lord of the blog

« Flower power | Main | Responses »

Monday, August 09, 2004

Sudan and failing states

Joe and Ingrid along with others have asked for my views on Sudan.

It is difficult to give these in a concise form and I am hoping (not promising!) to write another Fabian pamphlet dealing with the type of policy we need to intervene in failing states.

I made the point in the last Fabian pamphlet that currently the world lurches between doing nothing as in Rwanda or intervening with heavily armed troops as in Afghanistan and Iraq. In between there are cases like Somalia where the world’s intervention failed and East Timor where it succeeded but not until much of the damage had been done.

Sudan is just the latest in a long line of failed or failing states and I very much fear this is going to be the pattern for many years yet which is why the world does need to have a clearer policy.

Kofi Anan has a high level panel looking at this problem and it may be ready to report at the end of the year. If so, we should use that to move the debate forward.

Unfortunately none of this will save any lives in Sudan. Both the US and the UK have done more then many other countries and the international pressure on the Sudanese government does seem to be having a limited effect. The French are also actively helping the nascent African peacekeeping force.

I don’t think a full military intervention is practical in the present situation and in any case could not be put into effect quickly enough to stop the ethnic cleansing.

There are two possible actions which might help. One is a no fly zone of the type we imposed on Saddam Hussein and the other is the indictment of key people giving the orders. (See Ann Clwyd’s contribution included in the text of my Fabian pamphlet)

The world is still a very long way from getting international agreement on how to deal with these situations and consequently the UN always finds it very difficult to act.

I do believe this issue is second only to global warming as the biggest challenge of this century.

Please define what you mean by a "failed state". What has it failed at exactly? If you mean the state is failing to protect human rights or unable to assert authority over its territory, then this definition could apply to many more states than the "Axis of Evil" and includes states considered US and UK allies. Are Saudi Arabia or Israel "failed states"? Or is "failed state" a tag used to condemn those considered enemies by the US and UK, thereby giving them a mandate to invade without a UN mandate - for how can a state defend its sovereignty when it is judged to be "failing"?

I agree with you that full military intervention, without the backing of the UN or the AU, would not solve the Sudanese crisis. Such an intervention would undermine the Machakos Protocol which is the basis of the peace accord between Khartoum and the SPLA and lead to the destabilisation of Sudan and the region. So far, the SPLA has been kept out of the Darfur Crisis, but any serious threat to Omar Al-Bashir would see them renew hostilities. Machakos could also be the basis for SLA involvement and peace in Darfur.

A no-fly zone would do nothing to prevent atrocities on the ground. Indictment is also fairly irrelevant, particularly for the US which has tried its best to sabotage the ICC - the court intended to try war criminals.

African problems need to have African solutions. The AU has, from the outset, committed itself to addressing such conflicts. Now it has a chance to prove itself and I believe it is meeting the challenge. What the West should be doing in supporting the AU in this endeavour, with logistical support for AU troops and massive aid efforts. Emergency aid should be as organised, efficient and well-funded as a military operation.

I agree with Dan's comments on a no-fly zone. His point about the USA sabotaging the ICC is also valid (having said that, jibes against the current US government, no matter how valid, will not help the people of Darfur).

The only way a no-fly zone would be effective would be in conjunction with western military aid towards the SPA and JEM rebels in Darfur. The West could also give military aid to the SPLA/SPLM in southern Sudan, which would stengthen them in relation to the Sudanese government, and open up the possibility of outright secession, or of a restart to the civil war in the south (the Sudanese government wouldn'twant to fight a war on two fronts, so the threat of this would be useful leverage against them).

Philip: I think your proposal for military aid to rebel groups is naive and dangerous. I can't see how the resumption of war in the south and a step-up in the conflict in Darfur will help the people of Sudan. We need to ensure that a peace deal is forged in partnership with civil society. Progress was achieved with Machakos, with the government compromising with the SPLA on several key issues. Machakos showed that, with African mediation and the support of the African community, Khartoum is open to serious negotiations. Arming rebels would set Sudan back twenty years, would turn African countries against each other and would result in a region-wide genocide. Anyone who cares about Sudan would not back an increase in hostilities simply to achieve the political objective of overthrowing Omar Al-Bashir at any cost.

Clive, thank you for sharing your point of view and your plans to write another Fabian paper. It was uplifting to see you raise the possibility of no fly zone over Darfur. Here's hoping that everything possible is being done to stop government of Sudan planes attacking civilians - Darfur needs to be turned into a no fly zone until the Peace Accords are sorted. But I don't know how that works with aid drops. The aid must get through by air. There is little news from the British government over Sudan but a lot of propaganda coming out of Khartoum.

