ENOUGH: the Project to Abolish Genocide and Mass Atrocities released a strategy paper yesterday recommending that policymakers and activists working to end genocide in Darfur should broaden their efforts to achieve a comprehensive solution for all of Sudan.

The paper suggests that the increasingly precarious relationship between North and South Sudan can complicate peacemaking efforts in Darfur. It concludes that Darfur advocates must extend their scope beyond Darfur to include work towards peace in South and East Sudan as well.

According to the paper's authors, Roger Winter and John Prendergast, Sudan's ruling National Congress Party (NCP) bears most of the blame for the country's deteriorating political and security situation. They point to the NCP's repeated efforts to undermine the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), including:

• Months of NCP delays to release the funds for a census and the creation of numerous obstacles to demarcation of boundaries between North and South, both necessary prerequisites for CPA-mandated elections;
• Refusal to withdraw NCP military forces from oil fields in the South in accordance with the CPA stipulated timetable; and
• Rejection of the “final and binding” Abyei Boundary Commission report, which has frozen all efforts to establish a new local administration in violence-prone and oil-rich Abyei, which is entitled to its own referendum.

The authors further suggest that along with other members of the international community, the United States has a central leadership role to play – both in supporting the implementation of the CPA and the peace deal in Eastern Sudan, as well as in helping to broker an accord in Darfur.

They call on the U.S. to ramp up its diplomatic investments and efforts to work multilaterally, including increased pressure on any party attempting to undermine peace; strengthen U.S. and broader international support for the CPA; and discontinue any plan to entertain negotiations outside the framework provided by the CPA, a course of action that could actually hasten a return to war in the South.

Click here to view the paper, An All-Sudan Solution: Linking Darfur and the South. 

By Alex Meixner

Also published on Britannica.com 

There are few foreign policy positions which achieve nearly universal consensus within the international community these days, or for that matter within the U.S.  A firm conviction that something should be done to end the crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan, however, is surely one of them.  Regardless of whether the carnage in Darfur is described as genocide, ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, or “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” as the UN has called it, just about everyone who’s heard of Darfur believes that more should be done to help Darfur.  

So why then does the crisis persist after nearly five years, thousands of news stories, countless speeches, and more than a dozen Security Council resolutions?  The short answer is this: coordinating a successful international effort to end a genocidal conflict like the one slow-boiling in Darfur is a complex, grinding, and profoundly frustrating undertaking.  It is also absolutely necessary, and unquestionably worth it.  

In early 2003, long-standing tensions in Darfur erupted into what the U.S. government later described as the first genocide of the 21st century soon after local rebel groups took up arms against the Khartoum-based regime of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.  Their reasons for rebelling were relatively simple: they rightly felt marginalized by their government, saw that rebels in southern Sudan were likely to be granted major economic and political concessions as their own civil war against Khartoum ran down, and realized that they themselves were being left out in the literal and figurative desert with no hope of similar concessions or improved conditions in sight.  An oil fueled economic boom was producing sky-scrapers in Khartoum, and meanwhile Darfur continued to exist largely without roads, hospitals, or a sufficient education system, and was suffering through a brutal drought.  

Following a few initial conventional battles with new rebel groups in Darfur, the Khartoum regime switched tactics and began to fight a hate-fueled counter insurgency war in Darfur by funding, arming, and unleashing the proxy militias known as Janjaweed, who came from tribes which identify themselves as “Arab,” on the villages associated with the rebels, which came from tribes who identify themselves as “African.”  This strategy depended on exploiting this self-proclaimed racial divide in Darfur, and it worked, despite the fact that both “Arab” and “African” Darfurians are Muslim, speak Arabic, and share the same skin tone.  The result was an undisciplined paramilitary campaign which targeted men, women, and children alike.  

Since this genocidal campaign began in early 2003, over 2,000 villages have been burnt, up to 400,000 people have been killed, and approximately 2.5 million more have been forced from their homes and into the Sahara desert.  Horrific stories of mass rape, murder, and unspeakable atrocities have become commonplace.  Survivors have gathered in IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camps throughout Darfur, and in refugee camps across the border in eastern Chad and in the Central African Republic, waiting for conflict to end so that they can rebuild their lives, hoping that someone will help them.  

For its part, the international community has reacted to different aspects of the crisis with varying degrees of success.  The biggest bright spot has been the Herculean effort put forth by governmental and non-governmental aid agencies, bringing food, medicine, shelter, and basic services to the millions of Darfurians in need.  Over the last few years, more than 13,000 international and Sudanese aid workers have built the world’s largest humanitarian life support system in Darfur, saving countless lives that otherwise would have been lost to starvation and disease.  Nations and multilateral organizations such as the UN have done their part as well, providing billions of dollars in direct funding, donated supplies, and airlift for the aid effort.

Less successful, unfortunately, have been international efforts to reduce the threat to Darfuri civilians of physical violence, and to achieve a lasting political solution to end the conflict altogether.  To achieve the former, the international community, in the form of the African Union, deployed a 7,400 strong African Union Mission in the Sudan (AMIS) peacekeeping force to Darfur in 2004.  While the AU in general and the AMIS force in particular deserve credit for going into Darfur when the rest of the international community stood by and watched, and for accomplishing some real substantive goals such as helping to protect women from rape once deployed, it soon became clear that AMIS lacked the troops, equipment, funding, and mandate to truly protect civilians and help restore order to an area as large as Darfur (it’s roughly the size of Texas, or France).  The international community therefore went back to the drawing board and settled on a plan of sending a much larger UN peacekeeping force to Darfur, with all of the equipment, funding, and mandate it would need to protect civilians.  On August 31, 2006, a divided UN Security Council authorized the generation and deployment of just such a force peacekeeping force in Resolution 1706.  

Unfortunately, the Sudanese government rejected Resolution 1706, effectively putting the UN between a rock and a hard place: in the entire history of the United Nations, no peacekeeping mission had ever failed to deploy once authorized by the Security Council.  On the other hand, only one mission had ever deployed over the objection of the host nation, and that “mission” is better known as the Korean war of the early 1950’s.  A compromise was sought to bridge this impasse, and the result was the 26,000 strong hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force known as UNAMID (United Nations African Mission in Darfur), authorized unanimously by the Security Council on July 31, 2007, which is just now in its initial stages of generation and deployment.  That a compromise was reached is good, and that the Sudanese government has agreed to accept that compromise (and the UNAMID mission) is even better.  The vast majority of the peacekeepers are not on the ground yet, however.  In fact, as of this writing only a few hundred logistics and engineering personnel have actually set foot in Darfur to lay the groundwork for the larger deployment, and for the eventual adoption of AMIS forces into the UNAMID mission.  Until such time as the force fully deploys, UNAMID will remain simply the best yet in a series of unimplemented peacekeeping plans designed to help protect the people of Darfur.  

Efforts to arrive at a lasting political solution have fared arguably even worse.  Several ceasefires have been adopted, celebrated, promptly violated, and thus rendered moot.  More frustrating still were the nearly 20 months of peace talks which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, culminating on May 5, 2006, in the partial signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, or DPA.  The Sudanese government and only one of what were then just three rebel factions signed the agreement, and with the exception of a few initial concessions to the one rebel signer, almost none of it has been implemented.  Since the signing and subsequent collapse of the DPA, the original three rebel factions have split into more than a dozen.  The international community, operating through a combined UN – AU effort, have regrouped, pooled their efforts, and organized a new set of peace talks to take place in Sirte, Libya beginning on October 27.  The prospects of these talks, however, remain in question due to incomplete rebel participation, the unclear role of civil society, and lingering doubts about the Khartoum regime’s sincerity.  

Meanwhile, as the international community moves forward, albeit slowly, on deploying UNAMID and launching a more inclusive (and hopefully successful) peace process, the situation in Darfur has deteriorated.  Rebels, janjaweed, and Khartoum alike are jockeying for position in advance of both the talks and UNAMID deployment, which has led to a dramatic uptick in violence, including recent rebel attacks on AU peacekeepers, Sudanese government and janjaweed attacks on villages thought to support rebels, and inter-rebel fighting.  Needless to say, civilians continue to bear the brunt of this increased violence.  

The result of all this is a continuing and increasingly complex crisis in Darfur on the one hand, and an increasing coordinated but as yet unsuccessful international response on the other.  Left alone, the crisis in Darfur will continue to grow increasingly dangerous for the people who live there, costing yet more Darfuri lives, and costing everyone who’s ever said “never again” their credibility.  The clear answer, therefore, is that the international community must simply become more coordinated, more sophisticated, and ultimately more effective at ending the crisis in Darfur.  Describing in detail how it should go about doing that would fill at least as much space as I’ve used already several times over, but a good start would be taking all necessary steps to swiftly generate and deploy the UNAMID peacekeeping force, engaging fully in the upcoming peace talks, and demanding that all parties – and especially upon the Khartoum regime – cease all hostilities.  

