A troubled post-election Darfur: what did you expect?

Elections in Sudan concluded last month with indicted war criminal Omar Al-Bashir taking 68% of the vote. With his leading competitors deciding to boycott the elections, Bashir’s victory was never in doubt and, for many reasons, the international community could do nothing but assent implicitly or explicitly to the outcome. The man responsible for the heinous crimes in Darfur is critical to implementing the final stages of the North/South peace agreement, signed in 2005, that provides Southern Sudanese the opportunity to secede from Bashir’s rule in 2011. As troubled an experience as it has been for the marginalized communities of the South, no such silver lining as the referendum exists for those mired in the chaos that remains Darfur.

As such, it is important intellectually and morally for all interested parties to be clear that these elections were a disaster for efforts to achieve lasting peace, protection and justice in Darfur. How else can you interpret not only Bashir’s victory but that of notorious janjaweed leader Musa Hilal? This poster-child for atrocities in Darfur won a parliamentary seat and, presumably, the constitutional immunities that come with it. So much for Hilal, Bashir, or any other perpetrators being held accountable anytime soon.

[Read the rest at the Huffington Post]

This disheartening piece touches on many of the same issues addressed in an op-ed that my colleague Celeste and I wrote two weeks ago for The East African (of Kenya): “The big losers in Sudan’s flawed election are the abused and ignored people of Darfur.”

In the coming days, I will be writing additional posts on Sudan after the elections and in advance of the referendum in 2011, as well as a few other non-Sudan topics.  So stay tuned.

Protection, Trust and UNAMID in Darfur

“We need active forces, not UNAMID. They are a tourism army,” declared a leader of an internally displaced persons (IDP) camp in West Darfur. He expressed in these words the frustrations of many Darfuris whom I met during a recent week spent travelling in Darfur. Another former state minister complained that the United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID) was “only good at writing reports in their air-conditioned offices.” With news that violence was flaring in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur and that UNAMID lacked the full authority to investigate the reports of civilian causalities and mass displacement there, these complaints certainly resonated.

Such blame, while understandable, should not be directed at those courageously serving or leading UNAMID. The Sudanese government and Darfuri rebel movements continue to prevent UNAMID from fully carrying out its mandate. The UN Security Council sent UNAMID to keep a peace that did not exist – a common refrain from those associated with the mission. In practice, this reality means that UNAMID can only carry out its Chapter 7 mandate and other duties to protect civilians with the consent of the Sudanese government. Only after you have sat in a UNAMID convoy as it passed through a Sudanese Armed Forces checkpoint do you understand the inherent restrictions on the mission.

Read the rest at Change.org

What the Islamic Conference got wrong on Darfur

Members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) pledged $850 million dollars for future development in Darfur on Sunday in Cairo. Egypt and Turkey co-chaired the donor’s conference–which aimed to jumpstart international commitment to long-term reconstruction and development in Darfur after seven years of conflict, mass displacement, and humanitarian crisis. Some countries making generous pledges willfully ignored the ongoing security challenges and unresolved conflict between the Darfuri rebels and the Sudanese government. In this way, the OIC–like the League of Arab States in its response to the Darfur crisis–sought to help the people of Darfur without addressing those most responsible for their deplorable conditions.

Read the rest at Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel

And here is a piece on the Darfur peace process that I posted at Huffington Post.

Darfuri Civil Society: Still Missing from the Table

“This step constitutes a strong and vital addition to efforts to bring peace in Darfur,” declared Sudan’s Second Vice President Ali Osman Taha in Doha yesterday, after signing a framework agreement with the Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM). That may be true, but as I wrote last week, peace in Darfur remains a long way off.

Read the rest at Huffington Post

Abou Shouk Camp, near El-Fasher (Save Darfur/Mark Lotwis)

First posted at Save Darfur…

A month ago in one of my first meetings in Khartoum, I sat through an extended lecture from Dr. Hasabu Abdel-Rahman, the Humanitarian Aid Commissioner.  For more than an hour, he extolled the ability of the Sudanese state to provide for the millions of displaced in Darfur and sharply critiqued the international humanitarian assistance efforts.  It was his opinion that Darfur is well on its way to a full recovery. He shot out statistic after statistic to make his case, including that over 1.2 million Darfuris had returned home from 2007 to 2009 – a number flatly denied by numerous sources during the rest of our trip.

Dr. Hasabu also wanted us to know that international NGOs lack appropriate transparency mechanisms . He complained that while the Sudanese government is forced to sign numerous “treaties” and documents holding them accountable for international assistance that donors and NGOs act with few constraints.  His argument carried with it the implicit accusation that one of his employees made directly when we visited Abou Shouk camp outside of El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur.  This man argued with a straight face that 80% of the budget of INGOs goes to administrative costs and only 20% go to services for the people. He said that these organizations are making millions off of the suffering in Darfur.

