Will anyone rescue Darfur?
By Warren Allmand and Simon Rosenblum

On April 2, 2006, the cover of the New York Times Magazine featured a full-page picture portraying the devastation taking place in Darfur, with the following words:

"The UN is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The African Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The U.S. is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. NATO is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The European Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur."

Even without the visual, you get the picture. Approximately 300,000 Darfuris have died since 2003 – mostly from disease and hunger resulting directly from the conflict. Another 2.5 million have been displaced, and some 1,500 villages have been damaged or destroyed in what has been routinely called the world's greatest humanitarian disaster. Reasonable people can disagree over whether it is in fact a genocide. We would argue that it is more properly labeled a brutal ethnic cleansing. But no matter what one calls it, there can be little doubt that it more than qualifies for the type of international protection force called for under the terms of a ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine.  

There has been no shortage of condemnation for the actions of the Sudanese government. Not long ago, the United Nations Human Rights Council argued that the government of Sudan "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes and has itself orchestrated and participated in these crimes" and concluded that "the solemn obligation of the international community to exercise its responsibility to protect has become evident and urgent." Opinion pieces appear with regularity advocating immediate action. Indeed, the pattern of concern and condemnation has been going on for years.

On one of the more positive notes in this article, we are pleased to report that a major new 12-country opinion poll just released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows a strong majority among citizens supports the proposition that the United Nations Security Council has the "responsibility to authorize the use of military force to prevent serious human rights violations such as genocide, even against the will of their own government."  But at the end of the day, they are merely words and thoughts. Darfuris are more than entitled to react, as Eliza did in My Fair Lady, by saying ‘if you truly care for me, show me now.’

To be sure, the African Union has had a peacekeeping force of 7,000 soldiers operating in Darfur for the past few years, but it is universally acknowledged that they have been of limited consequence due to their limited mandate and small numbers. More recently, there had been lots of talk of a ‘hybrid’ AU-UN protection force of 20,000, but Khartoum had refused to agree to its deployment in Darfur.

Yet now, after almost a year of stalling, the government of Sudan has finally agreed to let a 20,000-troop AU-UN peacekeeping force into Darfur. This is indeed hopeful news. An AU spokesperson has called it a “breakthrough moment.” The change in Khartoum’s stance has seemingly come about because of threats of stronger international sanctions and/or new pressure from China.

If you think that the people of Darfur are now home free and that Khartoum has completely relented, we ask you to consider that this hybrid force will not be deployed until some time next year and that there may well be complications and further delays resulting from disagreements over its composition and funding. Khartoum, after all, has a long history of playing ‘cat-and-mouse’ with the international community, and a lengthy list of broken promises. In any case, the Janjaweed militias will no doubt have plenty of opportunity to continue their carnage until an effective peacekeeping force is on the ground in Darfur. This tragic situation is further complicated by the difficulties resulting from the divisions among rebel forces. Even if the deployment proceeds well, the absence of a peace agreement, or even a united negotiating partner among the Darfur rebel groups, could make this one of the world’s most challenging peace operations for some time to come.

The chaos in Darfur is far from over. And nobody has a clue as to how and when the millions of refugees will be able to return home. The present breakthrough, if it is indeed that, may well be too little, too late. Furthermore, it would behoove the international community to prepare itself in the eventuality that Khartoum backtracks on its recent agreement. Some form of forceful entry into Darfur could well prove necessary in that event; especially since we continue to believe that Khartoum is something of a ‘paper tiger’ and would relent if only some real pressure were exerted.

Needless to say, a credible international military force entering Darfur would have a much more difficult task if it were to do so without Khartoum's consent. But an international force for Darfur with a more limited mandate of protecting the refugee camps in Darfur and on its borders would be a much more doable proposition and, if done in combination with an enforced no-fly zone over Darfur, continued ICC prosecutions and tougher economic sanctions targeting Khartoum's leadership, would go a long way to breaking the back of Sudan's military actions in Darfur. At a minimum, it would be a good way to get a toe into Darfur if further actions would still prove necessary.

This is what it may still be necessary to do and it would in fact be doable if only some nations of consequence were ready to do so. We are not holding our breath.  Otherwise Darfur, as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, "makes a mockery of our claims as an international community to shield people from the worst abuses." And as for our noble ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine, it has a very long way to go from an emerging legal norm to a geopolitical imperative. Shame on all of us.