Achieving these goals won’t be easy, and will certainly require the type of sustained political will that is only possible with sustained citizen advocacy, but they are possible.  The real question, therefore, is not why the crisis in Darfur persists, but whether we will collectively do what’s necessary to end it.

Alex Meixner, Save Darfur Coalition

Posted on Friday August 31 2007 

As the opening of the United Nations General Assembly draws near, world leaders will begin to finalize their stance on how their countries will contribute to the success of the newly approved United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Speeches are being written and policies set, and the world awaits its first glimpse of what the international community will do to ensure UNAMID's swift and successful deployment. Special attention will rightly be placed on members of the Security Council, which unanimously created the UNAMID mission on July 31.

While these preparations are made, it is critical that world leaders do not fall victim to the potential smoke and mirrors of Sudanese obstruction which have doomed attempts to deploy UN peacekeepers to Darfur in the past. While Sudan has promised its cooperation, world leaders must not take that cooperation for granted. In fact, there is already evidence of further illegal activities on the part of the Sudanese government, in violation of its previous agreements and of several Security Council resolutions.

As photos within the latest Amnesty International report unequivocally illustrate, the Sudanese government continues to deploy banned offensive military equipment to Darfur. When our world leaders prepare for New York, it is these images, rather than Sudan's questionable promises, that they should keep in mind. With more than a hint of tragic irony, it is exactly these types of aviation assets - namely attack and transport helicopters - which are currently being sought by the UN for inclusion in the UNAMID mission.

To quote AI's press release following the report, "the Sudanese government is still deploying weapons into Darfur in breathtaking defiance of the UN arms embargo and Darfur peace agreements." Since the beginning of August, Sudanese government Antonov bombers are reported to have carried out several raids on Ta'alba, near the town of Adila, as well as the villages of Habib Suleiman and Fataha. Reports indicate that an Antonov capable of such raids was transferred from Russia to Sudan in September 2006. Time will tell whether Russia will be similarly generous in providing needed military equipment to the UN mission which it itself voted to create.

It is sadly predictable that the Government of Sudan continues to attack civilians and violate an arms embargo while simultaneously professing cooperation with the international community. How world leaders will respond, however, remains anybody's guess. For the sake of Darfur, and their own credibility, they should use the opening of the UN General Assembly to affirm their commitments (of troops, police, funding, and equipment) to the success of the UNAMID force which they have created. They should also make clear, in no uncertain terms, that obstruction of UNAMID's deployment or of a renewed peace process will not be tolerated, from governments or rebels alike.

Steve Gutow, Board Chair, Save Darfur Coalition

On August 12, the New York Times published “An Atrocity That Needs No Exaggeration“ an opinion article by Sam Dealey regarding the magnitude of atrocities in Darfur. The article misses a critical point in the debate over how many people have actually died. The real point is that, unfortunately, mortality estimates cannot be verified or updated because the Government of Sudan actively denies the international community – including diplomats, humanitarian workers, and epidemiology experts – real access to the Darfur region.

History reminds us that the full scope and scale of genocide is unknown until it has ended. Past perpetrators, most notably the Nazis, actively concealed their campaigns of mass murder from public scrutiny and accountability. When the scale of this genocide did become known, a shocked world cried out, “Never again.” The same was true in Cambodia and Rwanda. And that is what is happening now in Darfur.

The Save Darfur Coalition believes that as many as 400,000 Darfuris have been killed in this conflict because there is sound analysis to support that – analysis that is impossible to confirm only because of Sudan’s willful obstruction. Ultimately, no level of genocide is acceptable. The international community must continue to press the Sudanese government and President Omar al-Bashir to provide access to both international peacekeepers, humanitarian workers and experts who can more accurately document the scale of this tragedy, as well as provide protection and assistance to Darfur’s civilian population.

By Amjad Atallah Senior Director of International Policy and Advocacy, Save Darfur Coalition

That is the question every Darfuri living in a displaced person’s camp in Sudan or a refugee camp in Chad asks herself every time there is a “diplomatic breakthrough.” Every time diplomats congratulate each other, the people suffering on the ground rejoice, expecting some immediate improvement in their lives – perhaps better security, perhaps more food, or best, real peace that allows them to go back to their homes, to bring the perpetrators of injustice to account, and to begin the process of rebuilding their lives.

UN Security Council Resolution 1769, the resolution passed last week authorizing deployment of peacekeepers to Darfur, follows in a short series of diplomatic milestones. In May 2006, with the assistance of countries such as the United States, Nigeria, and South Africa, the Sudanese government signed the Darfur Peace Agreement with one Darfuri rebel group. The agreement called for the repatriation of Darfuris to their homes, disarming of the Janjaweed, and powersharing between Darfuris and the central government based in Khartoum. Despite the fanfare around the agreement, the violence got worse.

Last August, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706, which called for the expansion of a protection force from Southern Sudan to Darfur in order, among other things, “to contribute towards international efforts to protect, promote and monitor human rights in Darfur, as well as to coordinate international efforts towards the protection of civilians with particular attention to vulnerable groups including internally displaced persons, returning refugees, and women and children.” It also called for the force to “facilitate and coordinate” the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.

Once again, despite the initial jubilation, the violence got worse.

It is up to us to work together now to make sure that this time, the UN Security Council Resolution is actually the beginning of the end of the genocide and not another mile marker in dashed hopes and more graves.

There is some reason to believe that this time will be different. The Resolution includes key measures long advocated by the Save Darfur Coalition. It relies on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, mandates protection of civilians, and will operate under unified U.N. command and control. These and other elements make the resolution a promising basis for effective peacekeeping and protection for Darfur's people – but they cannot be effective without UN vigilance. Resolution 1769 can only be effective if UN member states match it with strong political will and work hard to recruit and deploy the thousands of troops and police it authorizes.

Even after deployment, the UN must make sure that its forces avoid the garrison mentality of so many UN peacekeeping missions. They can’t hunker down behind barbed wire and high walls. They have to be spread out among the communities they expect to protect and they have to be proactive in preparing for the inevitable challenges to their authority.

Late last year, we were told by displaced Darfuris and African Union peacekeepers in Sudan that paramilitary forces associated with the Sudanese government approached the Darfuri capital of El Fasher and, as a show of strength, surrounded a large camp filled mostly with women and children. The AU force did not have enough personnel to confront them and instead retreated to their barracks. The paramilitary forces did not raid the camp but simply made their point that they were in charge of the area. The Darfuri civilians were terrified and began developing contempt for the AU forces.

Now it will be time to for the UN-AU hybrid force to do the opposite. And in establishing their presence, the government of Sudan’s cooperation will be key.

This may be the first step in a political process to not only end the war but also to begin to rebuild Darfur. But it hasn’t happened yet. It is the tireless energy of the activists who have stood up for the people of Darfur that has brought Resolution 1769 this far. The same energy will ensure that it is implemented.

We cannot stop now.

By Alex Meixner, Director of Government Relations, Save Darfur Coalition 

Members of the United Nations Security Council have spent much of the last week debating the details of a resolution which will authorize a hybrid United Nations – African Union peacekeeping mission for Darfur.  At first glance, this would appear to be business as usual – after all, debating resolutions is what the Security Council does.  A closer look, however, reveals a few issues that should interest anyone who believes in pursuing multilateral solutions to the world’s humanitarian crises and conflicts.

In other words, anyone who has ever argued against the near-unilateralism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and argued for broader multilateral efforts to work through the established (if inefficient) international systems of conflict resolution, should care about what’s going on at the UN Security Council right now.

To begin, passage of a new resolution authorizing a UN-AU hybrid force will almost certainly mark the first time in UN history that a peacekeeping mission authorized by the Security Council will have failed to deploy.  That mission would be the UN-only Darfur peacekeeping force, authorized by Security Council Resolution 1706 last August 31st, which withered on the vine in the face of Sudanese objections last fall.  The UN-AU hybrid force being debated now is the next generation of that original effort, which means that unless the Security Council, the UN Secretariat, and UN member-nations everywhere succeed this time around in actually deploying a strong peacekeeping force to Darfur, they will have failed twice within one year, and in one place, to do what they have never previously failed to do anywhere in the world.  

So why is the international community having such trouble sending peacekeepers to Darfur when there are over a dozen other UN peacekeeping missions deployed all across the globe, including one in the southern region of Sudan itself?  A big part of the reason is that too many nations are placing economic self-interest and regional solidarity above humanitarian priorities.   In short, they are protecting the Sudanese regime in Khartoum when they should be protecting the Sudanese people in Darfur.  This all-too-common pattern of devaluing the prioritization of humanitarian and human rights concerns within the overall context of a nation’s foreign policy is unfortunately nothing new, and is certainly something all nations have been guilty of at one point or another.  Being common does not make it excusable, however, which is why we in the advocacy community need to keep working to hold all nations accountable for the international community’s failure to protect civilians and help build peace in Darfur.