Today, the Scotsman's diplomatic correspondent Gethin Chamberlain, who is in Kass, South Darfur, says reports of fresh attacks are coming in daily. A UN organisation reported that a group of men in uniforms and thought to be Janjaweed - the Sudanese government has equipped the militia with uniforms - entered a camp on 20 July and attacked its inhabitants. UNICEF has reported that 11 people were killed in a Janjaweed attack on a village 30 kilometres east of Kalma camp on 21 July. People from the village escaped on a lorry to Kalma. On Sunday, one group of new arrivals at Kalma said that their village had been attacked by Sudanese aircraft and by Janjaweed and government troops. Their accounts were supported by aid workers in Nyala. Refugees at Kalma also reported that gunshots had been heard in the camp and that it was believed that Janjaweed soldiers were firing at the camp.

The survivors of ethnic cleansing in Sudan, who still face being eliminated by their own government, are living the most miserable existence on this planet. The West has spent decades on developing international law for human rights. In the name of the two million Sudanese that have been massacred during the rein of the present dictatorship in Khartoum, the perpetrators of the atrocities must be brought to court - last Friday's U.N. investigator's report says there is overwhelming evidence that could constitute crimes against humanity.

Nearly two months have passed since I rushed over here (and to Tom Watson's blog) to voice support for no fly zones over Darfur. I cannot understand what is taking so long. After Rwanda, the West said, never again. Makes me wonder what they meant. Please treat what is happening in Sudan as a matter of the utmost urgency and let us know if there is anything we can do to help. Thank you once again. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=915942004

PS Latest news via http://passionofthepresent.org is that Sudan appears to have blocked the proposed AU peacekeeping force for Darfur. The African Union has backed down from its plan to send peacekeepers into Sudan in the next few days. The plan--which at one time was described in terms of 2000 troops with a mission to protect civilians--appears to have been scrapped in the face of opposition from Sudan and its allies, most of whom are members of the Arab League.

PPS Yesterday an EU report mentioned it's offer of EU police advisors and reinforcements for Darfur.

Ingrid: The AU has not "backed down" and Sudan has not "blocked" the AU peace-keeping force. I suggest you read the original AFP report. The AU is working on the mandate for the peacekeeping force, which it will then present to the Sudanese government and the rebels. Remember that this is a peacekeeping force designed to protect AU observers of a ceasefire, not an occupation or a stabilisation force. A mandate agreed by all parties is required to ensure that peacekeeping forces know what their responsibilities are. Without it there is chaos and confusion. But Khartoum is still in principle agreeing to the deployment of an AU peacekeeping force. My belief is that once the 2,000 AU peacekeeping forces are deployed, the AU will seek to broaden its mandate. The international community should unite behind the AU and the peace talks in Abuja, instead of deriding its efforts.

Also, the Arab League has succeeded in getting Sudanese approval for its call for the disarming of the Janjaweed militias and punish human rights violators in Darfur, although it calls on the UN to give Khartoum more time. Given this breakthrough, I do not think this is a time for more Arab bashing.

You say that you "cannot understand what is taking so long". The fact is that no government can immediately deploy large armed forces at short notice, regardless of the urgency. There are diplomatic and logistical matters to work through. This is the problem with trying to address a humanitarian crisis by military means. If you want a fast solution, then perhaps you should also consider ways of assisting the victims of conflict through non-military means. Debating the issue of war crimes and trying to prosecute perpetrators will not help the refugees who require emergency aid.

Clive: As a member of the Fabian Society, I would like to have some further information on the proposals you plan to outline in your pamphlet. I sometimes feel that these pamphlets are produced by a clique, without the involvement of the ordinary membership which may have some important contributions to make. I hope that you are able to take on some of the suggestions and comments of the Fabian membership, if only to make your own argument clearer and more well-founded.

Dan, you dislike my proposal for military aid to the rebels in western and southern Sudan. I disagree that such aid would necessaily restart the war in the south; instead, the threat of such aid would give the Sudanese government a big incentive to end the genocide /ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Aid to the SPLA would also make it less likely that Khartoum would consider restarting the war in the south.

Remember, Milosevic only stopped ethnic cleansing when credible threats of military force (airstrikes plus the threat of ground invasion) were used against him. The Sudanese government's misdeeds include genocide, slavery, gang rape, etc, and they are unlikely to be disuaded by pious words about human rights, unless those words are backed by force.

