When Senator Romeo Dallaire speaks this Sunday as part of the Global Day for Darfur, commentators will make the inevitable comparisons between Rwanda and Darfur. In some ways, that’s the point. But amidst cries that “never again” has become “again and again,” the issues specific to the present conflict are being neglected.
We must recognize these specificities to prevent an escalation of violence once African Union (A.U.) troops pull out of Sudan at the end of this month.
Darfur is different both as a conflict and in terms of the world’s response. The civilians being killed in Darfur, for example, are far more racially diverse than those specifically targeted in Rwanda. The case of Darfur is also less localized, having spread to neighbouring countries such as Chad, and has lasted much longer: three-and-a-half years as opposed to the hundred days in Rwanda.
Because of this timeframe, victims are now being killed by a variety of less obvious causes, making it more difficult to report an exact death toll. Most conservative estimates put the deaths from government-backed Janjaweed militia attacks at somewhere above 200,000, but it is difficult to count those who die from malnutrition, lack of basic medicine, or further violence in refugee camps. These conditions have combined to create what the U.N. calls “the worst humanitarian crisis” in the world.
The world’s response to Darfur has also been different than it was to Rwanda.
There is clearly a greater will among countries to act, especially in the case of the United States. The ratification of U.N. resolution 1706 to replace the struggling 7,000 A.U. troops currently in Sudan with 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers indicates that international goodwill does exist.
This time around you also don’t see the same kind of semantic wrangling when it comes to the term ‘genocide.’ As Paul Martin said in an address to the U.N., better to act than to dismiss Darfur’s suffering. We should not speak of Darfur as being “merely” a mass murder in the hundreds of thousands, but should instead call it what it has become.
But Sudan has unfortunately proved a lesson learned in Rwanda: the international community can be forever stalled from taking action.
The Khartoum government is not interested in peace; it is using the peace process as a stall tactic to stave off intervention. Since the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May, several NGOs have reported that instances of sexual violence as well as the use of government planes to bomb civilians have increased.
Claims that U.N. intervention is an act of colonialism infringing on Sudan’s sovereignty don’t hold up either, as the Sudanese government has previously allowed similar U.N. peacekeeping missions into other regions of the country.
Don’t forget that there’s more at stake personally for certain Sudanese higher-ups who are presently under investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Sudanese government has threatened to attack any U.N. force attempting to enter Darfur, because they fear prosecution by the ICC.
Khartoum is betting, quite rightly, that the world won’t have the guts to invade. It certainly won’t when China buys Sudan’s oil and Sudan buys Russia’s weapons. These powerful countries have placed a provision that any U.N. mission to Darfur requires Sudan’s consent.
This Sunday, let’s recognize priorities. We don’t need to nit-pick the Canadian government right now. They increased aid to Darfur by $40 million and Foreign Affairs minister Peter McKay has been active in pressuring Sudan into peace talks and accepting the U.N. resolution.
If we want to stop the violence from escalating in Darfur after the A.U. mandate expires, Canada needs to focus on those two countries with veto power: China and Russia. This is what the Global Day for Darfur should be about.
