AFTER regrettably failing to respond to rising international concerns over Darfur and so bringing on its head a Security Council resolution, the Sudanese government finally seems to be formulating a coherent response to world criticism. It was helped last week by the support of the Arab League. At the same time, further qualified backing has come unexpectedly from a European Union fact-finding mission. This team has concluded that there is no evidence to say that what has happened in Sudan’s troubled western province is genocide. The investigators then go on to define genocide as the planned extermination of one people by another. Their report concludes, however, that there have been widespread attacks and tens of thousands of murders prompted by racial prejudice. Though the Darfur refugees cowering in refugee camps on either side of the Chad-Sudan border may not appreciate the distinction between genocide and racial murders, that distinction is important for the rest of the world.
The invective about officially-sanctioned massacres has been driven in large part by the non governmental organizations (NGOs) gathering reports from refugees. These reports have helped mobilize the international community to assist these millions of wretched displaced people. Though the NGOs were doing their job in drawing attention to the scale of the disaster, it could be argued that they were exceeding their brief when they sought to define the tragedy as “genocide.”
Angered by such charges, Khartoum was probably disinclined to allow the NGOs to bring in relief. This was an error because it merely seemed to confirm the NGOs charges of government-sponsored extermination. Why else would Sudanese officials be obstructing aid except in the hope that the Janjaweed gangs could complete their business of genocide?
It was never like that but the Sudanese government’s misjudgment and vociferous NGO’s claims combined to make it seem so. Khartoum, however, has much more work to do before it can successfully avert international interference. It could be argued that rejecting the African Union’s proposed military peace-keeping force was a missed opportunity. With AU forces ear-marked for Darfur, it would have been hard for Washington to propose a more widely-drawn peacekeeping force. Sudan’s voice also carries more weight in the AU than in the UN.
Sudan must also address the inescapable fact that the Janjaweed thugs have still not been caught and punished. If the Sudanese government is determined to insist on the simultaneous disarmament of Darfurian rebels, it is going to have to make its case worse. At the moment by effectively defending the Janjaweed’s continued holding of arms until the rebels give up their weapons, it seems to be aligning itself with men whom the president himself has called vicious criminals. This is another mistake. These people must be dealt with now under Sudanese law, regardless of any other group’s criminal behavior.
There is a final issue which has yet to be properly addressed by the Sudanese government and that is the alleged involvement of elements of the police and military in Janjaweed depravities. These are serious accusations which, if true, would indicate that some local officials have neglected their duties. The commission appointed by the government to look into what really happened in Darfur must try to do its work as throughly and as quickly as possible. Its report must pull no punches. If it seems balanced and fair, it will be hard for outsiders bent upon interfering in Sudan to take their case further. If, on the other hand, it seems to be a whitewash, the outsiders will have their case considerably strengthened.