Phil: I think the ideas you have put on your website show a complete ignorance of African affairs and the complex web of inter-ethnic and political rivalries that spreads beyond Sudan's borders. You seem to lack any understanding of the historical context that has led to the current situation. If you did, you would not equate Darfur with Kosovo and you would, at least, acknowledge the progress made under IGAD. You have a simplistic cowboy solution to conflict which may have currency in Washington, but thankfully has very few proponents in Westminster. No-one seriously suggested arming the likes of Moqtada Al-Sadr as a tactic to overthrow Saddam or arming the Albanian crime lords in the KLA to take on Milosevic, so why do you think Sudan is different and why do you think it will succeed in reducing hostilities?

Clive, as you are planning to write a Fabian pamphlet on failing states, and I am hoping the Bill of Human Rights forms the basis of debates, papers and policies on failing states - I am posting this comment as a contribution to any discussions you may have on this subject in your blog.

This comment is a cobbling together of recent notes in posts at my blog. None of the questions are aimed at you, or anyone really: they are just notes to myself that I thought I'd share in the hope that others may be willing to share and contribute ideas, thoughts, add useful info, suggestions to discuss.

ALL HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Over the past several weeks, I have asked myself the following two questions:
(1) Does the U.N. have official guidelines which delay U.N. action until situations like Darfur have reached disgraceful proportions? (I'm thinking of contacting them to ask).
(2) Why is Sudan a member of U.N. Human Rights panel? What are the benefits and obligations of membership? What qualifies Sudan as a member?

In my search for answers to the above, I came across - on the UN's website: the full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
- - -

Here are some notes, not to burden you with questions, merely sharing food for thought here:

Sudan is a member of the U.N. Human Rights panel but is in breach of the Universal Declaration. Why has Sudan been getting away with murder for so many years? Why is it calling the shots (excuse the pun), and being treated, like it is in a negotiable position?

How come countries like China (interests in Sudan's oil) and Russia (just delivered 12 new MiGs to Sudan) get to block a draft UN resolution imposing sanctions on Sudan? And how much, if anything, have these countries contributed towards humanitarian assistance for Darfur -- if they have not contributed, why is this so?
- - -

US AND EU LEADERS JOINT DECLARATION
Says those responsible for the atrocities must be held accountable

Here, for the record, is a BBC news online report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3843323.stm "Sudan under pressure over Darfur". A non-blogging friend in England emailed it to me on the day it was published, and wrote me: "You might find it rewarding to make contact with the UN and to ask them about the official guidelines which clearly delay UN action until matters (like this one) have reached disgraceful proportions."

The report, dated June, 26, 2004, is copied here in full:

"The US and the EU have expressed "grave concern" about Sudan's conflict-torn Darfur region, saying the government in Khartoum must rein in Arab militias. "We strongly condemn the human rights violations... particularly by Jingaweit militias," the leaders said in a joint declaration at their summit in Ireland.

Human rights groups accuse Khartoum of backing Arab militia groups that have killed thousands of Africans in Darfur. The fighting in Darfur has driven more than a million people from their homes.

"We express grave concern at the continuing humanitarian crisis in Darfur, western Sudan, where the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, who live in desperate conditions and require immediate life-saving relief, are at great risk," the declaration said.

At the end of their summit at Dromoland Castle, in County Clare, US President George W Bush and EU leaders again urged the Sudanese government to disarm the militias and allow full access for humanitarian workers.

"We also reiterate that those responsible for the atrocities must be held accountable," the declaration said.

The document was issued as the international community has been gradually increasing pressure on Khartoum to stop with the violence in Darfur that erupted 16 months ago.

On Friday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would meet US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Khartoum next week to deal with the conflict. [end of BBC report]
- - -

THE CHALLENGE OF THIS CENTURY
Is global warming and to get better policies
in the area of failing states

Clive Soley MP, in his recent post on the Sudan and failing states (note also his responses here and here), says that apart from the problems of global warming, the challenge of this century is to get better policies in the area of failing states. He makes the point that "currently the world lurches between doing nothing as in Rwanda or intervening with heavily armed troops as in Afghanistan and Iraq ...in between there are cases like Somalia where the world’s intervention failed and East Timor where it succeeded but not until much of the damage had been done". He feels Sudan is just the latest in a long line of failed or failing states, and very much fears this is going to be the pattern for many years yet. And notes that Kofi Annan has a high level panel looking at this problem and it may be ready to report at the end of the year.

