Daily Darfur
Daily Darfur: Phony, or Misguided?
Published August 06, 2009 @ 04:26AM PT
Eric Reeves goes after Scott Gration in a piece in the Boston Globe this morning, taking the envoy to task for his "phony optimism" on Darfur. The article touches on, among other things, the issue of repatriating internally displaced Darfuris:
"Humanitarians were dismayed at Gration's insistent talk about the ‘voluntary' return of some 2.7 million displaced persons languishing in camps throughout Darfur. There is no humanitarian capacity to oversee such returns and ensure their voluntary nature; Khartoum refuses to provide security in areas it controls; and Darfuris in the camps complain bitterly that they are being asked to return to lands without protection, and which have oftentimes been taken over by Arab tribal groups. The notorious Janjaweed have not been disarmed and pose a constant threat. Even in the camps themselves, security is tenuous; women still face rape, men are tortured and murdered, and looting is commonplace. In the past, it has been Khartoum that has pushed for returns under these conditions; now, perversely, it is the US special envoy."
I've heard similar concerns elsewhere --- that the government is trying to force the return of IDPs before security and land issues have been dealt with. IDP leaders and UN officials are pushing back against the idea. Many Darfuris fled has their villages were being destroyed, and much of their land has been taken over --- what do they have to return to? The whole situation lends itself to rather nefarious conspiracy theories. What is Khartoum's motivation for forcing premature returns?
Personally, I'm beginning to wonder if someone placed a chip in Gration's head during his last trip to Khartoum, turning him into a drone for the government of Sudan.
Daily Darfur: The Cost of Looking the Other Way
Published August 05, 2009 @ 04:41AM PT
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience announced yesterday that it is changing its categorization of conditions in Darfur from a "genocide emergency," which was first declared in July 2004, to a "genocide warning." The museum notes the controversy over the genocide designation in Sudan, but stands by its pervious assessment of the first years of the conflict, when the scale and character of the violence demanded the "highest level of alert."
The change, however, reflects expert analysis of the evolving nature of the conflict, now of a distinctly different character from the government's systematic military campaign against Darfuri civilians between 2003 and 2005. USHMM also notes, though, that the "situation across Sudan remains perilous," with millions of Darfuris stuck in displaced persons camps, unable to return home because of the security situation, and an alarming rise in violence in South Sudan. "We also believe," the statement says, "that the Sudanese government must be held accountable for its past and current behavior."
This is good news. The fact that the Sudanese government halted its scorched earth policy in Darfur is cause for at least a sigh of relief, though its ongoing behavior in Sudan, which continues to imperil and abuse civilians and deprive them of basic rights, are still cause for alarm. Though it's a topic of debate and difficult to prove, I do find it likely that international attention played a role in stopping acts of genocide in Darfur --- and perhaps continues to play a role in keeping them at bay. Khartoum still gets away with a substantial array of nasty tricks throughout the country, but it could be doing worse. It could be bombing IDP camps
Daily Darfur: "Spirit of Cooperation" not the same as Actual Cooperation
Published August 04, 2009 @ 04:11AM PT
Citing White House officials, the LA Times reports that the Obama Administration is considering an approach to Sudan that would lift sanctions in exchange for progress towards peace, but toughen them if the Sudanese government acts "in bad faith." According to US Special Envoy Scott Gration, Khartoum has shown a "spirit of cooperation and an attitude of wanting to help."
Nothing wrong with that, at face value --- but my concern is exactly that: Khartoum's words can't be taken at face value, as the its leaders have shown themselves to be remarkably adept two-faced politicians, distracting international diplomatic circles by making all varieties of commitments, all the while violating them back home. I also find it remarkable that Gration would say that Khartoum has "shown a willingness to work toward stabilizing Darfur in order to allow aid to be delivered," when they are the ones who expelled a huge portion of the aid operation in Darfur and continue to hinder aid delivery with every obstacle imaginable, as they have throughout the life of the conflict.
So the question is, how does Gration and the Administration plan to hold Khartoum to account, to see that its "spirit of cooperation" actually translates to action?
Daily Darfur: State Dept Begins to Mop Up Gration's Mess
Published August 03, 2009 @ 03:19AM PT
I've become one of those DC dorks who looks forward to the arrival of the daily State Department press briefing transcripts in my inbox. On Friday, reporters grilled the spokesman on US Special Envoy Scott Gration's rather unfortunate remarks at a Senate hearing on Sudan last week:
QUESTION: Yesterday, on the Hill, the special envoy for Sudan said that there was no evidence to support the designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism, said that sanctions were hurting his ability to do his job and they weren't effective. And I'm wondering, since the building didn't have a reaction to this yesterday, I'm wondering what the reaction is today.
MR. CROWLEY: There is a comprehensive policy review that is going on regarding Sudan. Obviously, there are a number of issues attached to that. Obviously, the situation in Darfur is critically important, as is implementation of the Comprehensive North-South Peace Agreement, the resolution of which will fundamentally affect the future of Sudan. We have a number of bilateral issues with Sudan - obviously, terrorism being a crucial one. We have received improved counterterrorism cooperation with Sudan in recent years. So that process is ongoing, and I would expect it to be completed in the coming weeks.