Therefore, I found it highly ironic yesterday when I read a story in the Sudan Tribune about Dr. Hasabu:

The Sudanese cabinet issued an unannounced decision to investigate the disappearance of 10 billion pounds from the ministry of humanitarian affairs, a newspaper reported today.

The Akhir-Lahza newspaper said that the council of Ministers wants a probe into the performance of the ministry and the relationship between the minister and the state minister.

Furthermore the report indicated that the humanitarian aid commissioner Hasabu Abdel-Rahman has been relieved from his duties but did not say when the decision was taken. The Sudanese official is running for parliamentary elections and is therefore prohibited from keeping his position at the ministry.

The newspaper quoted reliable sources saying that issue is an outcome of what it called the chaos in decision-making within the ministry and spoke unaccounted funds including eight billion pounds earmarked for the emergency program, two billion pounds for humanitarian action.

I hope Dr. Hasabu takes care in his own involuntary return.

Peace in Darfur: still a long way off

It is too early to tell – but the “framework agreement” recently signed between the Government of Sudan and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the most effective armed rebel movement in Darfur, offers some hope for peace in Darfur. The commitment to an immediate ceasefire and reaching a final accord by March 15 advances the dialogue further than at any point since May 2006 – when President Omar al-Bashir’s government signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) with what was then considered the strongest of the movements. The problems with that agreement are the same as those threatening the current talks: the fragmentation of the movements and questions about the sincerity of the Sudanese government.

Read the rest here.

The New York Times on Saturday ran “Fragile Calm Holds in Darfur After Years of Death,” an article that discusses in detail the profound changes in daily life in Darfur since the early days of the genocide that began in 2003. This depiction of a Darfur that perilously hangs between war and peace may be front page news for the Times, but certainly not for those in the advocacy movement calling for a peaceful resolution to the seven-year old conflict, as well as immediate protection and justice for all Darfuris.

Jeffrey Gettleman writes:

The rebel groups that started the war in Darfur in 2003, catalyzing a conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, almost seem to have gone into hibernation. So, too, have the infamous janjaweed, the marauding bandits who raped, killed and terrorized countless civilians.

And this planting season, for the first time since 2003,United Nations officials say that tens of thousands of farmers who had been seeking refuge in squalid displaced persons camps returned to their villages to plant crops, a journey many Darfurians would have considered suicide until recently.

Gettleman quotes Lieutenant General Patrick Nyamvumba, the Rwanda commander of the African Union/United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID): “Frozen. That is a good word for the situation. It is calm, very calm at the moment, but it remains unpredictable.” While this does appear to be the case, as I wrote in August 2009, with or without active warfare though, Darfur remains a human rights crisis of the first order.

The article also fails to probe deeply into the ongoing obstructions by primarily the Sudanese government – but also the rebel movements – of the peacekeeping force. Nyamvumba states casually, “Yes, we have obstructions from time to time. But it’s not as bad as I thought it would be.” However, as my colleague C.R. pointed out last month, such a claim from the new commander belies the U.N. Secretary General’s findings in his most recent report to the U.N. Security Council and the conclusions of the most recent U.N. Panel of Experts Report. It also contradicts recent statements from Rwandan officials following the death of their members in the force.

On another topic, it’s nice to see the efforts of Darfuri civil society leaders finally gaining some attention. Gettleman writes:

But one glimmer of hope is that camp elders, religious figures and women’s leaders are being given prominent roles in peace talks for the first time.

“Will it be the big breakthrough?” Mr. Augstburger [the director of UNAMID’s humanitarian liaison office in Darfur] said. “I don’t know. But the movements are starting to get concerned. It’s a brand-new dynamic.”

So overall Gettleman provides a pretty good snapshoot of the challenges ahead for Darfuri civilians as they strive for peace, protection, and accountability in the new year. The Darfuri rebels and janjaweed have gone into hibernation, but the primary agent for the mass killings – the Government of Sudan – remains a foreboding threat to Darfuris with still the capability of re-igniting the war at anytime.

The Bashir regime’s decision to freeze the conflict relates directly to the most glaring omission of the article: a failure to discuss the possible impact of the government’s hell-bent efforts to hold elections in Darfur in April 2010. As we have repeatedly warned, the heavy military and intelligence presence in Darfur – as well as the lack of even the most basic freedoms – make it impossible for the people of Darfur to participate in a credible elections process. The government’s insistence, therefore, over the next four months on rushed elections will not help the peace process and could prove to be a dangerous flashpoint for renewed mass violence.

So even though the security situation is relatively calm, no one should declare the conflict and human rights tragedy over until a just and durable peace agreement is signed and  millions of Darfuris are able to return safely home.

