The below information is accurate as of June 2005.

Information about the “major players” who are involved in the Darfur Crisis:

Responding to the Situation:

International players seldom remain silent in instances of civil conflicts, which lead to large slaughters or government sponsored mass killings. The largest international players in conflict management are international coalitions, regional super powers and international humanitarian or NGO’s. Although these larger organizations have the ability to put pressure on those enacting the violence, they are not the only parties who have influence and power to affect change in the situation. The international community as well as the media can play crucial roles in encouraging the larger international players to take action on an issue. To reflect on the process of creating peace it is crucial to examining how the larger players, in this case the Sudanese government (GOS), the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), NATO, The United States government (US), the European Union (EU) and humanitarian organizations effect the crisis or implement peace processes.

Peace Keeping Strategies

One of the most commonly recognized strategies for conflict resolution is third party intervention. In the Darfur region, we have not seen the same international involvement from groups such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) or Troika who have been addressing the north/south conflict. Although we have not seen effective polities implemented by these groups at large, examining their actions as part of the crisis can give us a better understanding of how conflict resolution is played out in the landscape of sovereign states.

Apart from third party intervention, there are other mechanisms that international players can use to challenge regimes that are harming their people. In South Africa in the mid 1980’s, when apartheid continued as a form of oppression by the government, various international players responded with economic boycotts and sanctions. The United States stopped plane flights between the US and South Africa, implemented trade embargos, and publicly denounced the institution of apartheid. They also used the power of divestment of FDI to squeeze the government financially. These are all ways in which state powers, particularly large ones, can force governments into changing their policies without having to deploy military force.

The international players are working together on humanitarian efforts and are working to facilitate aid relief, but less cooperation is occurring to end the crisis or prosecute the perpetrators of human rights abuses. The continuation and frequency of human rights abuses only reflects poorly on the international community’s commitment to peace and conflict resolution. This avoidance of the heart of the conflict could be attributed to the international community’s struggle between respecting states sovereignty (in order to not have their state legitimacy or actions challenged) and addressing human rights abuses.

The African Union

Thus far, the African Union has been most active in addressing the crisis in Darfur. The African Union (AU), which was established on September 9th 1999, has taken a lead role, as the continents largest unified political assembly. The AU made strong statements against the breaking of cease-fire agreements in early January 2005. The agreement was established in Abuja, Nigeria, with a commitment by the Parties to respect the Ceasefire Agreement signed in N’djamena, Chad, on 8 April 2004, and the two Protocols signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on 9 November 2004, and the Parties agreed to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict in Darfur. Although this agreement has not been kept, the active role by the African Union is a clear example of third party intervention in the form of mediation and collective action. Now over a year after this agreement was signed, the brutal murder and fear tactics used by the GOS and the Janjaweed continue. The African Union has recently requested that they be given logistical assistance to better equip their 2,300 troops who are working in Darfur. The AU has been attempting to help facilitate peace in the region, although there is large disconnect between the number of AU troops on the ground and the sheer size of the area in which they are attempting to work.

One aspect of peacekeeping or conflict management that can be observed with the African Union’s involvement is the importance of political mandates. Currently the AU troops are under a Chapter 6 mandate from the UN which allows them to keep the peace, but not act offensively. This means that unless the AU troops are present when the Janjaweed strikes, they are not allowed to act on the victim’s behalf. This mandate limits the effectiveness of the AU troops, as it does not allow them to operate proactively to prevent further slaughter. Without the mandate to act, they do not pose a military threat to those perpetrating the crimes against humanity. As a mediating agent in the conflict resolution process the AU troops are not in a position to address grievance or act in retribution and thus lack the leverage that a traditional army would have against an opposing force. Even with the current mandate, their presence in the region is reported as the only effective agent assisting in efforts of peace keeping and creating stability.

The AU is currently recognized as the only viable peacekeeping force for addressing the situation in Darfur, and thus it is important to note how the different international players are working to assist the efforts underway by the AU.