Within the context of the current debate at the UN Security Council, this means keeping pressure on all fifteen Security Council member nations (and especially the veto-wielding permanent five) to authorize and deploy a strong hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force to Darfur.  Of the fifteen UNSC member nations, it will surprise no one to know that China, Qatar, Russia, and to an extent Indonesia are attempting to weaken the resolution to Khartoum’s benefit.  

What is a bit surprising is the fact that South Africa, whose history is so often held up as an example of how international political pressure can help end a pariah government’s shameful treatment of its own citizens, has become one of Khartoum’s biggest defenders.  And it is downright shocking that South Africa’s Ambassador to the UN, Dumisani Kumalo, who was himself a leader in the fight to enact international economic sanctions against the apartheid-era South African regime, has publicly said that any mention within this Security Council resolution of pursuing future sanctions against the Sudanese regime if Sudan fails to live up to its responsibilities to facilitate deployment is “totally unacceptable.”

It is unclear why South Africa, which was itself the beneficiary of just this kind of international pressure, would deny the benefits of that type of pressure to the people of Darfur.  It is clear, however, that the advocacy community must continue to put its own brand of pressure on the Security Council to pass a strong resolution with a clear Chapter VII mandate to protect civilians, a definite timetable for deployment, and a unified UN-led command and control structure as soon as possible.  

Just last week, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden and Ranking Member Dick Lugar introduced S. Res. 276, a bipartisan resolution calling upon President Bush, members of the Security Council, and the UN Secretary-General to take all the necessary steps to see that a strong UN-AU hybrid force is quickly authorized, recruited, and deployed.  The resolution nicely lays out the criteria for a successful hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping mission, and is just the type of pressure that is needed now.

Only time will tell, however, whether UN-member states, and especially those that sit on the Security Council, will do what is necessary to ensure that this time, the international community – working through the multilateral conflict resolution systems established at the UN – succeed where they have so recently and historically failed.  

Here We Go Again

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator

This week or next, under July's Chinese Presidency, the UN Security Council is expected to take up a British/Ghanaian sponsored draft resolution establishing UNAMID - the United Nations Mission in Darfur - the formalization of the AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force supposedly "accepted unconditionally" by President al-Bashir on 12 June. 

 

However, doubts are growing about the authenticity of al-Bashir's commitment.  Already at the time the deal was announced, there was an air of "hope triumphing over experience," and developments since then reinforce the skepticism of advocates who have seen al-Bashir at work before, and recognize the recurrence of his tactics to evade such international commitments.

 

Even at his press conference with the visiting UN Ambasadors on 17 June, al-Bashir's mouthpiece Foreign Minister Lam Akol emphasized that the government had broken no new ground - that the deal reflected what the GOS had been willing to support all along.  Then, in a speech to a domestic audience a couple of days later, al-Bashir reiterated familiar rejection of key points - UN command and control, large numbers of non-African UN boots on the ground - which supposedly he had agreed to "unconditionally."  Two weeks ago, at the time of the AU Summit in Accra, he told videoconference audiences around the world that he rejected any except the most nominal non-African role in the hybrid force and that, in essence, the UN could pay the bills but the AU alone would do the actual peacekeeping.

 

We have seen this all before.  We at the Save Darfur Coalition are working hard to press President Bush, Secretary-General Ban and other world leaders not to be fooled again.  We are running strong advertisements in key American media (see them here), and will run one aimed mainly at Secretary General-Ban in Tuesday's Washington newspaper, on the occasion of his visit here to meet President Bush. 

 

Pressing Mr. Ban is important for two reasons, but before I discuss that, here's the latest:  Reuters quotes Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig as telling reporters last Sunday that Sudan has "reservations" about the draft resolution before the Security Council.  What are they?  It's about the Chapter VII mandate, he said, claiming that this does not conform to the agreement reached by the UN and AU with Sudan on 12 June.

 

So, here we go again.  Khartoum "agrees," then claims it didn't agree to "that," then delays and obstructs, and finally reneges.  Months go by while the international community, in the end, does nothing; meanwhile, Darfurians continue to die.  As if to underscore the pattern, US envoy Andrew Natsios complained at the end of last week of renewed Sudanese air force bombing of villages, this time in the Jebel Mara region.

 

Either al-Bashir will get away with it again, or he won't.  He must not.  The responsibility for ensuring that does not happen rests on those who told us they had an "unconditional" deal with Khartoum last month.  That's Secretary-General Ban, and it is the Security Council member states, especially South Africa and Britain, whose Ambassadors all told us in Khartoum that this time, al-Bashir had really agreed.

 

Secretary-General Ban has two major responsibilities. 

 

The first is to blow the whistle on al-Bashir's incipient maneuvers to get out of this deal.  The warning signs are clear, from al-Bashir himself and from his spokesman.  We've seen the pattern before, many times.  Only firm leadership from Mr. Ban, demanding of the Security Council punitive measures for al-Bashir's failure to comply with every single element of the "agreement," including real UN command and control, no restrictions on troop nationality or numbers, and at least as strong a mandate as was in Resolution 1706, will save Mr. Ban from the shame and disgrace of having brokered a phony deal, on the backs of vulnerable Darfurians, so early in his tenure.

 

Second, Mr. Ban must press his Secretariat officials in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to work toward the earliest deployment of elements of the peacekeeping force.  This is not happening now.  DPKO is instead insisting that all 19,000-plus peacekeepers must be ready to deploy before any of them can.  What that means is no new peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur before next spring.  That's not only not good enough, but it departs from past UN practice, in which DPKO traditionally has deployed troops progressively.  The incremental deployment of UN peacekeepers in other operations contributed importantly to progressive creation of a secure environment, and it can certainly do the same in Darfur.

 

There is no reason that the first UNAMID troops and police could not be on the ground in Darfur by the time world leaders gather in New York in September for the UN General Assembly.  That would be a worthy deadline for Mr. Ban to set to show his "deal" has substance. Activists should press him for it, and press their governments for such action.

 

World leaders share a heavy responsibility.  It was Ambassadors of Security Council members who told us they had "unconditional agreement" from al-Bashir.  It was they who deferred Security Council consideration of mandatory targeted sanctions, based on that deal.  South Africa was strong in so arguing; so was China; and the British - who had led the sanctions effort - agreed.  China tells us it played a unique leading role in getting al-Bashir to agree to the full hybrid force.

 

They all said it.  Now they need to hold al-Bashir, and Mr. Ban, to that deal.  They need to be prepared to impose heavy punitive sanctions at the first sign of Khartoum's obstruction and delay.  They must not delude themselves and tell us that al-Bashir is serious, when the contrary is obvious from Khartoum's own words and the weight of experience.  And they need to assist DPKO in recruiting troops and police for the hybird mission, and then press DPKO to get those forces onto the ground progressively and fast.  China, in its leadership role this month, and claiming to have midwifed al-Bashir's "unconditional agreement," has a particular responsibility here, but all others claiming concern about Darfur and influence over Khartoum are equally responsible for the outcome.

 

Mr. Ban and many world leaders tell us their efforts have brought the Darfur crisis to a turning point.  Their claims, and their integrity as leaders, are going to be tested by al-Bashir.  They can enforce compliance this time, or they can once again abdicate their responsibility.  We as advocates will continue to demand firm international action, finally.  The people of Darfur need nothing less.  Because while al-Bashir lies, Darfurians die.

Each month, we will be highlighting the work of a different activist who has demonstrated exceptional creativity and drive in their efforts to raise awareness about the genocide in Darfur. The Darfur Heroes program will strive to both celebrate those who are taking it upon themselves to make a difference and inspire others to do the same through stories of individual activism. To read more about July's Darfur Hero, Angelica Schwartz, please visit: http://www.savedarfur.org/section/heroes_archive/julys_darfur_hero/.

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator

Those in global civil society working to end to the genocide in Darfur, and the conflict within which it has been pursued by the Khartoum regime, have long argued that there are three essential elements to a durable solution: (1) a ceasefire that is respected, (2) credible and effective protection for civilians, and (3) an inclusive and fair political process among all the engaged Sudanese actors to address the resource and power distribution grievances of the people of Darfur.

 

These are all indispensable elements.  There is often debate about which of these takes "priority."  But the reality is, all are essential, and the international community must bring more pressure on Khartoum to achieve all three. 

 

This weekend, the political process will take center stage when key countries assemble again in Tripoli.

 

Most attention recently has been focused on peacekeepers.  Only the United Nations, with its proven peacekeeping capacities, can provide credible and effective protection to the people of Darfur, and create the security space in which a political process can be pursued with limits on the scope of spoilers to disrupt it.  In generous deference to overdrawn Sudanese sensitivities, the international community agreed last November to an unprecedented UN-AU "hybrid" peacekeeping force, but with core UN conditions on mandate, command and control and size and composition of the force.

