Darfur Crisis (Arab News Editorial)

[gottaB]

THE seriousness of the Darfur crisis in Sudan is deepening and the diplomatic pressure on Khartoum of the last few months is now changing to open talk of UN-sanctioned military intervention. The Sudanese government is still arguing that it is caught in a long-running civil war and no outside powers should seek to meddle in its internal affairs. Unfortunately its unhelpful responses to successive diplomatic interventions have strengthened the hand of countries that wish to intervene. It will not be long before no one is interested in hearing Khartoum’s side of events and the focus will be entirely on alleviating the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding for over a million black Sudanese citizens. This is likely also to involve action against the Janjawid militias that have driven this tide of humanity, their fellow Muslims, from its homes and villages in Darfur.

Darfur Crisis....

[gottaB]

1. Other regional views

Arab League repeats its mistakes in Darfur: Says newsletter (http://www.dubaiinteract.com/Media_SectionDisplay.aspx?DisplayObjectMode=Article&DisplayMode=Detail&ObjectId=aa52189f-d2af-4b91-8740-50893ac6609e&SectionId=88DC0EFB-ACD2-48CD-86D3-4B1D2CC0F9B3 ), just a little blurb.

Arab League repeats its mistakes in Darfur: Says newsletter Abu Dhabi, July 26, 2004 (WAM)-- A UAE think tank has criticized the Arab League for its tardy reaction to the Darfur crisis in western Sudan. "The Arab League is repeating in Darfur region the previous diplomatic mistakes it committed during the Iraq and other crises such as tardy reaction, miscalculation and lack of initiative," remarked Emirates Centre Strategic Studies and Research's "Akhbar Al Sa'a" newsletter in its editorial today. The newsletter said the fact that the crisis has gone beyond the Arab and local framework would minimize the margin for any Arab move, adding that that any international intervention in Darfur crisis would be a direct and inevitable result of absence of regional and Arab role. The events in Darfur sends a significant warning signal that the Arab region is experiencing a major strategic vacuum and unless Arabs rush to fill it, things will not be confined to Darfur, according to Akhbar Al Sa'a.

Why is Darfur issue defying solution?, by Mohammed Galadari for Khaleej Times. Galadari points the finger of blame at the rebels. I partially agree with him that the rebel groups risk being a part of the problem instead of the solution. And yet, attacks against darfuris by Janjaweed and Sudanese government forces continue, hunger and disease continue to kill, and Darfuris continue to flee into Chad at an alarming rate.

Foreign Meddling in Darfur Crisis, by Hassan Hanizadeh for Tehran Times. Hanizadebeh is off his rocker.

The Annoying Sudanese position, by Kwendo Opanga for the Sunday Standard. I had surveyed African editorial opinion in the wake of the AU conference, and Soyinka's condemnation of the silence on the issue of Darfur. In general, African opinion leaders harmonize with their counterparts in North America, Europe and down under, showing no reluctance to condemn the atrocities in Sudan. Opanga, providing no exception, cuts through the bs.

It is interesting that Khartoum would regard the UN's intervention as jumping the gun of the arrangement between the antagonists in Darfur. Progress at the UN is often glacier-like. Now, if Khartoum is slower in its movement than a glacier, how many will die before peace comes to Darfur or humanitarian agencies are allowed in?

Finally, Mukau Matua's views have been widely circulated by African and Arab news organizations since first being aired in the Christian Science Monitor. Racism at the root of Darfur crisis.

[bemildred]

2. You seem to know a good deal about this issue.

I was wondering about it last night, why it is getting so
much attention now. Not that regime change in Khartoum would
be a bad thing, but the civil war in Sudan has been going on
for decades, with fine players like the Lord's Resistance Army
at work, child soldiers, and most of the features we now see in
Darfur. Then there is the war in the Congo which has killed and
displaced millions, and one can point to a number of other such
conflicts going on here and there, the Congo War is probably the
worst in the recent past. But I don't understand who decides
which of these things to pay attention to, and which to ignore.
Liberia got a good deal of attention, Sierra Leone (probably the
most offensive little bloodbath in recent memory) was almost
totally ignored. I could go on a good deal, but I assume you see
my point. Do you have any insight into why this is being paid
so much attention to where so many such are ignored?

[gottaB]

3. Off the top of my head, a mix of factors

1. Christian missionaries and activists have raised awareness about the civil war in Sudan for many years. I beleive that Bush's fundamentalist Christian base pushed him to become more active.

2. 9/11. There was a connection between Sudan and Osama bin Laden that made Sudan diplomacy a pressing issue, a fact which the Bush administration realized after the attacks of 9/11.

3. Pique. Darfur was not on the table at the Navaisha talks. I suspect that Powell personally resents being lied to, manipulated, and generally disrespected. His expressions of anger sometimes make for attention-grabbing headlines.

4. Oil. Quite apart from strategic interests in diversifying the US energy supply, I think Bush really *likes* oil.

5. Genocide. As atrocious as other conflicts in Africa have been, the prospect of a genocide is particularly alarming. The tenth aniversary of the Rwandan genocide brought attention to Darfur.

6. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, and many countries have a stake in regional stability. It is closer to core US strategic interests than, for instance, Sierra Leone.

7. Colonial history. Generally the US is closer to anglophone Africa. Liberia was clearly a US responsibility. The DRC was and largely still is regarded as an issue for the French. French tolerance for atrocities, at the diplomatic level, tends to be greater than the US or UK's.

8. Having become involved in the peace process, the Bush administration has a vested interest in preventing unrest in Darfur.

9. Miscalculations by the government in Khartoum. I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Did they really think that the world wouldn't notice the mass murder of a million people? Apparently. Apparently they reckoned that the Western powers wouldn't mind if muslims were slaughtered.

10. Slow motion. A million people, mostly women and children, at risk of death by starvation. It's a gruesome spectacle, impossible to hide.

11. Rapid changes in communications technology. The residents of Khartoum may be among the last to know the truth about what has happened in Darfur.

12. Khartoum's pr efforts. They *wanted* to be on the UN Commission on Human Rights. They wanted to compare their record on human rights to the United States and other critics. This could be an extension of 9, but it seems as if their response to rebukes and warnings has been to escalate the confrontational rhetoric, and exploit current topics in anti-Americanism. To invite such scrutiny, and then to cry foul when people actually do examine their human rights abuses and fault them--well, what would a reasonable person expect?

That's what springs to mind at the moment.

[bemildred]

4. Thank you, very insightful. nt

[gottaB]

5. more views

Arab press sharpens tone on Darfur, sampling of Arab press views from BBC.

Darfur crisis sparks fears among expats, an interesting mix of opinions from Sudanese living in UAE.

SA's "deafening silence" on Sudan under fire. The fire is coming from the Democratic Alliance, officially the opposition party in South Africa, but way less popular than the ANC.

South Africa's ANC government has in fact taken a leadership role in Sudan diplomacy thought the AU. Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma heads the AU's Peace and Security Council, and she led discussions on Darfur during the AU summit in Addis Ababa Previously the DA had criticized the ANC for focusing on Darfur while acting to suppress criticism of Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF (see "Quiet Diplomacy" under fire).

South Africa has pledged 10 monitors to the AU's peacekeeping mission, and Dlamini Zuma is working on developing an African Standby Force (African standby force on horizon). However, I don't know of SA taking a position on humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The mandate of the peacekeeping mission, as I understand it at present, is limited to monitoring the ceasefire agreed upon by the warring parties, which is necessary to help establish security for the displaced population and the aid agencies, but arguably not sufficient to meet the security needs in Darfur.