A Tragedy That Defies Definition

By Sue Horton

Aug. 15, 2004 12 AM PT

There’s no consensus over what to call the situation in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Physicians for Human Rights and the U.S. Congress call it “genocide.” The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees uses the less harsh term “ethnic cleansing.” The Khartoum government prefers the term “conflict.” But whatever the situation is labeled, Darfur is in crisis. More than 30,000 people have been killed and an estimated 50,000 more have died of illness or starvation. An additional 1.2 million are refugees after having been driven from their homes. Villages have been burned to the ground, the men killed, the women raped. Refugee camps along the Chad border are filled beyond capacity, and relief agencies have found it extremely difficult to get food and water to the area.

Question: Who’s involved in the conflict?

Answer: The Darfur region is populated by both African tribal groups and Arabs. Both are black African Muslims who have lived in the region for centuries. The tribal groups speak African dialects and live in villages, where they farm millet and other crops. The Arabs are nomads who roam the region seeking places to graze their livestock. They speak Arabic. The groups have until recently lived together fairly harmoniously, although tensions have risen in times of drought when natural resources are scarce. The two groups are quite similar, although the Arabs take great pride in what is, after centuries of intermarriage, a rather dubious Arab ancestry.

Q: And which group is the aggressor?

A: Most of the atrocities have been committed by bands of Arab militiamen known as janjaweed. The term is most likely taken from the Arabic for spirits (jinn) on horses (jaweed).

Q: What sparked the current crisis?

A: There is no single cause, but two factors have played significant roles. In recent years, some tribal villagers in the region have joined anti-government rebel groups in opposition to the policies of Khartoum, which they say has ignored their needs. In response, the government began in early 2003 to arm loosely organized Arab militias, ostensibly so they could fight the rebels. Instead, says Sean O’Fahey, an African history professor at the University of Bergen in Norway, “the nomads used their weapons against the farmers in order to control the wells and grazing lands. The decision to arm the nomads was a disaster; out of this disaster has grown the janjaweed.”

Q: So is this genocide or isn’t it?

A: The U.N.’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts of violence “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Whether that’s happening in Darfur depends on whom you listen to. Pieter Feith, who visited Sudan to analyze the situation for the European Union, said last week that “we are not in the situation of genocide there.... But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow, killing going on, and village-burning on a fairly large scale.” Human Rights Watch has said there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, but it would like to see a commission of inquiry established to investigate allegations of genocide. Physicians for Human Rights, however, concluded that the pattern of attacks on villages clearly indicated that non-Arabs were being targeted for elimination from the region. Whatever you want to call the situation, though, it’s clear that widespread pillaging and mayhem are being carried out on a daily basis.

Q: Why hasn’t the United Nations -- or someone -- intervened?

A: There have been attempts at intervention, but so far the efforts have been too limited to have much effect. The African Union has dispatched a small group of monitors, and it has plans to send 300 soldiers to protect them. It has also offered to send a much larger force of several thousand peacekeeping troops, but the Khartoum government has rejected the idea of outside intervention. The EU and the U.N., among other groups, have sent delegations to examine the situation. Numerous aid groups are providing assistance to the area, but they say the Sudanese government is impeding their work. The United States pushed for and finally got a U.N. resolution late last month, but boycotts threatened by Arab nations and by China, which has major investments in Sudan’s oil industry, made it impossible to get agreement on any measure that mentioned sanctions. So the ultimate resolution lacked teeth. It “demands that the government of Sudan fulfill its commitments to disarm the janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice janjaweed leaders,” but then merely says it will “consider further actions” in the event of noncompliance. It calls for the secretary-general to report in 30 days on Sudan’s progress, a provision characterized by the U.S. as requiring action within that time. But Amr Moussa, Arab League secretary-general, insisted last week that the resolution was part of “a developing process, not a deadline.” The Sudanese government has been even more dismissive of the U.N., with Information Minister Zahawi Ibrahim Malik telling Reuters, “Sudan announces its rejection of the Security Council’s misguided resolution.”

Q: Is the situation improving at all?

A: There are a few hopeful signs, but overall the crisis shows little sign of easing. Despite its often bellicose rhetoric, the Khartoum government has agreed (though not yet taken much action) to facilitate relief efforts. It has also agreed to begin disarming the janjaweed militias. But that’s a daunting task. Arming the militias with free weapons was easy; asking the nomads to return weapons that have given them such power may prove nearly impossible. And Khartoum hasn’t shown much interest in reining in the militias: In some regions, the government has even delegated security functions to them. Recent visitors to the region report that the government’s ties to the janjaweed are still strong and that the militias still have government planes and satellite phones at their disposal. More alarming still, the visitors report that there have been new attacks on villagers, including bombings by government planes, and that refugees who’ve tried to return to the region have been attacked. “If the government were serious about wanting to protect civilians,” said Peter Takirambudde, executive director for Human Rights Watch’s Africa division, “it would welcome a greater international presence.”

Q: So what should happen?

A: It’s obvious: The janjaweed should stop massacring villagers. Failing that, solutions are trickier. The U.S. is pushing for sanctions and for an international peacekeeping force if the Sudanese government can’t stop the killing. Khartoum, emboldened by support from the Arab League, has dismissed the idea of an outside solution imposed on Sudan as “colonialism.” Most human rights groups agree that the first thing that needs to happen is concerted international pressure. The Arab League needs to be convinced that the slaughter of 30,000 Muslims and the displacement of a million more require it to take a tough stance. Sudan’s allies on the U.N. Security Council -- specifically China, Russia and Pakistan, all of which refused to approve any resolution that mentioned sanctions -- should be pressured to revise their stance, and a new resolution should be passed by the U.N. spelling out specific timetables for action and consequences for inaction. The African Union should be supported by the international community in its attempts to get peacekeepers into the country. The situation in Darfur today is dire. But it could get a lot worse. That’s what must be prevented.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

A Tragedy That Defies Definition

More to Read

More From the Los Angeles Times