 

President al-Bashir supposedly agreed to the "hybrid" force without condition on 12 June.  At least, that's what the UN Secretary General and key Security Council Ambassadors told us.  They are busy working to assemble the troops and police for the Phase III  "hybrid force" and to enact a new Security Council resolution.  But al-Bashir himself has, in terms identical to his pre-12 June rhetoric, still rejected UN command and control and any meaningful role for non-African UN troops. 

 

No wonder global civil society is deeply skeptical, and demands that world leaders enforce compliance from al-Bashir or impose real sanctions if not to end impunity.  Noted observers like Nicholas Kristoff and Eric Reeves remind us of the human cost to Darfurians of international pusillanimity.  Civil society activists will do well to read those articles, and to be guided by the analysis of what effective peacekeeping requires provided by the ENOUGH Project.

 

A real Darfur peace process also needs more international engagement.  We must demand no less.  UN Envoy Jan Eliasson and AU Envoy Salim Ahmed Salim have been working since January, but too sporadically, on a "roadmap"  for the process.  Libya hosted interested countries in late April, with Sudan present, and Eliasson and Salim have just announced a second meeting in Tripoli for 15 July.  Eliasson said that he hopes the "pre-negotiation period" of shuttle diplomacy can begin there, and the "convergence phase" can conclude.  The "roadmap's" August deadline for peace talks to begin will not be met, but Eliasson hopes for agreement on which rebel movements to invite.

 

Certainly, that is a challenge - the rebel movements have fragmented in the political vacuum since the abortive 2006 Abuja Darfur Peace Agreement, and under constant pressure of Government attacks and wedge-driving.  That has increased insecurity in Darfur, not least for humanitarian aid, which makes the political process urgent. 

 

But, as with peacekeeping, so also with the political process, care is needed to ensure it is fair and worthwhile.  World leaders will be tempted to appease Khartoum.  They must insist on basic standards to avoid repeating the disastrous consequences of Abuja. 

 

These peace talks must be without excessive precondition.  Khartoum pretends that the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement must be the unchanged basis for any new settlement.  That must be rejected.  The DPA was too flawed to be a fair basis for agreement without serious renegotiation. And the rebel movements must be willing to move off opening positions, in a spirit of true negotiation, while defending legitimate interests. 

 

Useful talks also require unstinting Khartoum cooperation with the UN and AU on the full "hybrid" peacekeeping force, and on swift international pressure on al-Bashir when he reneges.  Without al-Bashir's compliance on the peacekeeping force, his commitments in the peace process will not be credible to the rebel movements, nor indeed could they be to any fair observer.

 

Similarly, the international community must demand that Khartoum finally respect the ceasefires it agreed in Abuja and again in January with Governor Bill Richardson.  Unless Khartoum, the major spoiler, is brought to heel, no rebel movement will maintain the discipline needed for a successful process, and these peace efforts will surely founder.

 

Above all, a formula must be developed to ensure the adequate representation of the people of Darfur in this process.  No last minute, perfunctory representation of Darfur's  women like at Abuja, but their genuine engagement to ensure that the eventual peace agreement addresses their and their children's needs, and not just the interests of the Government, rebel movements or neighboring states.

 

The political process to be stimulated in Tripoli this weekend must be one that can bring durable peace and a just future to the people of Darfur.  Civil society activists worldwide must monitor this process carefully and demand of world leaders that it be fair and real.

Real Peacekeeping for Darfur - Still an Uncertain Prospect

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator 

The ENOUGH Project, a member organization of the Save Darfur Coalition, has just released a succinct and useful strategy paper on "Peacekeeping for Protection and Peace in Darfur." (Read ENOUGH's paper.) As we activists monitor the confusing processes following Khartoum's 12 June "agreement" to accept "unconditionally" the full UN-AU hybrid peacekeeping force, ENOUGH's paper is an important tool to help us urge swift international action - and careful planning and management - to ensure the proposed AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force gets onto the ground and is effective.

 

Khartoum continues to make conflicting and contradictory statements regarding the peacekeeping force. Different world leaders are showing wavering commitments to hold President al-Bashir to the 12 June "agreement." We - world civil society - must press for international unity and resolve to ensure the ultimate effectiveness and success of peacekeeping so the people of Darfur are, finally, genuinely protected, and so Darfur, finally, can find peace.

 

The ENOUGH paper describes six elements essential to effective hybrid peacekeeping:

 

1. A robust mandate to protect the people of Darfur;

2. UN management (command and control) of the mission;

3. Manpower drawn from throughout the world, not just Africa;

4. Logistical and air support for adequate mobility;

5. A methodology that includes robust civilian and political elements; and

6. Money to sustain the AU force and fully fund the hybrid AU/UN force.

 

The strategy paper also reminds us that peacekeepers in Darfur alone will not end this tragedy. It reiterates our calls for simultaneous efforts to protect vulnerable civilians in eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. ENOUGH underscores the urgent need for a political process to foster a just and durable settlement between the Government and the rebel movements in Darfur, a process that allows a full voice to the people of Darfur themselves. And it insists that the international community immediately put pressure on Khartoum - real targeted sanctions hitting the real leadership - if, once again, President al-Bashir reneges on the agreement.

 

That time may not be far off. In a speech to a domestic audience right after the UN Security Council Ambassadors visited Khartoum and announced that al-Bashir had affirmed unconditionally his "agreement," al-Bashir said differently - that he continued to oppose UN command and control and wanted few if any non-African UN troops. The UN spokeswoman reacted by stating that al-Bashir was describing an "agreement" different from that reached on 12 June.

 

We've seen this cycle before. As if to make sure we did not miss his point, al-Bashir held a videoconference on 30 June that broadcast to a global audience, in which he told viewers that the "AU insists, and we agree, that the UN pays, and the AU does everything else." He later reiterated: "The UN...we are waiting for them to commit the money to the force ... Primarily an African force...a few non-Africans...cooks and drivers and the like."

 

It's evident - more of the same Khartoum lies. This time, the UN Secretary-General and the UN member states must demand unconditional implementation of the "agreement" that Mr. Ban so proudly proclaimed just three weeks ago, and must impose punishment on Khartoum - as discussed by ENOUGH. The impunity must end. President al-Bashir's scorched earth war against the people of Darfur must be ended.

 

This is what the Foreign Ministers conference in Paris on 25 June was meant to catalyze. While, as I described in my last blog, the outcome seemed meagre, the statement the next day by the French Foreign Ministry spokesman was more encouraging: there was "convergence" in all participants' analysis of the need for fast movement on getting the UN/AU peacekeepers on the ground, as "agreed" by Sudan, and for a new UN Security Council resolution to underpin that. And there was agreement on the urgent need to implement the joint AU/UN "roadmap" for the Darfur political process, which sets out a rigorous timeline and balanced process.

 

President Sarkozy addressed attendees last week with the challenge that "silence kills" but also seemed to recognize that slowness kills. Concerned states were challenged to take away immediate tasks and to show rapid results. This could be an encouraging invigoration of diplomacy. Already, since the Paris Ministerial, we are being told that Ministers are pushing forward practical assistance to expedite the deployment of the UN/AU hybrid force, to secure agreement to a security force for Chad, and to push the political process. The UN peacekeeping department has hosted a preparatory meeting to mobilize troop contributions for the hybrid force and the EU has sent an envoy to AMIS to facilitate funding for the AU forces in the meantime.

 

We are already seeing fast movement toward a new UN Security Council resolution. It has to be clear on the key issues - a strong civilian protection mandate, genuine UN command and control, that both African and non-African troops will comprise the hybrid force - all the key elements of a successful peacekeeping Mission that ENOUGH outlines, all the elements that al-Bashir has resisted for months, all the elements he supposedly "agreed" to when the Security Council Ambassadors visited Khartoum.

 

And even more than a strong resolution - the member countries of the Security Council, the UN Secretary General and the AU Commission Chairman all have to manifest the real political will to enforce that "agreement" and require implementation of their new resolution, and to impose the stiffest penalties and harshest pressure as al-Bashir obstructs and reneges.

 

For four years, it has been that last element - political will to end mass murder and displacement in Darfur - that has been lacking. The people of Darfur have paid a terrible price for diplomatic disorder and weakness, for world leaders' indifference or self-delusion. That must now end. The UN has told us it has an "agreement." It is up to the UN - its Secretary General, its member states - to enforce that "agreement." If they don't, they will be as much to blame as Khartoum's regime for the death and displacement in Darfur.

 

The time for global leadership to end Darfur's agony is now.

"Silence" is not killing Darfurians.  Inaction is.