The United Nations

On September 18th 2004 the United Nations requested that the Secretary General “rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry in order immediately to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.” The results of the investigation were released on January 25th, 2005. The United Nations has called for investigation into the situation, given support to the AU troops, and has taken an active role in a humanitarian capacity to assist the 2.5 million displaced people. After a fact finding visit to the Darfur region in late May, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that three crucial things must occur in order to address the current emergency.

1. The humanitarian effort must be fully funded, and safe access for relief workers – both inter- and nongovernmental – must be fully guaranteed by all parties.
2. The AU force must be expanded without delay, and bolstered by logistical and financial support, so it can provide real security throughout Darfur, allowing the people to return to their homes and resume cultivating their crops. African states that have promised troops must provide them promptly, and donors must provide the means for those troops to deploy.
3. Both the government and the rebels must bring their forces and allied militias under full control, and ensure they fully respect the cease-fire and humanitarian law. And the parties to the conflict must negotiate a political agreement offering solid guarantees for lasting peace. The AU and the wider international community can and must help.

After making these three suggestions, Secretary General Kofi Annan reiterated his stance that final peace will only be possible when the Sudanese come to an agreement. He also made the following statement about the urgency of the crisis:

“The rainy season and the ‘hunger gap’ are approaching fast, making our relief organizations more difficult just as they need to expand further,” he said. “If violence and fear prevent the people of Darfur from planting and growing crops next year, then millions will have to be sustained by an epic relief effort which will stretch international capacity to the maximum.”

While there is still no peace, international actors such as the UN must move to encourage international recognition of the situation. The UN’s role in conflict management is not limited to the mandates and international law which it supports but encompasses the aspects of awareness. The UN’s recognition of a situation and its actions can act as a forerunner for many other countries. Not only can they suggest actions to be taken, but they can also rally support to an issue.

Peace negotiations, which were scheduled to start on June 10th 2005, come in the wake of May’s donor’s conference co-hosted by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Alpha Oumar Konaré, Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Commission. The Conference was held in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, and yielded nearly $300 million in pledges to scale up the AU’s peacekeeping mission in Darfur. This accomplishment is crucial to helping move the AU forward in its mission of peacekeeping in Darfur. The money pledged is the preliminary step towards forward action, but the actual transfer of funds will be the necessary step before action is taken.

The US Government

The word genocide brings to mind the holocaust, the slaughter of Armenians in 1915, the Rwandan genocide and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. With these past historical tragedies in mind, the word genocide is carefully used to encourage action in order to prevent the same amount of mass death. When interviewed regarding the issue of genocide occurring in Darfur, President Bush made the following statement: “This is a serious situation,” Bush said during meeting at the Oval Office with South African President Thabo Mbeki. “As you know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, with my concurrence, declared the situation a genocide.” The Bush administration, which is providing logistical aid through NATO to African Union troops, has been criticized for not doing enough to end the killings and atrocities. “Our government has put a lot of money to help deal with the human suffering there,” Bush said. As a signatory to a 1948 U.N. convention on genocide, the United States is committed to preventing the crime and punishing the perpetrators . Although the US government has made statements such as these, a disconnect remains between the declaration of genocide which was made my Colin Powell and the actions of the US government.

The Bush administration fought to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would have been the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide’s leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan’s Army from strafing villages. Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there. Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration’s past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur’s total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000.

