Introduction to Darfur

Origins of the Darfur conflict

For decades, the Government of Sudan has pursued a policy of neglect, discrimination and
divide-and-rule in Darfur. Severe drought in the 1970s and 1980s intensified the struggle over
scarce land and resources. The struggle was mostly between ‘Arab’ nomadic pastoralists and
‘non-Arab’ sedentary agriculturalists.

The situation deteriorated throughout the 1990s, as the Government of Sudan (GoS), pursuing
a policy of ‘Arabisation’ of Sudan got increasingly involved in Darfur, arming the various groups,
and giving particular support to groups of Arab descent .

Frustrated by Khartoum’s marginalisation of Darfuris, rebel groups such as the SLM (Sudan
Liberation Movement) and the JEM (Justice and Equality Movement) formed and started
attacking government strongholds in March 2003.

Since 2003, the Government of Sudan and its Janjaweed militia have in retaliation carried out
war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against civilians of the same ethnicity as
rebel groups in Darfur. As a result, up to 400,000 people have died and more than 3 million
have been displaced. Furthermore, the crisis is spreading to neighbouring countries, with both
Chad and Central African Republic having been significantly destabilised by the conflict in
Darfur.

Government perpetrated Human Rights abuses:

Numerous independent inquiries have found overwhelming evidence of the Government of
Sudan’s responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur.

The evidence of systematic targeting of non-Arab groups in Darfur also strongly indicates that
the government-perpetrated crimes amount to genocide under the UN 1948 Convention. Other
human rights abuses perpetrated in Darfur include torture and summary executions by security
services as well as widespread rape and sexual violence against women and girls.
Gender-based violence has increasingly been used as a weapon of war in Darfur. Victims and
witnesses in displaced camps have provided accounts of gang-rape of young girls and women,
rape of pregnant women and abduction into sexual slavery.

Diplomatic efforts to put an end to the crisis:

In the last six years, two peace agreements have been signed in Sudan to address two
separate conflicts involving the Government of Sudan. Neither has brought peace to the country
nor stopped the Sudanese government’s genocidal campaign in Darfur.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of January 2005 was signed between the GoS and

1/3
Introduction to Darfur

rebels of the Sudan People Liberation Movemenent (SPLM). The agreement ended a 20 year
war in which Southern Sudanese rebels had fought for a greater share of power and wealth.

However, the central government of Sudan has been very reluctant to devolve any of its power
and oil revenue under the agreement and there remains a very fragile peace between the North
and South.

In May 2006, diplomatic efforts led by the African Union, resulted in the signing of the Darfur
Peace Agreement (DPA) between the Government of Sudan and Minni Minawi’s faction of the
SLM. The other faction of the SLM, led by Abdul Wahid and the other main rebel group JEM
refused to sign the agreement as they believed that it did not address the root causes of the
conflict (compensation, unitary region, vice-presidency position, etc).

In the 3 years since the signing of the agreement, the DPA has clearly failed to bring peace to
Darfur and the situation in on the ground has actually gotten worse. Rebel groups have
splintered, further complicating any attempts at mediation, the government-led military
campaign has gained a new momentum and the humanitarian situation has worsened.

Yet, despite a deteriorating political and humanitarian situation, the international community has
been reluctant to get too involved in Darfur.

Eager to maintain economic and political ties with Khartoum, countries including the US, UK
and China have lacked the political will to confront the GoS and put an end to human rights
atrocities in Darfur. This pursuit of national self-interest has resulted in insufficient and
uncoordinated international pressure on Sudan.

The UN Security Council has passed several resolutions on Darfur but has not been willing to
use strong action to implement them. These resolutions include the establishment a
Commission of Inquiry into Darfur, an arms embargo, a Sanctions Committee to name
individuals against whom targeted sanctions should be implemented, and the situation in Darfur
has also been referred to the International Criminal Court. Attempts at peacekeeping in
Darfur
As part of the Darfur Peace Agreement, the African Union deployed a 7000-strong
peacekeeping force in Darfur (African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS). However, the forces has
has suffered from severe lack of funds and equipment and as a result, it has been unable to
adequately protect civilians in Darfur.

In August 2006, the UN Security Council created a mandate for a 20,000 strong UN
peacekeeping force to replace the under-funded and undermanned AU force. Under pressure
from China and Russia, the resolution was made dependent on Sudan’s consent which has
meant that Khartoum has categorically opposed it since.

2/3
Introduction to Darfur

In order to overcome the deadlock, a UN-AU hybrid force was agreed upon at a meeting in
Ethiopia on 16 November 2006. The hybrid force was to be composed of existing AU troops and
strengthened by UN troops and assistance. Despite initially agreeing to such a plan, the
Sudanese Government has since then gone back on most of the clauses of the agreement and
insisted that it would only accept UN financial and equipment assistance, but not troops.

As a result, the hybrid force is not yet fully operational and cannot adequately protect Darfuri
civilians. Six months after the end of its deployment date of 31 December 2007, only 9,000 of
the 26,000 peacekeepers were on the ground. The peacekeeping force still needs vital
equipment and the Sudanese Government is doing it all it can to limit its mandate, delay its
deployment and make it inefficient. These impediments include refusing to grant the force a
base, preventing is access to water, refusing it authorisation to operate at night and travel
without the expressed permission of Sudanese authorities. The failure of the
Responsibility to Protect

At an historic summit in New York in September 2005, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the principle known as the “Responsibility to Protect”. The principle implies first and
foremost that no government can hide behind the veil of sovereignty while it conducts or permits
crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. But the principle also
states that countries have a responsibility to act beyond their borders in order to put an end to
such atrocities.

As the first genocide of the twenty first century, Darfur presents the international community with
the opportunity to practice their principles of responsibility to protect populations from atrocities
and violence. Such action has yet to be taken, and as result villages continue to be burnt to the
ground, women continue to be raped everyday, and innocent civilians continue to be killed.

3/3