Home | Comment & Analysis    Monday 2 February 2009

A New Plan for Darfur

separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

By Anne Bartlett

February 1, 2009 — By any measure one might care to use, the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. Caught in the diplomatic vacuum created by the appalling events in Gaza, the region seems to have been relegated to a second or third order agenda item at best. Yet Darfur is staring into the eye of a storm – a storm that has the potential to engulf Sudan and the whole region in a dangerous and escalating spiral of violence. Leadership among the movements is fractured and in some groups, non-existent. Violence on the ground has escalated while the world looks the other way. Al-Bashir has, of course, taken advantage of this situation even while he contemplates his own future in the NIF and the ICC decision looming ever larger on the horizon.

Fodder enough it seems for diplomats to throw up their hands in horror and back away in the hope of saving the CPA and a wider political meltdown. Their savior has of course come in the guise of Alex de Waal, advocate par excellence of Article 16 and the move to unconditionally defer any indictment against Al-Bashir in the name of peace and stability. Over recent weeks de Waal has worked hard to lend credence to this position (along with the Chinese) and to prevent an indictment, which may, he argues, lead to wider instability and retaliatory action on the part of the Sudanese government.

But this position is misguided at best. Stepping back from this morass may be an expedient solution to the problem. But de Waal’s position fundamentally miscalculates the regime’s baseline strategy or their willingness to sell Al-Bashir to his accusers for political gain. The NIF’s goal after all, is to retain the reigns of power no matter what the cost. Irrespective of ideology or program, power comes first and this requirement stops for no man, even if he is a sitting president. De Waal seems to have conveniently ignored this fact and the likes of Ali Osman Taha and Ali Nafie Ali, who are more than willing to step into Bashir’s shoes should the need arise. He also seems to have ignored the cost of keeping Bashir in place for the people of Darfur.

Discussions about Article 16 are in fact a clear attempt to sidestep some of the really dangerous developments on the ground in Darfur at the moment, which need immediate attention. The first is the most obvious: deteriorating security. It is absolutely vital at this point to step up the pressure on the regime, since this will make it more difficult for them to carry on bombing the civilians of Darfur with absolute impunity. The only way to make significant inroads into improving the security in the region is to get serious about a no fly zone. This is not the only security need, but with the ineffectiveness of UNAMID, it is a good place to start.

The second and equally important issue is to deal with the crisis facing the movements in Darfur at the moment and the ascendance of JEM, which has potentially disastrous consequences for the entire region. At the moment, JEM’s military campaign on the ground aims to consolidate their position and to ensure that they are viewed as a group to be reckoned with – particularly by the incoming US administration. Their ability to play the tough men of Darfur comes however, not from their inherent strength and following on the ground among the people of Darfur, but rather from the rather deep pockets of President Idriss Déby who has his own axe to grind with his adversaries in Khartoum

And this brings one of the central problems in Darfur into rather sharp relief. JEM’s ability to fight and their objectives in pursuing the struggle have little to do with preserving a region, culture or lifestyle and rather more to do with a agenda oriented towards a national power struggle in Khartoum. Their goals are significantly different from other movements such as SLA/M, whose initial support grew from the need for defense and security, and whose people are disproportionally on the receiving end of the violence. JEM’s interests are very much tied to the needs of Chad and to unseating Al-Bashir, so as to institute a new form of governance (most probably based on fundamentalist principles). Clearly while they cannot be ignored in the peace making process, they are far from able to unlock the possibilities of peace on the ground, no matter what recent reports (such as that from ENOUGH) might suggest.

The key to unlocking this crisis is in fact the one group that has largely been ignored thus far: the Fur tribe. The Fur tribe is by far the largest tribe in Darfur which anchors the stability of the region and the relationships between other tribes. Irrespective of whether other groups may have more military might and financing, they have little chance of bringing peace to the region in and of themselves without the acquiescence of the Fur. The reason for this is that they have little connection to the heartland of Darfur which is symbolically, politically and substantively important. If anything served to make this clear, it was the abject failure of Minni Minnawi to deliver peace to the door of the international community in the wake of the Abuja negotiations. Besides the poor crafting of the agreement – something that de Waal knows quite a lot about - he was, as a Zaghawa, unable to anchor his leadership claims to the land. In saying this I am not trying to minimize the important role that other tribes play in the region, but simply to point out that peace needs a foundation and this inevitably starts with the Fur.
Given the dangerous turn that events on the ground have now taken, a new plan for Darfur is urgently required. To be sustainable it should consist of four elements:
1. The first is a consistent and tough position with the regime since this is the only language they understand. This includes not only Al-Bashir, but other members of the NIF who are likely to take over his position in the event of an ICC indictment

2. Second is urgent action to implement and reinforce a no-fly zone. Without this it is manifestly a waste of time to talk about peace, since it can be compromised in minutes by a bombing campaign organized by the Sudanese regime.

3. The third is a conference to reunify the Fur leadership in order to lay the foundation for peace. A reunification attempt should include Fur backed movements, but it should also include traditional and civil society leaders as well. Those within the Fur who do not want to participate in this process in good faith should be indentified as such and excluded from the process in the future. Since the Fur does not have the luxury of lavish support from a neighboring power such as Chad, this is something that the international community could usefully help them with. In doing so, it would be a constructive way to move the situation forward.

