Politics In Depth
Archive Search
Despite Public Opinion, UN Still Indecisive on Darfur
July 18, 2005
While evidence points to genocide in Sudan, a Security Council resolution to authorize the use of force and protect humanity remains unattainable.
Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Scan) Jonathan Cooper - Given that Americans are deeply divided on the war in Iraq, it is interesting to note that several new surveys show wide public support in the United States for some form of American military involvement in Sudan's Darfur Region, which is currently experiencing a grave humanitarian crisis.
(Angus Reid Global Scan) Jonathan Cooper - Given that Americans are deeply divided on the war in Iraq, it is interesting to note that several new surveys show wide public support in the United States for some form of American military involvement in Sudan's Darfur Region, which is currently experiencing a grave humanitarian crisis. In a late June poll conducted for the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 54 per cent of respondents stated that they would support the deployment of U.S. troops in Darfur, and 71 per cent backed some form of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention, supported in part by U.S. forces.
On the African continent, there is also broad public support for decisive United Nations (UN) action to counter crimes against humanity. In a late 2004 Program on International Policy Attitudes poll of almost 11,000 Africans in eight different countries, 65 per cent of respondents thought that the UN should authorize the use of force to stop genocide and other severe human rights violations. Unfortunately, the UN's response to the crisis in Sudan has thus far been characterized by hesitancy and inertia, and it is unlikely that strong public support for a more aggressive approach to the situation will actually lead to a timely, vigorous intervention.
The conflict in Darfur has been unfolding for almost two and a half years, and is separate from the recently concluded civil war between the rebels in Southern Sudan and the government. Darfur is a huge region in East Sudan, which is home to some 6 million people, the majority of whom are Muslims of African extraction. Darfuris have long been neglected by the ruling Arab Muslim elite in Khartoum. In February 2003, two armed groups—the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)—rose in rebellion against the central government.
In response, the Sudanese Air Force began bombing Darfuri villages, and the government provided arms and logistical support to loyalist Arab militias known as the Janjaweed. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), these militias have perpetrated hundreds of thousands of acts of murder, rape, and abuse against civilians in the region. The UN Task Force on Darfur (UNTFD) discovered that in a particular North Darfur attack in 2004, the Janjaweed murdered 200 men, and raped over 200 women and girls. Investigations by the UNTFD and the British government have found that violence, disease and starvation have killed approximately 300,000 people to date, and over 2 million have been driven from their homes.
As early as April 2003, the UN was aware of a developing crisis in Darfur. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) monitored hundreds of thousands of refugees whom violence displaced, either internally or to Eastern Chad. In September 2003, the UN appealed to donor nations for funds to aid Darfuri refugees, and in early 2004 the UNHCR set up safe camps in Chad, in response to increasing Janjaweed attacks. In April 2004, UNHCR and High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCHR) investigations revealed widespread human rights violations, classifiable as crimes against humanity, and UN secretary-general Kofi Annan described the crisis as "the worst humanitarian disaster of our time." One month later, HRW released a report detailing extensive acts of "ethnic cleansing" by the Janjaweed and government forces.
In June 2004, U.S. state secretary Colin Powell visited Sudan, and shortly afterwards the U.S. Congress passed a motion asserting that genocide was taking place in Darfur. In July, a full seventeen months after the initiation of hostilities, the UN Security Council passed its first formal resolution on Darfur, UNSCR 1556. It called on the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjaweed and prosecute those responsible for war crimes. In September, when it became clear that Khartoum did not intend to reign in the Arab militias, a second resolution on Darfur was passed. UNSCR 1564 was a toothless motion, which contained only ambiguous threats of potential trade sanctions. It failed to impose an arms embargo on Sudan, despite overwhelming evidence that the government was supplying the Janjaweed with weapons, nor did it impose an embargo on Sudanese oil, the government's primary source of revenue.
Towards the end of 2004, with Khartoum dragging its feet and the situation in Darfur not improving, several members of the Security Council, including Britain and the U.S., pushed for more stringent sanctions against Sudan, including embargoes on oil and arms. However, China and Russia, both veto-holding permanent members of the Security Council, opposed these measures. The China National Petroleum Corporation—with $15 billion U.S. invested in the Sudanese oil industry and close relations with the administration of president Omar Bashir—is sure to force a veto on any oil embargo. Russian companies like Slavneft also have investments in petroleum extraction and pipeline construction in Sudan. Interests from both nations act as major arms dealers to the Sudanese government. Last year, Sudan used oil revenues to purchase 12 new MiG fighter jets from Russia, planes that were subsequently used in attacks on villages in Darfur.
In late 2004, African Union (AU) troops began arriving in Darfur, and there are now around 3,000 soldiers deployed. However, with a non-interventionist mandate and an area the size of France to patrol, this force has not been able to effectively stem the violence. In April 2005, an International Donor Conference secured pledges amounting to more than $4 billion U.S. in aid for Sudan, and some progress is currently being made in talks between the SLA, the JEM, and the Sudanese government.
The UN Security Council, with the U.S. and China abstaining, decided that those guilty of war crimes in Darfur be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, but Khartoum wants to try suspects in domestic courts, and is threatening not to comply with extradition orders. All the while, the death toll continues to rise, with fresh attacks by the Janjaweed reported in late June and early July. The violence has disrupted aid efforts, and has prevented farmers from planting crops. The UN's World Food Programme reports that up to 4 million Darfuris are facing starvation over the next two years.
Under the terms of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, if the UN Security Council were to resolve that genocide was occurring in Sudan, international law would require that the UN intercede, with force if necessary. Given that there is overwhelming evidence from a diversity of sources that genocide is occurring in Darfur, a muscular UN intervention would be a logical, if woefully belated, next step. The U.S. is too overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan to commit to Sudan unilaterally, and the AU's recent petition to NATO for support in its Darfur operations is an indication of Africa's inability to deal with this particular crisis on its own.
Certainly, public opinion in many regions of the globe would acclaim a robust humanitarian mission in Darfur—a course of action that would require a new Security Council resolution. It is highly unlikely that Russia and China would endorse such a violation of Sudan's sovereignty. With millions of lives at stake and hundreds of thousands already lost, UN policy is being subjugated to vested economic interests. A decade after Rwanda, the international community pledged "never again," and Annan defended the Security Council's role as "humanity's instrument" for preventing genocide. One wonders if a million Darfuris will have to perish before the Security Council fulfills its mandate to protect humanity, arguably the primary purpose for which it was created (see Article 1.1 of the UN Charter). Or, perhaps, the instrument should be discarded altogether, having proved itself insufficient and unresponsive in the face of unspeakable human suffering.