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator 

In a long-overdue initiative, France hosted an "expanded Contact Group" meeting of Foreign Ministers in Paris yesterday.  Apart from all the G8 members, China, Egypt, the UN, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the World Bank and African Development Bank were among important additional participants.

 

The ministerial marked another concrete step in France's increasing engagement on Darfur.  As the French pointed out in preparing the meeting, the time was right for several reasons, including Sudan's "agreement" to accept the full hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force. The focus should have been on agreeing a concrete program to ensure Khartoum lives up to the peacekeepers "agreement."

 

Calls to action and expressions of regret for past failures abounded:

 

Ø      President Sarkozy told the ministers, "As human beings, and as politicians, we must resolve the crisis in Darfur.  Silence kills.  We want to mobilize the international community to say 'enough is enough.'"

 

Ø      Secretary of State Rice was "... very frank. I do not think that the international community has really lived up to its responsibilities here.  Ultimately this is going to come down to will.  Are we prepared to make the difficult choices in the international system that will, I believe, persuade and compel Khartoum to do what it must?  I'd like to have everybody, the Chinese included, tell the Sudanese in no uncertain terms that there is no other option and that they need to stop agreeing to terms and then trying to scale them back."

It appears, regrettably, that little concrete was agreed at the Paris meeting.

 

"Silence" has not been the killer in Darfur.  Global inaction has.  World leaders have competed to denounce the death and displacement of Darfur's innocent civilians.  But they have done very little, certainly not enough to change Khartoum's calculations materially.  The regime's calculated campaign of killing and destruction continues today.  Nothing has changed Khartoum's expectation of impunity.

Let us hope, even if there is scant evidence, that the Paris meeting may have marked the start of a stronger, more unified international diplomacy.  Along with France and the United States, China has an extremely important role to play.  Many in the advocacy community had urged that these three countries pool their special influence with Sudan by forming a "troika" to bring an end to the Darfur conflict, in the same way that such a leadership team helped end the tragedy of South Sudan.  They did not, at least not visibly, but still they must, and can, make a difference following up on the Paris initiative. 

How can they make a real difference at long last?

Ø      Let these three countries, and all those who assembled in Paris, jointly press Khartoum to fulfill its "agreement" to the full UN/AU hybrid force to Darfur.  Let them punish Khartoum fast for non-compliance.  Let them lead the UN in assembling, funding and deploying the peacekeepers.

UN Secretary-General Ban, so quick to declare personal victory, should be the most vigilant for first signs of al-Bashir's backsliding.  Al-Bashir himself has never publicly stated his acceptance of the 12 June "agreement."  We were told by others, notably Ambassadors Kumalo and Jones Parry, that he had agreed to it.  But then in a domestic speech, al-Bashir already has rejected UN command-and-control and an equal role for non-African troops in the hybrid force.  The UN spokeswoman said his comments contradicted the "agreement." 

This should be no surprise.  It is why we have been so skeptical of this "agreement."  Khartoum is famous for making, then breaking, such deals.  Early signs are that al-Bashir is doing it again.  Ban, the AU's Alpha Oumar Konare, and all the Security Council Ambassadors told the world they had a real deal this time.  Well, it's up to Ban and the others to prove us activists wrong.  If Ban, Konare, Ambassadors Kumalo and Jones Parry and the rest of them allow al-Bashir to wiggle out yet again, with impunity, the shame will be on them.  But Darfurians will pay for their weakness, with their lives.

Ø      Let those who assembled in Paris also take other steps need to end this tragedy, acknowledging that peacekeepers are a necessary, but not sufficient, element of a solution to the Darfur conflict.    

o       The Chinese stated Khartoum's readiness for honest dialogue with rebel movements.  Let Beijing then work with Paris and Washington, along with Chad, Eritrea and Sudan's Arab neighbors, to foster a peace process with no unfair preconditions, as Khartoum has demanded.  Let them demand more active engagement by the UN and AU Special Envoys. 

o       Let them demand an end to Khartoum's obstruction of humanitarian aid, and to its illegal painting of its aircraft white, in violation of international humanitarian law. 

o       Let them demand compliance with, and themselves respect, the UN arms embargo.

o       Let them achieve protection for refugees and aid workers in Eastern Chad. 

In sum, let our countries go far beyond ending "silence.  Let them end "inaction" in the face of genocide.  Let them stop permitting Khartoum to break its "agreements" with impunity.  Let them act, together and with determination, to end the Darfur tragedy.  Let them do so now.

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator

 “That’s done – what a relief!”  After all al-Bashir’s months of rejection, the denouement seems anti-climactic.  Five months of quiet diplomacy, often “far from public view,” and Mr. Ban so easily sweeps aside obstacles others could not.  Just in time to mollify the visiting Security Council ambassadors, and defuse growing pressure for targeted economic sanctions!

 

And now, advises an explicitly self-satisfied Mr. Ban, we can fight the real culprit in Darfur – climate change! – not genocide, or the janjaweed, or even the center-periphery injustices that have fostered instability in Sudan for 50 years. 

 

Forgive my skepticism here, but the Save Darfur Coalition and I share widespread concern that al-Bashir is the winner in this deal, not the people of Darfur.  Last week, 36 organizations from around the world, with long experience of Khartoum’s duplicity, chided Mr. Ban for weakening the diplomacy of his predecessor and of countries trying to stop the tragedy, and urged him instead to lead a global effort to end Khartoum’s war against Darfur’s people by joining pressure to diplomacy.  Experts expressed concern to Reuters that the “agreement” was bought at the price of weakening key elements of the hybrid force that Kofi Annan had insisted upon and would do nothing for the people of Darfur. 

 

Sudan’s Foreign Minister summed up why I am so cynical when he told reporters “I can tell you that we, together with the United Nations and the African Union, will work together to resolve the problems in Darfur.  This tripartite cooperation should ... not come as a surprise because we all aim to achieve peace and stability in Darfur.” 

 

Khartoum has killed up to 400,000 innocents in Darfur, and now we are supposed to believe that the regime is part of the solution, because “we all aim to achieve peace and stability in Darfur?” 

 

Well, I don’t buy that.  Let’s not be starry-eyed, dreaming that the only problem left to solve is climate change.  Over 2 million Darfurians remain vulnerable in camps.  While we wait to see if al-Bashir has duped the diplomats yet again, Sudan’s air force and the janjaweed are still attacking villages.  Oxfam’s departure from Gereida camp is, in human terms, the real story from the last week.  It should temper the mutual congratulations of the Secretary General and the Security Council diplomats. 

 

Effective pressure on Khartoum requires, now more than ever, coherent and muscular global diplomacy.  The regime will fulfill its “agreement” only if a high cost is imposed for non-compliance.  Anyone, the Secretary General or anyone else, who thinks that he found a magic key to al-Bashir’s heart without materially changing that regime’s cold calculations has an exaggerated idea of his own persuasive gift, and a blindness to history’s lessons in Sudan. 

 

We look forward to the June 25 Paris meeting of an “expanded Contact Group” convened by the French government precisely to build effective diplomacy on Darfur.  The Ministers there assembled must not pause to celebrate the wonderful “agreement” reached with Sudan.  The time has come for those with the most influence over Khartoum, the rebels and Sudan’s neighbors to take a joint leadership role to end this tragedy, in the same “troika” formula that led successful muscular diplomacy to end the South Sudan civil war. 

 

America is increasingly irritated and has just tightened its sanctions.  France is newly engaged and has real interests in ending this conflict.  China is under growing pressure to live up to its Olympic “One World, One Dream” theme by making its Khartoum client stop the nightmare in Darfur.  The three countries have a converging interest in ending the Darfur conflict.  Working together, they can leverage real progress. 

 

Our Coalition is urging Secretary Rice to work in Paris to form that “troika.” 

 

If last week’s hybrid force “agreement” was not an out-and-out lie by Khartoum, then China, France and the United States must lead the international community in ensuring that deal is fulfilled by Khartoum, and that the hybrid force is rapidly deployed. 

 

And if al-Bashir’s “yes” proves to have been his latest lie, as we fear, then that “troika” will be indispensable to stop Darfur’s agony before more aid agencies are forced out, before hundreds of thousands more die or are displaced, and before the conditions for a political settlement completely disappear.

 

 

Ambassador Larry Rossin, Save Darfur Coalition senior international coordinator 

It is a measure of the increasing insistence of civil society pressure that G8 leaders meeting this week in Heiligendamm, Germany, put Darfur on their agenda and issued a statement calling for an end to the conflict.  Not many weeks ago, having it on the agenda was uncertain; up until some days ago, it was not agreed that there would be a statement.  Bear in mind that this puts Russia, as well as the Western industrialized powers, on record.