An additional criticism of the US response has been the slow fulfillment of the financial commitments made by the government. On May 12, 2005, Secretary Rice appeared before the Senate State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee. During her opening address to the committee, disappointingly, Rice did not mention Sudan. However, in her written testimony that was submitted for the record, she did include statements supporting the African Union’s expansion, logistical assistance by NATO, continued humanitarian assistance, building on the North-South peace agreement as a possible political framework for resolving the conflict in Darfur, and continued funding for Sudan. Her statement also noted that “…[W]e are working to orchestrate an international message to the Government of Sudan: They are responsible for conditions in Darfur and must cooperate to stop the killing and create a path for peaceful reconciliation.” Finally, her statement noted that the U.S. pledged $835 billion to help Sudan in FY05 at the Oslo Donors’ Conference. Secretary Rice also reiterated President Bush’s statements that the crisis is in fact genocide, but explained that no separate envoy would be appointed to address the issues of Darfur. Although President Bush made a bold statement calling the crisis in Darfur genocide, the limits to the action taken by the US government as a whole are substandard. The actions that could be taken to assist in the conflict management and peace processes are far greater than financial assistance.

NATO & the European Union

At the end of May, NATO stated that it would be offering logistical support to the AU peacekeepers. The EU added its assistance to the mission, offering to airlift troops into the region. NATO and the EU have also stated their intent to coordinate their efforts so that their efforts do not over lap, but a continued competition over who will lead the mission slows their action.

The European Union as a whole is the largest overall donor, having pledged more than €285 million this year (more than two thirds of all aid pledged). The European Commission alone has disbursed €292 million for the victims of the Darfur crisis, including the refugees in Chad. This sum includes €98 million managed by ECHO, the Commission’s humanitarian department is to alleviate the consequences of the population movements affecting Chad. The decision is intended to provide for the refugees’ main needs in areas such as health, water and hygiene, food security, protection of the civilian population, education, shelter and basic necessities like cooking equipment, blankets and so forth. Food security and education will be the two primary targets the EU will focus upon. The strategy may also cover demobilization, disarmament and reintegration operations. It also concerns human rights, good governance and the rule of law and provides direct support to the peace process, initiatives to consolidate peace and efforts to strengthen civil society and the healthcare sector. Collective action by these two groups, particularly in their assistance of the AU will be extremely helpful in working towards a sustainable peace.

Humanitarian and Non-Profit Organizations

There have been continuous and a noble effort by different international NGO’s to assist in the crisis. Doctors Without Borders has been assisting with rape survivors in the camps, providing them counseling and medical assistance. This good work has not come without a price. Khartoum’s National Islamic Front regime arrested the two top officials working in Darfur and Sudan for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF, specifically MSF-Holland) on May 29th and 30th. To further emphasize their disdain for the international investigations, the regime’s security forces also arrested the translator for Kofi Annan following the UN Secretary-General’s interview with rape victims in Darfur, including a pre-pubescent girl.

Along with the amazing humanitarian work that different groups and individuals are doing, their presence in the region has helped raise awareness of this crisis from a little known issue to one that is discussed more frequently in the news. This has not been the goal of most of the humanitarian organizations. In many cases the extra publicity has actually made their work more difficult as it has intensified the government’s incentive to control and limit humanitarian work in Darfur because the negative press threatens to derail or limit the gains they could receive from the north/south peace negotiations. Although the information that they provide makes their work more difficult, the NGOs can use this towards furthering the conflict resolution if it leads to more decisive action.

ICC

The United Nations has found the GOS responsible for crimes under international law and strongly recommended referring the dossier to the ICC. The probe also found credible evidence that rebel forces were responsible for possible war crimes, including murder of civilians and the pillaging of towns. The UN Security Council referred the matter to the ICC on 31 March 2005. The ICC has begun investigations into violations of international law in reference to the region of Darfur. “The investigation will require sustained cooperation from national and international authorities,” ICC Prosecutor Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said in the press release. “It will form part of a collective effort, complementing the African Union and other initiatives to end the violence in Darfur and to promote justice.” The ICC has requested that the US government assist in the investigation by providing information gathered by the CIA, but so far the US has been cooperative. The Sudanese government has stated that they will not cooperate with the investigation and will not allow for any of its citizens to leave the country for trials. An investigation by the ICC could increase tensions between the GOS and the international community but will assist in the process of adherence to international law, and hopefully will be a deterrent for similar actions in the future.