The report by Jan Pronk, the United Nations’ envoy to Darfur, makes grim reading, indeed. Since the UN became involved in Darfur the number of refugees has doubled to almost two million. And more are coming in every day. Fleeing refuges, mostly women and children, have been slaughtered at a rate of 2,000 a day.
Pronk uses strong language for a diplomat. He reports that war crimes are being committed “on a large and systematic scale”, and that both the Khartoum authorities and the rebel militias are engaged in grabbing as much territory as they can even if that means destroying the lives of numerous people.
Although Pronk minces no words, his report is ultimately disappointing because he demands no concrete measures to cope with a situation that he labels as desperate. All he does is call for “urgent action” and more money. Writing a check for $150 million as Pronk demands, of course, is not hard for the major powers. What is harder is to decide what action to take on the ground.
The United Nations, still sulking over the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is clearly reluctant to recommend military action even under its own flag. This deliberate and rather pompous exclusion of all forms of military action cannot but weaken the UN’s position in Sudan. The reason is not hard to divine. Why should the rival military gangs, involved in this genocidal struggle, stop their activities if they know that they can do so with impunity?
The tragedy in Darfur has exposed the dangers of the entire do-good industry of which the United Nations’ is the center. This industry provides food, medical aid and shelter in conflict situations. By doing so it enables the parties to the conflict to use all their resources for war rather than meeting the basic demands that the good-industry is meeting. In Darfur the UN is feeding villagers who will be killed tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. But it is also, indirectly, feeding the killers. The UN builds the tent cities that receive villagers driven out of their homes, but also attract others who simply wish to flee poverty.
That the UN has decided to speak out on Darfur, rather than remain silent as it did during the Rwandan genocide, is welcome. But speaking out is not enough. Passing yet another Security Council resolution would not save a single life in Darfur. Another “serious warning” from Kofi Annan is unlikely to put the fear of God in the Janjaweed killers or their manipulators.
Later this month, the Kenyan capital Nairobi will host a peace conference on Sudan. The Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan people’s Liberation Army (SPLA) are scheduled to finalize a peace accord brokered by the United States after months of negotiations. The peace accord will enable the Sudanese government to divert some of its resources from fighting an endless war in the south to other pursuits. By all indications Khartoum intends to use those resources for a more aggressive policy in Darfur. And that is bad news for the people of Darfur.