QUESTION: Okay. Thinking back on your answer, I'm not sure you answered my question.
Mr Crowley went on to dodge a point-blank question on whether or not the Administration agrees with Gration's assessment that sanctions should be lifted and Sudan should be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, stating simply that the long-awaited policy review is still on-going. The reporter pushes again:
Daily Darfur: Obama on a Fool's Errand?
Published July 31, 2009 @ 04:34AM PT
The Sudan-fest on Capitol Hill has come and gone, leaving in its wake little to indicate exactly how the Obama Administration plans to approach peace efforts in Africa's largest country. In his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations yesterday, US Special Envoy Scott Gration outlined his goals in terms of "four pillars":
- End conflict and "gross human rights abuses" in Darfur and ensure justice for its victims
- Keep the peace between North and South
- Ensure a stable government in Khartoum able to peacefully include or coexist with South Sudan
- Increase Sudanese cooperation with counter-terrorism efforts
His objectives are in order, but how he plans to achieve them is still of concern, and his testimony gives little insight. His comments during the Q&A sessions, however, were a tad worrying at points. For example, he stated that there is no evidence that Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, and its designation as such by the US government is a purely "political decision." (comments that the Enough team "suspect[s] that the administration may end up doing some damage control around.")
I do think that it is legitimate to ask if sanctions have their desired effect --- I've had more than one conversation, with non-politically aligned individuals, about the negative impact of sanctions on the Sudanese population, rather than on the government. Sanctions also do not prompt overnight change --- so how do we know if attempts to build pressure over a longer period of time are in fact working?
The key problem, though, with offering incentives to Khartoum before securing progress towards key objections is summed up by another Enough recap of the hearing:
"But it is also telling that when Feingold asked for practical examples of how Khartoum has acted in good faith, Gration did not offer any specific examples other than some vague language on the humanitarian situation."
That's precisely it --- for the last year in particular, but really for its entire life, the government in Khartoum has succeeded in distracting the international community while continuing to rule as it pleases in Sudan: Declaring ceasefires and then bombing Darfur three days later, attending summits and signing goodwill and cooperation documents and then breaking them before the ink is dry, making a show of initiating a domestic peace initiative then shaping and ultimately ignoring its recommendations, paying lip service to the CPA while delaying or outright violating many of its tenets, accusing critics of its human rights records of being Zionist conspirators while detaining and torturing human rights activists and thwarting freedom of the press.
We need to recognize when pressure points against Khartoum are failing, but we also need to not be foolish in our expectations of a brutal regime.
Daily Darfur: Hearings Continue Today in the Senate
Published July 30, 2009 @ 05:10AM PT
A rather quick one this morning, on account of a bit of post-travel brain drain (and over-sleeping):
The Enough Project has good coverage of the Sudan hearings in Congress this week, with reactions to US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice's testimony in the House, and (presumably) continuing with coverage of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today and the much-anticipated testimony of US Special Envoy Scott Gration.
In his testimony yesterday, Enough's John Prendergast remarked:
"In the absence of any agreement on the policy, U.S. diplomatic engagement has been energetic, for which Special Envoy Gration should be credited. But the substance of this robust engagement has been fraught with missteps, lack of internal coordination, and an overall aversion to pressuring the ruling National Congress Party."
Daily Darfur: Sudan On The Hill
Published July 29, 2009 @ 05:31AM PT
Congress is having a bit of bicameral fun with Sudan this week: Today and tomorrow, both the House and Senate will hold hearings on US policy towards the serially conflict-ridden nation. The hearings shortly follow the fifth anniversary of resolutions declaring that genocide was taking place in Darfur.
Despite a rather momentous year for Sudan so far, the Obama administration has yet to release its policy review --- it's important to take the time necessary to analyze such a complicated tangle of foreign-policy-hot-potato, for sure, but time is rather pressing as Sudan moves towards several crucial benchmarks that could make-or-break a fragile (and relative) peace. The resumption of full-scale civil war would be, for lack of a better term, a nightmare.
Save Darfur Coalition president Jerry Fowler describes what Obama's comprehensive strategy on Sudan should look like in a piece on the Huffington Post.
Many, myself included, are rather leery of US Special Envoy Scott Gration's approach to Sudan thus far, which has the public appearance of going to far to accommodate Khartoum without setting expectations for improvements from the authoritarian regime before reaping benefits of an improved relationship with the US. (And it's not only activists, but some within the administration as well.) As advocacy organizations frequently note, some package of combined incentive and disincentive is necessary, but history has already shown that we cannot expect meaningful change out of Khartoum with an overly-carrot-heavy approach.
For those of you living in states with a senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, advocacy groups want you to call and ask your senator to address a list of key questions and concerns when Gration testifies on Thursday.