 

The statement itself is a typically “diplomatic.”  Sharp edges smoothed off.  Most who know the history of the conflict would find the wording excessively genteel toward the Sudanese government and too even-handed between the government and rebel movements.  Courtesy to those pursuing a war against their own people is not obligatory.  “Balance” can go overboard when it is well-documented that the responsibility for as many as 400,000 dead and over 2 million displaced rests overwhelmingly with Khartoum.  The rebel movements bear their own responsibilities for this conflict, but the onus must remain on al-Bashir and his cronies for Darfur’s genocide.

 

Within the diplomatic wording, there are however three important pledges:

 

1) “...we will support efforts to bring the perpetrators of atrocities to justice.”  This must mean full support for the investigative and prosecutorial efforts of the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor.  All governments must provide all available information and assistance to his critical work.

 

2) “We ... will undertake, in coordination with the African Union and the United Nations, to identify options for improving humanitarian access.”  With well over 1 million Darfurians beyond the reach of aid, according to the UN, and with the scope for humanitarian aid shrinking due to security threats and government obstruction, this pledge must be acted upon urgently lest it be lethal hypocrisy.  First, it must mean real pressure on Khartoum, the likes of which has never been applied, to get the full UN/AU hybrid peacekeeping force accepted by President al-Bashir.  Second, it must mean development and, if feasible, implementation of concrete steps to assure such access, whether along the lines recently broachedby France’s new Foreign Minister, or in some other way.  Summit paper will not bring succour to millions in need in Darfur, nor security to courageous aid workers laboring under threat every day.

 

3) “We look forward to the visit to Khartoum by the UN Security Council, planned for 17 June.  We urge the Government of Sudan to take this critical opportunity to express its full acceptance of the Hybrid Operation. ...  If the government of Sudan or the rebel movements continue to fail to meet their obligations, we will support appropriate action in the Security Council.”  If Khartoum fails to meet its obligations?  When has it ever fulfilled any of its multiple obligations in the last four years?  Let the UN Security Council visit Khartoum this week, and let it demand then and there that al-Bashir “express his full acceptance of the Hybrid Operation,” as negotiated seven months to the day previously in Addis Ababa.  And if al-Bashir gives anything less than a clear “yes,” or if he reneges once the Council members are gone, then let Russia, and America, and France and the UK and the rest of the UN give him the only appropriate response – “action in the Security Council” in the form of mandatory, global, stringent targeted sanctions against all the Sudanese leaders responsible for that defiance and for the most monstrous crimes in Darfur.

 

If anything less than that results from the G8 Summit, then my father’s favorite saying about political leaders will have been proven true: “Out of mouths, come words.”  And the people of Darfur will continue their agony.

Darfur: Unhelpful media diversions
Andrew Stroehlein

Over the past few months, some media attention on Darfur has shifted away from the issue itself and on to the activist movement and its cast of characters. At the risk of navel-gazing, it seems worth a quick summary, because it leads, hopefully, to some lessons for all of us in the NGO sector.

The problem first seemed to develop -- at least from my European perspective -- in France, where Darfur activists and intellectuals trying to capture public attention with their pet proposals in the midst of a heated presidential campaign spent weeks attacking each other in public meetings and on the pages of the major dailies. Writing in openDemocracy, K A Dilday captured the mood back in April:

“…while the subject-matter is serious, the argument has still had the whiff of narcissism, as the crème of the French leftist intelligentsia took potshots at each other in the name of Darfurian victims”

The movement and the personalities became the story.

Then the problem moved to the US, where major stories in top papers focused last week on divisions in the activist community over Save Darfur Coalition’s extensive ad campaigns and on the dismissal of Save Darfur director David Rubenstein. (see, for example, the piece in The New York Times or the one in the Washington Post)

Speculation over the rifts inside the broader movement drifted into the blogosphere, where various angles of the matter were dissected and discussed -- including an inspired attempt to demonstrate a similarity between Rubenstein’s case and the case of euthanasia advocate Jack Kevorkian.

Once again, the core issue of Darfur and how to resolve the crisis was lost. As in France, the movement had become the story.

Why has this been happening lately? Scepticism about money spent on pricy adverts -- which I have to admit, I share to some extent -- has been standard NGO chatter for as long as I can remember money being spent on pricy adverts, so it was hardly a big journalistic scoop. I suspect part of the new attention is just ordinary primate behaviour: the transfer of attention from ideas to egos is just inevitable when a motivating concept becomes a movement populated by people with motives. But that does not exactly explain why now.

Reflecting on the success of the wider Darfur movement -- and I mean that in the big tent sense, inside which I certainly have to include myself, having worked media for three and a half years on this issue, though not exclusively -- I think a certain frustration may be setting in that is also to blame.

The issue has ripened and people both inside and outside the movement are starting to ask: what has it all achieved? I don’t just mean the ads, but the op-eds, the speeches, the quotes, the interviews, the movie star endorsements and helping journalists get to the region? This massive media effort has raised the issue of Darfur without question. The message is clearly getting out there, but as I’ve written before;

“…non-governmental organisations such as the International Crisis Group have been ringing alarm-bells for over three years, yet effective international action to stop the state-sponsored violence has not materialised.”

Has wide-spread public knowledge in the US and Europe resolved the crisis? The answer is clearly no. The problem persists. In fact, over the past year, when media attention has never been greater, the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur has only deteriorated, the essential deployment of the AU/UN hybrid force to protect civilians remains elusive, and the peace process is moribund.

We’ve run up against the limits of what media work can achieve: everyone knows about a horrific problem, but that does not translate into effective action to stop it. The frustration in the NGO world is not new, of course. I wrote about this “Darfur Disconnect” almost a year ago in my blog, saying:

“…the basic equation so many of us work under, that public knowledge equals political action, has fallen apart”.

I don’t think anything has improved in the intervening year, either.

But more importantly for our discussion here, the media are getting frustrated, too. They don’t see movement in the political or humanitarian sides of the story, and so their attention naturally turns elsewhere: to the players, to those people they have been talking with about Darfur for years and who are now known names in an activist microcosm. In the absence of news, the drama switches from suffering to soap opera.

***

I remember talking to journalists in early 2004 and showing them where Darfur was on a map of Sudan only to realise I should have brought along a map of Africa to show them where Sudan was. I no longer have any conversations like that. We -- again, big tent “we”, not just my organisation -- put Darfur on the Western media map. But that was never the goal.

The aim was supposed to be to spark effective political action to resolve the conflict and start to reverse the catastrophe, not just create front row seats for the world to watch Darfur’s suffering.

About the only thing we can say for sure in our defence so far is that increased media attention world wide has almost certainly resulted in more donations to aid agencies working in Darfur. That is no small feat: we’ve helped save some lives.

To get back to the core business of ending the crisis through effective political action, those of us working media on this issue should take note of a few things:

1.    Don’t give up, but don’t keep hitting your head against the same wall either. For those, like me, who budget their time between various disaster zones, it always pays to evaluate priorities: is an hour spent on crisis A as effective as an hour spent on crisis B? For those who focus solely on Darfur, ask yourself similarly hard questions about every media effort: is there another, more useful aspect of this I could be working on? Am I just going through the motions here out of inertia?

2.    Don’t feed the beast with internal intrigues. It is tempting to gossip with journalists -- many old friends -- about the who and how, but if it only results in a newspaper article about personalities rather than issues, you’ve wasted your time. Always direct journalists back to the real story as quickly as possible.

3.    Keep focused, yet realistic. Understand that massive media attention is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for political action to happen.

***

Not very long ago, I was on a conference call with a half dozen or so other senior NGO media people discussing Darfur in relation to a particular upcoming political meeting and our associated advocacy goals. After exhausting some preliminary ideas, someone asked if anyone had anything fresh. Silence. Every person on that line has been working media on Darfur for years: liaising with journalists, pitching stories, setting up events, organising speakers, arranging media stunts, placing op-eds in newspapers… between us, there is nothing we haven’t tried.

On the one hand, that sounds pretty depressing: so much effort for little result on the ground. But, on the other hand, not one person on that call was about to give up. Darfur is still too important to ignore, and we all know we will help convince the world into action, even if it takes us longer than we would like and longer than basic decency demands.

(this is a cross post with my “Covering crisis” blog at Reuters AlertNet)

AS


=============

Cross-posted at Globe for Darfur

Amb. (ret.) Lawrence Rossin, Senior International Coordinator at the Save Darfur Coalition, is responsible for designing and leading implementation of the Coalition’s outreach to foreign governments and non-governmental organizations to advocate on behalf of the people of Darfur. Rossin joined the Coalition after serving as Assistant Secretary General and Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, and as part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. He has also served in a number of diplomatic positions in the U.S. Department of State.

When President Bush and PM Blair gave their joint press conference in the White House Rose Garden last week, there was much talk of legacy. With Tony Blair to leave office at the end of June, and George Bush only a year and half away, both leaders were eager to highlight their achievements and how they wish to be remembered.

On Darfur, though, both proclaimed a shared frustration at what they called the inability of the international community to react with consequence in Darfur.  