Clive's post reminds me of an email I'd received from a non-blogging friend in England. The email, dated June 26, 2004, contained a link to a BBC report of the same date, "Screams of Sudan's starving refugees" - my friend wrote this message: "The pattern of human life, I'm afraid, and likely to be so for many thousands of years. All that 'technology' has done so far is to enable us to participate in these horrors. I repeat: humans in the mass are savages, preying on each other and desperate to survive. That will always be the case as long as there are too many of them competing for limited resources."

My friend's email and Clive's post, made me think again about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I'd like to see it form the basis of all new U.N. policies, papers, debates etc. To my mind, it is a masterpiece - an historic document that serves as a great global message. Surely if we could all aim to adhere to it, the world would be a better place for everyone during their short stay on beautiful planet Earth.
- - -

THE BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS REQUIRES MATCHING OBLIGATIONS
As the prerequisite for enjoying the privileges listed

This post is in response to recent ones by Jim Moore's and Clive Soley involving Human Rights, the Sudan and failing states.

Today, I received an email from the non-blogging friend I spoke of in my previous post (see above) re the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was in reply to mine that explores "Why we should help our fellow man when in need - whether he is next door or in Africa?" Part of the reply from my friend says:

"The Bill of Human Rights is largely silent about requiring matching obligations, as the prerequisite for enjoying the privileges listed.  Why don't you try and compose a corresponding list of logical Human Obligations?"

By saying: "The Bill of Human Rights requires matching obligations as the prerequisite for enjoying the privileges listed", my friend has unwittingly put into a nutshell what I was trying to suggest here in yesterday's post about the Declaration forming the basis of all new U.N. policies, papers, debates, etc. In my first draft, I did use the word "obligations" but changed it to "responsibilities" because I had no idea if "obligations", in relation to the Declaration, existed in a legal sense.

As I know nothing about international law on human rights, I can't see how I alone can compose a corresponding list of "logical Human Obligations". Hopefully, Jim and Clive might be willing to open a discussion at their blogs where readers could contribute thoughts and ideas to such a list for putting forward to the U.N.

As stated before, in previous posts here, I am planning to follow through on my friend's suggestion of June 26, to make contact with the U.N. to ask them about the official guidelines which clearly delay UN action until matters (like Darfur) have reached disgraceful proportions. Maybe it can be put forward with the list.
- - -
Update: British blogger Alistair Coleman posted the following comment at my blog: "the problem with world human rights is that any judgement handed down by the UN do not carry legal weight. This means countries can - and will - ignore them. The only way enforcement can occur is by concerted pressure by the world community, hoping to either embarrass a country into compliance, apply sanctions or act militarily. In the case of Darfur, the whole world is being embarrassed into grudging action. What a mess."
- - -

I wonder why it is that a judgement handed down by the U.N. carries no legal weight - is it too difficult to introduce? What would it take for judgements to carry legal weight -- is it being worked on, and if not, why not -- does anyone know?

Clive notes that Kofi Annan has a high level panel looking at this problem and it may be ready to report at the end of the year.

I wonder why has it taken the U.N. nearly 60 years to look into the problem - especially after genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia took place ten years ago - and the West, including Kofi Annan, said "never again". Seems to me, the U.N. administration needs to get its priorities straightened and work more efficiently if they want to be seen as good value for money (which I think they are not - the whole business needs looking at, and overhauling along with the UN refugee agency and World Food Programme).

PS This comment is also to do with getting aid to those who are most in need in Darfur and Chad -- in a few weeks time Kofi Annan will be producing his 30 day report -- it is unclear what the "measures" will be: I am hoping they will include a no fly zone. I'd like to see Darfur as a UN Protectorate - a sort of Peace Zone - where the people can return to and plant their food and make a living while the Peace Accords are sorted to the satisfaction of all those living in the north, south, east and west of Sudan. A New Sudan that is united has a great future to look forward to.

I hope Clive's suggestion of indictments are followed through. Surely, the regime in Khartoum are guilty of crimes against humanity and complicit in genocide and ethnic cleansing if only because of its failure to protect its own people while continuously rejecting all offers of help from international community to provide a safe corridor for the aid and humanitarian assistance to get through, help relieve suffering and save the lives of hundreds and thousands of defenceless civilians who are being attacked and killed by their own government. The dictatorship in Khartoum are in total breach of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and are still members of the UN Human Rights committee - so they cannot plead ignorance.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: