Main Aspects of Conflict in Darfur - Essay Example

Darfur Part I Main aspects of conflict in Darfur The military conflicts in Darfur have been a major problem for Sudan, which is the country in which Darfur belongs, at least by the aspect of administration. Because of the importance and the complexity of the issue, US and UN have been called by the government of the state to participate actively in the improvement of the relationships between the militants of both parts (government and rebels). Regarding this case, it is noticed by the Africa Studies Centre (2007) that “Darfur, a former independent state in western Sudan, has been the scene of acerbic warfare between the Sudanese central government and a number of insurgent movements since February 2003; these groups are demanding rights for the local peoples and more state investment in their marginalized region”. In other words, the main reason for the appearance and the development of violence in the state has been the opposition between the government’s decisions and the willing of the major part of the population. It should be noticed that the consequences of the development of this conflict have been severe. More specifically, it is noticed in the Africa Studies Centre (2007) that “at the start of the armed conflict, Darfur, which is the size of France, had a population of about 6 million (virtually all Muslims) but the number is significantly lower today due to mass killings, disease, famine and forced expulsions akin to ethnic cleansing caused by the ‘scorched earth’ military actions of the government troops and local militias; these militias, known as the ‘Janjawiid’, have been largely recruited from Arabized peoples from northern and eastern Darfur”. The main reason for the continuation of the above described situation cannot be precisely described, however it could be considered that the oppositions in interests of the state and those of the rebels is more likely to have led to this result. The development of the conflict in Darfur is described on a report of BBC News (2007) according to which “The conflict began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum; the rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs; Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities”. In other words, it seems that the conflict in Darfur has not begun because of a random initiative but it was rather the result of a carefully designed plan for the promotion of the interests of specific political teams. On the other hand, the role of both parts cannot be described with accuracy in advance. From the one side, the government tries to impose its plans while – from the other side – rebels express a strong opposition to all governmental decisions and initiatives. The main groups of rebels in the country are currently two: the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem). These groups apart from their opposition in the governmental plans seem that they do not wish to proceed to any peace solution. A relevant attempt which took place on May 2006 was afterwards led into failure. The continuous conflict in Darfur has led to the death of millions of people since the beginning of the military operations. In this context, in accordance with a report published in Save Darfur (2007) “at least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival”. The above findings can lead to the assumption that the military conflicts in Darfur do not serve the interests of the country’s population (there is no case of such an hypothesis). On the contrary, these conflicts are rather ‘related’ with the interests of particular political teams which want to ‘acquire’ the governance of the specific country. The above assumption is proved by the fact that today the conflict in Darfur continues to be developed and become even worst. Apart from the existed situation within the borders of this country – which in fact was previously an autonomous country but now is considered as part of Sudan – there is an intensive danger for this conflict to be ‘expanded’ to neighbouring countries especially in Chad threatening the stability of the whole central Africa. Ahead of this danger “the government of Chad has declared a state of emergency and called for U.N. peacekeepers in eastern Chad as thousands of civilians flee their homes in fear of Janjaweed attacks; the government of Sudan accuses the Chadian government of backing Darfur rebels, while the Chadian government accuses Khartoum of spreading genocide into Chad and arming Chadian rebels” (Fitzpatrick, 2007). It seems that the peace in the area will not be achieved easily. In fact, there is a risk of the greater region to be involved in the existed conflict, if there will be not a direct and rapid intervention of the international community. Moreover, the problem of millions of refugees has to be resolved while international aid workers (who have already started to evacuate the area, in accordance with the details presented in the study of Fitzpatrick, 2007) should be effectively protected. Part II US Policy regarding the security issues – role of president The conflict in Darfur has been a main issue for the US Government which has repeatedly intervened towards the resolution of the existing problems among the country’s political powers. More specifically, in accordance with a report published in the Save Darfur site (2007) “the Bush Administration has recognized these atrocities – carried out against civilians primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias – as genocide while António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has described the situation in Sudan and Chad as ‘the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe’”. However, despite the reactions of the international community and the active intervention of US the conflict in Darfur is developed with no particular attempts for the peaceful resolution of the existed problems. Particularly regarding the intervention of the US and the position of its president regarding the specific conflict, it should be noticed that their initiatives could be characterized as not totally justified especially if taking into account the rate of death of civilians on a daily basis – a rate which is actually increased since the intervention of foreign countries in the existing conflict. In the site Africa Action (2006) it is noticed that during 2006 numerous US were landed in Africa in order to participate in specific programs of training and ‘other missions’ which were not precisely described. Regarding this initiative it is mentioned in the particular site that “the trend in the Bush Administration’s Africa policy is toward an even greater focus on the so-called War on Terrorism, with emphasis on intelligence gathering, securing "ungoverned spaces" on the vast continent, and pre-positioning soldiers and equipment to project force globally and to deter Al-Qaeda in Africa. But American involvement in actual peacemaking or peacekeeping missions in Africa is far less likely, even as genocide continues in Darfur, Sudan” (Africa Action, 2006). The war against terrorism is of course a crucial issue which has to be considered by all countries of the international community. However, the intervention of just one country (the US) in the military conflicts that have been developed in the internal of another country should be considered rather as unjustifiable unless there was a specific plan of action which had been previously reviewed by all countries of the international community. It has to be noticed that in accordance with the announcement of the White House regarding the security policies of US in Darfur “president Bush is committed to improving security in Darfur, finding a political solution to the crisis, and meeting urgent humanitarian needs” (The White House, 2007). However, the situation seems to be out of control and the effectiveness of the Bush’s administration in Darfur should be doubted strongly. In this context, in the study of Polgreen (2006) it is noticed that “Arab gunmen from Darfur are now in Chad, stealing cattle, burning crops and killing anyone who resists; the lawlessness has driven at least 20,000 Chadians from their homes; there are also 200,000 refugees from Sudan who fled to Chad for safety; the Bush administration has accused these militias of genocide in Darfur” (Polgreen, 2006). The intervention of US in Darfur seems to have failed to achieve the required target – the pause of the conflict or at least the beginning of the discussions for peace and the limitation of the killings of civilians. The plan of US Government for the resolution of the political problems in Darfur has not been proved effective. Regarding this issue in a relevant announcement of the US Department of State (2007) it is highlighted that “the U.S. Government’s (USG) first and most urgent priority is to ensure the continued delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance to the two and a half million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees living in camps in Darfur and eastern Chad; while civilian deaths may have declined in recent months, people are still being forced from their homes and nearly 80,000 new IDPs have flowed into camps in January and February of this year”. The failure of this Government’s efforts to stop the military conflicts and to intervene in the beginning of the discussion for peace in the area is recognized therefore by the above state. Apart from that it is mentioned that the US has called all parties to ‘allow’ the humanitarian aid in the region but as the events show (increase of killings, evacuation of the area by the humanitarian aid workers) neither this initiative was welcomed by the political teams participating in the military conflict developed in the territory of Darfur. It has been proved by the above that the initiatives of Bush’s administration regarding the conflict in Darfur had been many during the development of this conflict in the above country. However, these initiatives were not the appropriate ones. On the other hand, these plans although maybe designed by the persons belonging to the ‘presidential environment’ they are approved afterwards by the Congresso, so there can be no case of ‘personal decisions’ on the particular issue. It seems that all parties in US government that have the responsibility for the monitoring of security have not understood the motives of the political parties in Darfur related with the beginning and the development of military conflicts in the area. In this case, any intervention made by the US Government in the area will be inappropriate unless the criteria of the evaluation of the above conflict are going to be changed. Part III US Policy and national interest The base of the US policy applied in Darfur has been the peaceful handling of all political differences that have led to the beginning and the development of the extended military conflict that threatens the peace of all central Africa. In a relevant announcement of the White House (2007) it is noticed that “together with our allies and friends, we must help strengthen Africas fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists”. However, it is recognized also that the strategy applied in the area has to be transformed in order to become more effective regarding the existed differences among the military and political parties that participate in this conflict. Towards this direction, a general strategy for the whole continent is proposed by the US Department of State. This security strategy will focus mainly on the resolution of existed conflicts through the active participation of all parties involved. Moreover, three major strategic plans are going to be applied in the greater area of Africa continent: “a) countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention; b) coordination with allies, friends and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and c) Africas capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis” (The White House, 2007). The application of the above strategies is expected to help towards the peaceful resolution of the all the problems that have led to the development of numerous military conflicts across the continent. In the case of Darfur, although the peace seems to be far, humanitarian agencies refuse to evacuate the area (there have been only partial evacuations of the region by certain humanitarian aid workers). Instead, the humanitarian aid workers that remain in the area operate “dangerously close to the edge, stretching normal operational rules while Washington and its allies want Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to embrace U.N. troops to take over peacekeeping in Darfur” (Coalition for Darfur, 2007). The security strategy followed by U.S. regarding the resolution of political problems in Darfur does not seem to be effective even if it has been transformed in order to better serve the peaceful arrangement of all political differences. The Africa Union seems to be the most appropriate principle for the protection of peace in the Africa continent. In fact, the security strategy of US in Darfur had never been quite appropriate for the particular conflict. Indicatively, it is mentioned by Fitzpatrick (2007) that “in response to attacks in early 2003 on government targets by rebel forces in Sudan’s western province of Darfur, the Sudanese government mounted a campaign that has killed approximately 400,000 Darfurians, caused 2.5 million to flee their homes and wrought untold devastation; in addition to sponsoring horseback attacks by nomadic Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, the government of Sudan has launched aerial bombardment campaigns and helicopter gunship attacks against the people of Darfur; using weapons supplied by the Sudanese government, the Janjaweed routinely raid villages, burn houses and attack innocent civilians”. It seems from the above events that the military conflict in Darfur is mainly retained by the country’s government which wants to apply specific political projects in the region. At a primary level, the government in Sudan (where Darfur belongs administratively) has this right (it is a right of any elected government around the world). However, in the particular case, the application of the governmental plans has been enforced by the country’s army and through the killings of civilians (genocide). For this reason, the response of the international community should be immediate and not to be limited just to the intervention of US in the area. The community as a union should have made pressures to the Sudanese government to stop killing civilians. Recently (2007) the Sudanese government agreed to “allow more than 3,000 heavily armed U.N. and African peacekeepers in Darfur to reinforce a beleaguered African Union force of 7,000 that has struggled to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the past four years; but U.N. officials said it could be more than six months before foreign troops land in the region (Lynch, 2007)”. The above initiative although important for the limitation of military conflicts in the area, it cannot be considered as of particular value regarding the achievement of a peaceful resolution of the political problems in Darfur that have led to the specific conflict. The national interest of the specific country does not seem to be protected through this intervention neither by the similar plans that have been applied in the area by the US until today. A more ‘collective’ effort by all the members in the international community is considered as the most appropriate solution in the particular case. Works Cited Africa Action (2006) Africa Policy Outlook – 2006, available at http://www.africaaction.org/resources/page.php?op=read&documentid=1742&type=18 Africa Studies Centre (2007) Darfur: Continuing conflict in Sudan, available at http://www.ascleiden.nl/Library/Webdossiers/Darfur2.aspx BBC News (2007) Sudan’s Darfur conflict, available at http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/background Coalition for Darfur (2006) Darfur: Conflict Engulfs Towns, Threatens Aid Operation, available at http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/12/darfur-conflict-engulfs-towns.html Coalition for Darfur (2007) Darfur: Conflict or Armed Mayhem? http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2007/04/darfur-conflict-or-armed-mayhem.html Fitzpatrick, J. (2007) Crisis in Darfur: Options for US Policy, available at http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:piOKA2FtA78J:www.globalsolutions.org/programs/peace_security/peace_ops/conflicts/US_Darfur_policy_options.pdf+Darfur+and+US+security+policy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&lr=lang_en|lang_el Lynch, C. (2007) Sudan to Allow UN Force in Darfur, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601508.html Polgreen, L. (2006) Darfurs deadly conflict crosses into Chad, available at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/28/news/chad.php Save Darfur (2007) Policy Talking Points, available at http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/background The White House (2007) Africa Policy, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/ US Department of State (2007) Darfur: A ‘Plan B’ to Stop Genocide?, available at http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/82941.htm Read More