SUDAN CONFLICT

How can poverty, racial differences and geophysical changes transform into a political issue that manifests itself in war, civil unrest, mass killings, displacements and even abuse of women and children? What internal factors and external influences aggravate the sufferings of this already ravaged country? What can the world do to help a country that is a member of its family of nations? These questions continue to hound us as solutions to end the Sudan conflict have increasingly become a mission of those affected by the crisis.

The conflict began in February of 2003. The conflict has left as many as 400,000 dead from violence and disease. It is estimated that 100,000 have died each year because of government attacks. The Sudan government’s claim that over 9,000 people have been killed is seen as a gross underestimate. As many as 2.5 million are thought to have been displaced as of October, 2006. The Sudanese government has suppressed information by jailing and killing witnesses since 2004 and tampered with evidence such as mass graves to eliminate forensic values. Government forces and allied militia had committed widespread and consistent war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, torture, mass rape, summary executions and arbitrary detention.The phenomenon has been described in media as the most blatant threat of genocide since Rwanda in 1994. There has even been a description of this situation as “ethnic cleansing or genocide” to connote a forcible transfer or even eradication of a population. The British Government has described the need for a solution as “the most serious humanitarian emergency in the world today”.

The civil war that has afflicted the country almost continuously since independence in 1956 can be seen as a conflict between the Arab Muslim north and the black African, and predominantly Christian or animist, south. At a more detailed level, other features of the conflict emerge. Sudan is ruled by the National Islamic Front (NIF), an Islamist2 regime under General Omar Al-Bashir, which has its powerbase in the mainly Arab and Muslim north of the country. The centre and south is inhabited by a mixture of different African linguistic groups, which are mainly Christian or animist. Southern groups, most notably the Dinkadominated Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), have repeatedly sought to gain significant autonomy or independence from Khartoum, and some have resorted to armed struggle to achieve this.

The current conflict has its origins in decades of economic and political marginalisation, and tension over increasingly scarce farmland and water resources. Prolonged drought and desertification in northern Darfur pushed nomadic groups south where they came into conflict over water resources with the farming tribes of the centre. Administrative boundary changes imposed by the predominantly Arab regime in Khartoum served to alienate the farming tribes, as did government backing for the loose collection of ‘Janjaweed’ (or ‘Janjaweit’) nomadic militias, which has come to comprise several thousand fighters of mainly Arab extraction. An influx of modern weaponry in recent decades has increased the loss of life in these disputes. Two predominantly black rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), came to prominence in Darfur during 2003.5 Both groups cited concerns that Darfur would lose out politically and economically in the division of power and resources (particularly oil revenue) between Khartoum and the South, in the event of a settlement in the broader civil war.

Open conflict erupted in Darfur in February 2003 when the well-armed SLM/A and the JEM took advantage of turmoil within the al-Bashir regime and launched attacks on government military bases. A series of rebel successes ensued during the first half of 2003, before government forces regrouped and responded with a counter-insurgency campaign. Government-backed Janjaweed militia fighters carried out raids on communities suspected of aiding or sympathising with the rebels, and it is the humanitarian impact of these attacks which forms the core of the present crisis.
A 45-day ceasefire was agreed on 8 April 2004 to allow humanitarian access to the displaced population. The N’djamena agreement, which was mediated by Chad, was finalised after a week-long delay caused by disputes over the presence of international observers. The Sudanese Government objected to the involvement of observers from the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the United States and the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. A compromise was reached under which only the African Union would monitor the political negotiations, and the other observers would be present for discussions on humanitarian issues. The agreement included provisions for a ceasefire commission with international representation, and a commitment from the Sudanese Government to control its allies and ensure their compliance. The parties also agreed to open negotiations on a political solution to the conflict, free all political prisoners, and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The United Nations, has exerted its influence over the crisis by establishing a resolution and initiating actions to achieve the following objectives :
1. to ensure the protection of civilians and to facilitate humanitarian access to the affected population
2. to facilitate the voluntary and safe return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes, and to provide protection for them
3. to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to all people in need of assistance, and to make available, as far as possible, all necessary facilities for their operations, and to promote the safety, security and freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel and their assets.

Intense world influence had been placed on Sudan to end the conflict. In fact, the Bush administration said it was exploring measures that could be taken against individuals responsible for atrocities in Sudan, such as freezing assets held in the USA and denying visas. Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Charles Snyder said in a prepared statement before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

“We do not intend to stand by while violence and atrocities continue in Darfur. Our message to the government of Sudan is clear: Do what is necessary now, and we will work with you. If you do not, there will be consequences. Time is of the essence. Do not doubt our determination.”

Under the N’djamena agreement, the parties to the conflict agreed to allow the deployment of observers to monitor the ceasefire. A team of 120 observers, led by the African Union, has been dispatched to Darfur. A mission headquarters has been established in al-Fashir in northern Darfur. The Chairman of the African Union and former president of Mali, Alpha Omar Konare, went on a two day visit to push for progress on enforcing the ceasefire.


On one hand, we see the coming together of nations to save Sudan and its people but on the other hand, we see the self interest of nations coming in with the crisis. Critics of this issue opines that the world's most powerful countries have largely limited their response to expressions of concern and demands that the United Nations take action. The UN, lacking both the funding and military support of the wealthy countries, has left the African Union to deploy a token force without a mandate to protect civilians. On October 16, 2006, Minority Rights Group (MRG) published a critical report, challenging that the UN and the great powers could have prevented the deepening crisis in Darfur and that few lessons appear to have been drawn from their ineptitude during the Rwandan Genocide.

"Human Rights First" claimed that over 90% of the light weapons currently being imported by Sudan and used in the conflict are from China; however, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)'s "Arms Transfers Data for 2007", between 2003-2007, Sudan received 87 per cent of its major conventional weapons from Russia and 8 per cent from China. Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role in providing weapons and aircraft as a cynical attempt to obtain oil and gas just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources. According to China's critics, China has offered Sudan support threatening to use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan. In response to these allegations, Chinese Ambassador to Sudan Li Chengwen said that "China played an important role in promoting the agreement of the Sudanese government, the African Union and the UN for the deployment of the Hybrid Force in Darfur. China's view is that intensive economic development of the region is a more effective means than harsh economic sanctions, in the effort to stabilize the crisis and alleviate the suffering of the people".

In conclusion, I say that an internal conflict of a state becomes an international concern the moment a great transgression against the right of nation to exist occurs. The world just cannot stand by and watch. The world is a family of nations and all its inhabitants are citizens of such. A national leader’s role does not only limit his/her responsibility or accountability to those belonging to his/her state but that other states have the assurance of quality lives for all its inhabitants, as well.