to negotiate an enhanced ceasefire and a political settlement at Abuja, including by naming special envoys; and

(b) seeking accountability and an end to impunity by enforcing the Security Council's sanction regime and supporting human rights monitoring mechanisms and the work of the ICC.


AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin, or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about reposted material, please contact directly the original source mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see http://www.africafocus.org


Read more on |Sudan||Africa Peace & Security|

URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs06/sud0603.php