The Darfur Conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, is providing arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the group. The conflict began in February 2003.
The conflict has been described by the Western media as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide.” In September 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict’s beginning, mostly by starvation. In October, the organization’s head gave an estimate of 71,000 deaths by starvation and disease alone between March and October 2004. While a recent British Parliamentary Report estimates that over 300,000 people have already died[1], the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have died in the past eighteen months of the conflict [2]. More than 1.8 million people had been displaced from their homes. Two hundred thousand have fled to neighboring Chad.
Although the large majority of resultant refugees are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Arab Janjaweed attacks [3], there are also Arab victims and non-Arab perpetrators. In addition, both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between “Arab” and “non-Arab” common in Western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. Moreover, these labels have been criticized for sensationalizing the conflict into one of racial motivations, where some experts instead attribute the causes to competition between farmers and nomadic cattle-herders who compete for scarce resources. In reality, though differences in lifestyle, as well as Arab or non-Arab status seem somewhat superficial, they are the basis upon which the government has decided who shall suffer bombings, mass killings and systematic rape by its proxy militias. This violence has forced people to flee into the desert, on the order of hundreds of thousands. Accurate numbers of dead have been difficult to attain, due to the government’s efforts to cover up these atrocities.
In the summer of 2004, the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, travelled the refugee camps of Darfur with the Sudanese foreign minister. A team of American investigators stayed behind to interview people in the camps, and later, Powell testified before the U.S. Congress that genocide was being perpetrated in Darfur. The Sudanese government has denied claims that it is involved, though, Powell and his team found that the government is clearly and directly involved in committing the genocide. In addition to the Bush Administration, many others, such as Senator John Kerry also denounced it as a genocide. [4]
The UN, prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, called the Darfur conflict the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis. However, intervention by the UN is unlikely as the governments of key members of the Security Council are pragmatically and ideologically constrained in their ability to respond to the conflict. The Russian government, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dilemnas regarding its persistent border conflicts. United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make intervention a difficult proposition. The United States also faces difficulty stemming from its commitment to the peace process ending the Second Sudanese Civil War, which it fears may be derailed. Finally, setting up No-Fly Zones is logistically difficult considering the remoteness of Darfur, the lack of infrastructure in potential airbase neighbors, and the issue of airspace rights for flyovers to Darfur from other neighbors.
Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britain and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation’s own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively). The lack of capable foreign peacekeepers during the Rwanda and Liberia crises is a more recent example.
Those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region on all sides of the conflict will probably be held accountable. However, it is currently undecided whether prosecution will commence via the International Criminal Court, or via a provisional tribunal, such as the one used after the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and in the Balkans. The Bush administration currently opposes the ICC option and supports the special tribunal mechanism.
