[allAfrica.com]  [Bill_Sutherland_Institute]


World Must Act On Darfur's Plight

Business Day (Johannesburg)
COLUMN
May 19, 2004
Posted to the web May 19, 2004

By Jonathan Katzenellenbogen
Johannesburg
BY SOME accounts about 1million people have fled their homes and up to 30000
have been killed in the Darfur region in western Sudan.
United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said a programme of
"ethnic cleansing" is taking place by the Sudanese government-backed militia,
and many others are describing what is happening there as genocide.
International relief groups have sounded alarm bells since March, but despite
this nothing tangible is being done. A cease-fire is meant to be in place but
it is being violated by the Sudanese- backed "Jinjaweed" militiamen who are
killing and driving black African villagers from the area.
The Khartoum government says it is not backing the Arab militias' attacks, but
the signs are that this programme of ethnic cleansing is in response to the
attacks of the Sudanese Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality
Movement on Khartoum's forces.
A "humanitarian cease-fire" agreement was signed between Khartoum and the
Sudanese Liberation Movement in early April, but there is no evidence that it
is holding. Quite the opposite.
For all the lessons that were meant to have been learned from the international
inaction over the Rwanda genocide, there are few signs of any international
action being implemented.
The recently established African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council has
hardly rushed to do something about Darfur, although this is clearly its first
real test. Creating a precedent for action on the Darfur crisis would be a
means for the council to establish its credentials.
The UN Security Council says it is monitoring the humanitarian situation.
SA and other African countries have also shown their unwillingness to take
Sudan to task over Darfur by not objecting to Khartoum's continued presence on
the UN Human Rights Commission.
The cynical reason that is widely given for this inaction is that more decisive
world intervention would damage prospects for a peace accord between the
Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army.
The world's preoccupation with Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are
also widely speculated upon as reasons for the absence of any rapid and
decisive response to the crisis.
The International Crisis Group the nongovernmental organisation that warns and
comes up with proposals for the resolution of crises has suggested that the UN
Security Council pass a wide-ranging resolution. It would include: the
imposition of an arms embargo on Khartoum; insistence that it disarm the
Jinjaweed; demand respect for the cease-fire; support negotiations; and call
for the safe return of refugees.
The AU has sent a mission to assess conditions, with a view to establishing a
cease-fire commission. Sudan may be hauled before the Peace and Security
Council, the body's new organ, which has extensive powers of intervention.
Sudan would be allowed to set out its case, but it might not be allowed to be
present for ensuing discussion.
Jakkie Cilliers, executive director of the Institute for Security Studies, says
this represents an important shift from past practices.
When the AU held its inaugural meeting, the creation of the new body which
replaced the Organisation of African Unity was widely heralded as a break with
the ineffective past, in terms of dispute resolution.
Much of the applause that greeted the creation of the Peace and Security
Council was because it would provide a mechanism for African countries to take
the lead in reacting to crises. It was seen as a mechanism to show political
will and, if necessary, military force in times of crises, informed by the
international inaction over the Rwanda genocide.
But this institution is clearly still more about structure than substance.
Cilliers says it is still early days for the council, as larger staff capacity
and funding will only be in place towards the end of the year.
However, he agrees no excuses can be offered by the AU or the UN for the months
taken to act on Darfur. The one excuse on offer is that the AU does not yet
have its five-brigade standby force and is therefore highly constrained in
acting.
Even had this been in place, Cilliers says, it would have had to move beyond
the respect for the sanctity of national sovereignty that makes early warning
and action impossible.
The overriding question, though, remains how to call a halt to this catastrophe
without military force.
For all the talk about how the world order is better if based on law and
multilateral action, the laggardly response to Darfur once again points to
international organisations as bodies for posturing rather than action.
Katzenellenbogen is international affairs editor.

   

  =============================================================================
 Copyright © 2004 Business Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica
                         Global Media (allAfrica.com).
  =============================================================================