I could not help but think that, if President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had shown more leadership and led the way on sanctions on Darfur over the last four years, many lives could have been saved.  The Sudanese regime has had a free ride for a very long time, thumbing its nose at the international community again and again as it attacked its own people and harassed the humanitarian workers in Darfur, with impunity.  Too much talk, too little pressure on Khartoum.  And too little effort to build a structured, coherent and muscular international diplomacy to change all that.

But now the President has acted.  At long last, he has imposed stronger targeted sanctions against the Sudanese leadership – the so-called “Plan B” that had been promised, but not delivered, for months.  We all need to watch closely to ensure that the Administration actually enforces these sanctions, and devotes the manpower and intelligence resources needed to make them effective.

 We here in America also need to press for more.  While doing something, finally, is a good start, it is likely to be no more than that.  I really doubt that these sanctions alone – still less than what they could be, and only hitting three people – and one of them a rebel movement leader – will be enough to change Khartoum’s behavior. President Bush needs to set a deadline – a short deadline – for al-Bashir to deliver a real end to the genocide in Darfur and real facilitation of UN peacekeepers.  And President Bush needs to begin preparing new, stronger measures now, so that if the deadline passes without the demanded actions, these added measures can be imposed right away.  The people of Darfur cannot wait months and months more.  The Khartoum regime deserves no such consideration.

George Bush and Tony Blair, and, when he takes office, Gordon Brown must turn all their efforts to achieving a strong mandatory UN Security Council sanctions resolution.  Strong US and EU sanctions can make a difference and are well worth enacting.  Global UN sanctions would obviously be even better, and need real diplomatic engagement to be voted. 

The entry into office of the new French President and his naming of Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner are good news in this regard.  I deeply admire Bernard Kouchner.  I knew of him from his work founding Medecins sans Frontieres.  We worked together in Kosovo when he headed the UN Mission and I ran the US diplomatic office in 1999. I met him again in Paris this March, and found him as energetically engaged as ever in working to make human rights protections real everywhere, including Darfur.  He was a powerful speaker at a rally sponsored by the Collectif Urgence Darfour.  He embodies real commitment to the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect.”

I am gratified but not at all surprised to see Minister Kouchner speaking out already, now calling for the creation of a Contact Group of nations with influence regarding Darfur, to bring concerted international pressure onto Khartoum to end this deadly conflict and to secure humanitarian aid flows until then.  He is calling for countries like China and Egypt, Eritrea and Russia, as well as South Africa, the United States, France and others to engage in this process.  He and I know from our Balkans experience that a Contact Group mechanism is cumbersome, but also that it sustained broad international engagement and aligned policies.  It helped end Balkans wars; a similar group helped end the South Sudan tragedy; such a Contact Group can play a role for Darfur too.  We believe his initiative can be well-received in Cairo, Pretoria and other key capitals.  It merits strong activist advocacy.

President Sarkozy has said that China must play a key role in solving this catastrophe.  He is right.  China’s economic, military and political support for Khartoum is not offset by its ambivalent engagement regarding Darfur.  Once again during its new Envoy’s visit to Sudan, China’s messages have been inappropriate if the goal is to end the death and displacement in Darfur.  Bringing China into a global effort to end the genocide is critically important.  The rising international movement linking China’s role in facilitating Khartoum’s killing in Darfur with the Olympics and with divestment efforts will not end unless China acts, by forceful engagement for Darfur’s survival. 

We’ve seen some encouraging developments – the U.S. announcement of new sanctions, the new interest in Darfur from President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner, indications that Germany has Darfur high on the G8 Summit agenda.  But we also see the same defiance from Khartoum regarding deployment of UN peacekeepers.  The G8 Summit in a few days will be an ideal venue to show new resolve to end the Darfur genocide.  I hope these encouraging new developments will not turn to ash, as so often before.  The Bush-Blair legacy on Darfur requires more.  Merkel has a chance to show she can achieve something concrete on the world stage.  Sarkozy and Kouchner can demonstrate what France can do with strong, visionary leaders.  Above all, the people of Darfur need, and deserve, better, now.

Cross-posted at Globe for Darfur

Amb. (ret.) Lawrence Rossin, Senior International Coordinator at the Save Darfur Coalition, is responsible for designing and leading implementation of the Coalition’s outreach to foreign governments and non-governmental organizations to advocate on behalf of the people of Darfur. Rossin joined the Coalition after serving as Assistant Secretary General and Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, and as part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. He has also served in a number of diplomatic positions in the U.S. Department of State.

This week, EU and Russian leaders will meet in Samara for the bi-annual EU-Russian Summit.  They have an important agenda: gas and oil supply shocks, reducing CO2 emissions targets, human rights issues, Kosovo, Iran and the Middle East. 

Worthy matters indeed.  But where is ending the genocide in Darfur?  Why has the EU failed to put this on the agenda?  If the situation in Darfur is “unacceptable,” as Chancellor Merkel said in Washington on April 30, then shouldn’t the German Presidency want to raise it with Russia, given Moscow’s role in abetting the genocide and potential to help end it?

China’s ties to Sudan are getting an increasing amount of international attention, and rightly so.  Its cozy political, economic and military relations with Khartoum have provided President al-Bashir protection and resources he uses to pursue killing in Darfur.  Even being generous, those ties contradicted whatever “quiet diplomacy” Beijing may pursue.   Pressure on Beijing should grow until China wields its influence to end the genocide.

Russia’s role gets a lot less attention.  It deserves more.  It too enjoys good political relations with Khartoum.  It too has run interference for Sudan in the Security Council.  And, as Amnesty International reported last week, Moscow too has an active arms supply relationship with Sudan.  This violates Resolutions 1556 and 1591, as documented both by this Amnesty report and by the UN’s own Panel of Experts in its report leaked to the New York Times in late April. 

Russia rejected the Amnesty report immediately, but offered no contrary argumentation.  It knows that the arms it is supplying are being used to pursue the genocide in Darfur – it was among those Security Council members who blocked the release of the Panel of Experts report which documents that.  An inconvenient report – fortunately, someone in the UN system did the right thing and leaked the report.

So, the EU could have much to discuss with Russia on Darfur.  Ending those violations of the UN arms embargo.  And lobbying Russia to support tough mandatory targeted sanctions, as are now being proposed by the British government in the Security Council. 

Germany and many EU members say that EU sanctions alone won’t work – that prior UN sanctions action is needed to make EU sanctions meaningful.  But the EU is doing nothing to demonstrate it means what it says.  One wonders what the Chancellor had in mind when at her joint press conference with President Bush on April 30, she said:

"And let me tell you that we have been talking at greater length also about the situation in Darfur, which we consider to be totally unacceptable, and that we need to do everything we can in order to help the people there on the ground who suffer immensely because we have not made progress so far, and that we ought to use all of our possibilities in order to achieve progress also in the United Nations."

Did she mean it when she said, in the joint US-EU statement at the end of the Summit:

"If no progress on a political solution or on the implementation of the hybrid-mission is achieved soon, we agree to support initiatives by the UNSC to work on a new UNSCR that imposes multilateral sanctions against individuals and Sudanese entities, extends the arms embargo and establishes the capacity to monitor and report on offensive flights that are inconsistent with the UNSCR 1591."

Certainly, Russia will not become helpful in ending the genocide of its own accord.  Hiding behind the difficulty of making the UN work, when countries like China and Russia hold strong hands, is evidently easier than working on those countries to get them to support what one claims to want.  The EU, just like the United States, needs to launch insistent diplomacy now, lest it like Russia be complicit in prolonging Darfur’s agony.

It seems likely that the opportunity Samara presented will go unused.  But then President Bush and Chancellor Merkel must use the G8 Summit in early June in Germany to make good on their tough Washington words about Darfur.  At that Summit, they should press Russia to work with them to end the killing, and then lead a real G8 commitment for the people of Darfur, to stop talking and start acting.  That’s really long overdue.

 

Cross-posted at Globe for Darfur

Amb. (ret.) Lawrence Rossin, Senior International Coordinator at the Save Darfur Coalition, is responsible for designing and leading implementation of the Coalition’s outreach to foreign governments and non-governmental organizations to advocate on behalf of the people of Darfur. Rossin joined the Coalition after serving as Assistant Secretary General and Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, and as part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. He has also served in a number of diplomatic positions in the U.S. Department of State.

PRESIDENT-ELECT SARKOZY’S COMMITMENTS ON DARFUR: France will soon have a new President.  On Sunday, 6 May, Nicolas Sarkozy was decisively elected, in a victory over Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal.  His victory culminated a tough campaign that presented clear ideological and policy choices to the people of France, with differences of style and substance in many key areas.