4. Forth, as soon as this conference has occurred, another initiative should be undertaken to identify the objectives of other groups within Darfur. This initiative (and the respective leaders that go with it) can then be built into a negotiation process and the groundwork for peace that will have been laid. A stronger and more unified presence can then be brought to bear on negotiating with the Sudanese government.

Attempts to resolve the Darfur crisis have largely failed because they failed to address the real reasons why violence broke out in the first place. While other tribes and groups have clearly suffered - and I really don’t want to minimize this – it was the Fur tribe in the wake of Bolad’s departure that was the primary target of Sudanese authorities. Without paying attention to the centers of power that anchor Darfur, it is difficult to envision how peace will ever be sustainably achieved. The impulse to listen to those who have the largest guns or the ability to shout the loudest is a dangerous one. At this time we need cooler heads, a historical perspective and most of all a serious analysis of the groups that will carry peace over the long term.

Anne Bartlett is a Professor at the University of San Francisco. She is also a director of the Darfur Centre for Human Rights and Development, based in London. She may be reached at albartlett@usfca.edu



The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysis' section are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email it to comment@sudantribune.com

Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information and political affiliations.
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 3 February 2009 05:12, by Dahya

    WE ARE NOT GOING BACK AGAIN

    I do think JEM fought all these years to gain confession from someone and wasn’t taking new areas in Darfur to show international community or Sudan government that they are available. Every body knew that JEM not fighting for short term goals but for strategy and constructive goals. It becomes irrational if we said JEM fighting to get seat in the coming negotiation or to get recognition because they are widely known, well recognised group and one of the most powerful groups on the ground since 2003 up to the present.

    JEM as a rebel doesn’t start in 2009, but it comes through long and very complicated process of struggle and patience to present entire Sudan people in well designed program and clearly illustrated manifesto to achieve equality opportunities and justice for all Sudanese without any constraint but citizenship.

    I am cynical about your allegation that JEM operates by proxy of Chad and they are fully supported by Chad. The relationship between JEM and Chad wasn’t good enough for many years and JEM was operating normally as usual through out all that period of time without showing any weakness in both sides; ground and negotiations table. From the extreme we are really doesn’t care from where the JEM fighter brought or bring their strengths, especially military equipment as long as they protecting us form Geoncial regime of Sudan and inasmuch as they are cope and operating within the limit of international law. I heard many times when JEM spokesman repeatedly answering question similar to yours. From where JEM get all these equipments? How they fund it? I do remember that he always saying we seized them form government of Sudan. For me the answer was rational and convincing me so because JEM fought Sudan government many times and government of Sudan never won over JEM since 2003.

    If not this largest guns we have I am sure that Sudan government get rid of Darfur people because we ourselves who stopped the genocide when start and we are the one stop the coming one because many people all over love saying a lot but doing nothing

    I believe all Darfur tribes were been neglected for while not only Fur as you claimed. If I reckoned what you claimed as true by who they were ignored and why? It becomes important and imperative to you and all of us when we talk about Darfur we must are not talk about tribes. This one of the holes we do not need to fell on it again and forever. Many tribes in Darfur have no connection or even borders, but you only mentioned the Fur why not other.

    The other things you have put them in your mind while analysing is when Mini Minawi forced sign DPA he wasn’t signed it as Zaghawa but as SLA/M. I am sure even if the DPA signed by someone from the Fur background he can’t succeed simply because one has right of land leadership over Darfur.

    Finally, it is true that peace needs a foundation, foundation of justices and equality, decentralisation of power, equitable distribution of resources, respecting human life and it values, free access to education, free movement, accessible primary health care and freedom of speech without any constraints. These are the foundation of peace not Fur.

    We are not going back again

    repondre message

Comment on this article



The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.



Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis


Wonders never cease in South Sudan 2021-04-12 17:54:40 By Lul Gatkuoth Gatluak The firing and appointment of the chief of General staffs in South Sudan is another reckless procedure as far as military reshuffling is concerned. The service lifespan (...)

On the legitimacy of President Salva Kiir 2021-04-04 17:15:11 by Dr Akec Khoc On March 24th 2021, Nhial Deng Nhial, Minister of Presidential affairs stated that President Salva Kiir is not imposing himself on the citizens. In response to this statement, I (...)

UN Security Council urges South Sudan to establish Hybrid Court 2021-03-23 13:36:41 Council Stresses Need for Justice, Rights Monitoring, Civilian Protection by Nyagoah Tut Pur South Sudan should heed last week’s call from the UN Security Council to establish a hybrid court (...)


MORE






Latest Press Releases


S. Korea supports UN communities building resilience project in Sudan’s Blue Nile 2019-09-09 09:26:41 UNDP Sudan September 5, 2019 (KHARTOUM) - An agreement was signed on 5th of September between the Korean Ambassador, His Excellency. Lee Ki-Seong and Dr. Selva Ramachandran, Resident (...)

Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders back calls for civil rule 2019-04-26 10:22:06 Press statement by 55 Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders on Sudan Sit-in and Peaceful Protest Khartoum -24/04/2019 We, the undersigned (55) Sudanese lawyers and human rights defenders, (...)

South Sudan’s Lafon youth condemn killings of civilians by Pari community 2019-04-03 21:54:29 Press Statement on the Fighting between Pari/ Pacidi and Lotuko/Lokiri on 24/3/2019 Release by The Lafon County Youth Union: We, the Lafon County Youth Union hereby condemn the atrocities and (...)


MORE

Copyright © 2003-2021 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.