One area where the candidates agreed, however, was on the need for strong action to end the genocide in Darfur.  At a public meeting organized by the Collectif Urgence Darfur on March 21, which I had the honor of attending, candidate Sarkozy’s senior adviser Nicole Guedj joined Mme Royal and third-running candidate François Bayrou in signing a pledge to take action on Darfur, if elected.  That pledge contained eight elements that would put France in a leading role in mobilizing world pressure on Khartoum to ensure full humanitarian access, enable the deployment of peacekeepers, support the internal political process to achieve a durable end to the conflict.  Subsequently, candidate Sarkozy demanded a tightening of sanctions especially “against all those responsible for the prolongation of the conflict” and denounced the ill-will of the Sudanese regime. 

President-elect Sarkozy now has the opportunity, with evident broad support from the main parties, to make France a leader in ending the Darfur genocide.  France hitherto has not been a champion of stronger targeted economic sanctions on the Sudanese regime, whether in the European Union or United Nations.  As a leader of the EU and a permanent member of the Security Council, France can change the balance of forces in both bodies toward more assertive pressure on President al-Bashir to comply with commitments and international obligations.  With its direct engagement in Chad and influence throughout Africa, France can help mobilize African Union and Muslim world engagement in Darfur, and can facilitate no-fly zone measures to end bombing of Darfur’s villages by Sudan’s air force.

President-elect Sarkozy has it in his hands to save lives in Darfur.  He pledged on March 21 to act firmly if elected.  He has been elected.  Now it is his turn to act.

MUSLIM WORLD PUBLIC OPINION:  Polling has shown publics around the world wanting to see an end to the killing in Darfur, and in favor of firmer action to compel Khartoum to cooperate with the international community.  Most recently, important polling by the Arab-American Institute demonstrates that this concern extends to the Muslim world.  A poll taken in six Muslim countries – four Arab and two non-Arab states – indicates widespread concern about the ongoing crisis in Darfur, majority belief that this is not an internal Sudanese matter, support for intervention from other Muslim nations in Darfur and consensus that their countries should do more to help in Darfur.  The survey also reveals what sentiments most positively influence respondents’ support for intervention in Darfur, what international involvement policies were most strongly supported, their view of the role of the Arab media in the crisis, and more.

For more information, and access to the detailed poll data, visit AAI’s website.

DIVESTMENT:  The movement for divestment is gaining strength every day.  Last week, Florida became the latest American state to enact legislation directing its pension funds to end investments in funds or companies whose activity in or related to Sudan generates funds that support Khartoum’s pursuit of genocide in Darfur.  Ford announced that it will end the sale of Land Rovers in Sudan – Land Rovers have been used by the Sudanese government in its operations in Darfur.  Recently, Rolls-Royce announced it would end all operations in Sudan due to the Darfur genocide.  Pressure is growing on Fidelity Funds to end Sudan-related investments.  And while a shareholder motion to force the giant investment fund Berkshire Hathaway to use its investments in Petrochina to leverage more Chinese pressure on Khartoum failed last week, the issue was debated at BH’s annual meeting, and the campaign generated extensive press scrutiny of BH’s and Petrochina’s roles in supporting the genocide. 

This movement is spreading both in the United States and internationally.  It has the potential to shake up both Khartoum and Beijing while mobilizing new activists worldwide.  For further information on the US campaign, please visit the website Divest for Darfur; for more on the international campaign, visit Darfur Divestment Worldwide.  Bookmark these sites and return to them often; this effort is just starting to gain momentum and your opportunities to join it will expand quickly.

 

Cross-posted at Globe for Darfur

Amb. (ret.) Lawrence Rossin, Senior International Coordinator at the Save Darfur Coalition, is responsible for designing and leading implementation of the Coalition’s outreach to foreign governments and non-governmental organizations to advocate on behalf of the people of Darfur. Rossin joined the Coalition after serving as Assistant Secretary General and Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, and as part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. He has also served in a number of diplomatic positions in the U.S. Department of State.

This weekend’s third Global Day for Darfur was a powerful and timely expression of the worldwide demand for an end now to the genocide in Darfur, and for firm action by world leaders to achieve that critical goal.

From Austria to Mauritius to Jordan, Nigeria to Mongolia to Bahrain, Pittsburgh to Bamako to Budapest, and at over 400 locations in as many as 40 countries, people of conscience gathered at rallies, marches, “die-ins,” conferences, vigils and other events to demonstrate their solidarity with those suffering in Darfur and their impatience with governments that have failed to match action to their tough words about the killing, or indeed have failed to take any positive stand at all.  Everywhere, the call was for the immediate deployment of UN peacekeepers and for severe pressure on President al-Bashir and the other genocide authors to end their obstruction.  From event to event, participants also called for pressure on China and Arab League states to use their influence to change Khartoum’s behavior, for strong and comprehensive sanctions targeted at Sudan’s leadership to change their calculations, for imposition of a no-fly zone to prevent Sudanese aerial bombardment, for divestment by companies and funds from investments that help underwrite the Sudanese government’s genocide, and/or for more effective support for humanitarian aid and access to all the people of Darfur for aid workers. 

The diversity of action calls, linked by the thread of demands for peacekeepers now, underscored the core message of all these worldwide events:  “Time is up.”  Time is certainly running out for the vulnerable displaced in Darfur and for those hundreds of thousands beyond the reach of aid, as this tragedy goes into its fifth year.  And it should definitely be up for the Khartoum regime.

Yet the willingness of our leaders to read the best into President al-Bashir’s actions, or hope past reason, seems endless.  Many countries – not just China, Russia and South Africa, but also Germany and many other EU member states – are showing their gratitude to al-Bashir for his tardy acceptance of the incremental, 3,000-strong UN “Phase II Heavy Support Package,” by opposing sanctions that might achieve deployment of the full Phase III, 22,500-strong peacekeeping force and to end the killing.  The United States is still dallying – how many more “weeks” will President Bush give Ban Ki-moon’s diplomacy, when the Secretary-General can describe no imminent progress with al-Bashir?  Has he forgotten what his own Special Envoy Andrew Natsios told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month, that Ban had asked for and been granted “two to four weeks” at the beginning of April for his diplomacy?  That time is up.  The famous “Plan B” sanctions and more than that should be imposed this week.   And how can Mr. Natsios, claim that Sudan is “falling into line” on the full Phase III peacekeeping force deployment, as he did this week from a conference in Libya?  President al-Bashir may be the only international leader speaking clearly on Darfur – he “just says ‘no,’” again and again.  And he gets away with it, again and again.

President Bush, Mr. Natsios, President Hu, President Mubarak, Chancellor Merkel, Secretary-General Ban and all those with the ability to change Khartoum’s behavior and make it end this genocide would do well to heed the tens of thousands of voices raised around the world this weekend.  Those people of conscience have been right all along.  Following their calls for action would take our governments past their moral ambiguity and failed diplomacy.  It would be the beginning of the end of the massive death and displacement in Darfur.

The European Union of Jewish Students initiated a joint statement signed by 51 pan-European youth organizations calling for the International community and the EU to take action on Darfur at the occasion of the Global Day for Darfur.

This petition (posted below) was signed during the COMEM (General Assembly) of the European Youth Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan during this weekend. The European Youth Forum is an umbrella organization of 93 of many of the largest youth organizations in Europe.

---

Call for Action in Darfur:

The undersigned member organisations of the European Youth Forum present at the Council of Members in Baku, Azerbaijan are outraged by the genocide in Darfur. We welcome and support the 29th of April as the Global Day for Darfur and we call for action to protect the people of Darfur and stop the ongoing genocide! We believe this is an important step for resolving of the crisis in Sudan that has led to death and suffering of millions of people.

Since 2003, Darfur in Western Sudan has been embroiled in a deadly conflict. Several hundred thousand people have been killed or seriously injured. More than two million people have been displaced and live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in Chad; more than 3.5 million people are reliant on international aid for survival.

Since the conflict began more than 200,000 deaths are reported, and the conflict is now spreading to neighboring countries. Young people are especially vulnerable in the Darfur conflict. Every day young women are victims of rape and sexual violence – systematically used as weapons of war in Darfur. The use of children and youth recruited as soldiers in the conflict is alarming, as it is harming their personal development as well as the long term development of the region.

Despite of all those facts, so far the international community has not been able to improve the situation.

The EU has issued a statement on 23rd April calling on Sudan to accept more UN peacekeepers in the province. Unfortunately European Governments have been quick to call for an end to the violence, but slow to act in response to it. UN resolutions have not been implemented and six rounds of peace talks over almost two years have failed to resolve the crisis.

The undersigned member organizations of European Youth Forum, representing the voice of youth across the continent, are committed to working towards raising awareness and through education effectively help end the genocide in Darfur. We count on European Governments as well as international institutions to intervene and act to put an end to the conflict. The actions taken must raise awareness to the situation young people are facing and the way the conflict harms their lives. Further they must make sure that young people are not used as instruments in the conf