First posted at Save Darfur…

The Darfuri civil society consultations in Doha concluded Saturday with representatives finalizing the “Doha Declaration” and delivering it to African Union/United Nations chief mediator Djibril Bassolé and their Qatari host, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs H.E. Ahmed Bin Abdullah Al Mahmoud.  The declaration reportedly urged the Sudanese government and the Darfuri rebels to commit to a ceasefire and begin negotiations as soon as possible.  It also called upon all sides and the mediators to include civil society as part of the negotiations and to task it with assisting in the implementation of any agreement.

The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) is not at all enthusiastic about a coherent civil society voice.  But unlike in May with Mandate Darfur, a civil society initiative sponsored by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, we have not heard of any reported incidents of Darfuri representatives being prevented by the Sudanese government from attending.  This outcome is likely due to the combined and coordinated pressure of Bassolé, the Qataris, U.S. Special Envoy Scott Gration and other envoys.  As for the overall representation of the 170 delegates, we are hearing good things as well. Rebel representatives in Doha, who themselves are leery of a strong civil society voice, had to concede that the NCP had not stacked the conference.  While there are no hard numbers, many of the representatives and others at the consultations stated that overall they were satisfied with the attendance.  Of course, there were some pro-NCP attendees, but these were nowhere near the majority.

And it seems apparent from the “Doha Declaration” itself that NCP representatives had limited influence on the outcome.  In addition to a call for a ceasefire and negotiations, the civil society representatives also made strong demands about carrying out justice, ending impunity, and resolving land issues in Darfur.  In fact, the document specifically calls for the return of all land of displaced persons and refugees to their original owners and the evacuation of those who have lived on the land during their absence.  It also calls for the disarmament of all armed forces in Darfur, except for the constitutionally authorized regular forces, and the establishment of the necessary security mechanisms by UNAMID to allow displaced persons and refugees to return to their villages. As we have just received the text in Arabic, we will try to provide a summary translation later in the week.

Overall, it seems like the chief mediator Bassolé accomplished his goal: sending a strong message from civil society representatives to the Sudanese government and rebels that the conflict should be settled as soon as possible.According to The Sudan Tribune, he said that the peace process “concerns all the sons of Darfur” and that this meeting would be followed by others in Darfur.  Henry Anyidoho, the acting Joint AU-UN Special Representative for Darfur, added:

The growing consensus that would emerge in the civil society consultations here in Doha will certainly have a positive impact on the next round of talks between the Government and the armed movements, and I am hopeful that this will reinvigorate the entire peace process.

He issued a challenge to the gathered representatives:

You have been persistently asking for this opportunity and you now have it. Please make full use of it and do not let it slip away.

In addition to Bassolé and Anyidoho, the Darfuri representatives were welcomed to the meetings by Qatari prime minister, the African Union’s Chairperson Jean Ping and representatives from the Arab League, United States, United Kingdom, France, Chad, Libya, Egypt, China, Russia, Senegal, Syria, Organization of Islamic Conferences, and European Union.  Their attendance showed the interest of the world in the meetings, but Anyidoho had a strong message to the international community as well:

Only when all stakeholders, including the international community, speak with one voice on how best to resolve the conflict in Darfur, will the improvements that we can already see on the ground in Darfur become sustainable and encompassing…Let us redouble our efforts towards this one objective: peace and stability in Darfur.

To that end, we know that only consistent, coordinated pressure on the Sudanese government and Darfuri rebels will compel them to engage seriously in future talks.  So let us hope these consultations really represent a “breakthrough” in the negotiations and that this declaration from so many unheard voices will help push all sides to the table to address the critical issues of protection, peace and justice for millions of Darfuris.

This week, the African Union/United Nations Chief Mediator Djibril Bassolé will begin consultations with 150 Darfuri civil society representatives in Doha, Qatar.  Rather than focusing on this important gathering though, the media over the weekend strangely focused on the postponement of negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Darfuri rebels.

Those following the process closely knew for weeks that Bassolé and the Qataris were intending to use the remaining weeks of November to consult with Darfuri civil society and the rebel movements – and were not planning to launch direct talks between the rebels and Sudanese government until December.  So this was not really news.  A government-leaning Sudanese newspaper, Al Rai Al Aam, on November 9 even ran a story entitled, “Resumption of the Doha negotiations in December.”

What the media has fundamentally missed is that the gathering of Darfuri civil society is critical to a successful peace process.  The voices and concerns of these local leaders who have not taken up arms merit attention from the press and support from the international community. The most important question that journalists should be asking is whether the Sudanese government this time will allow all Darfuri leaders to leave Sudan and travel to the meetings. Despite all of its recent rhetoric about being ready for peace talks, in May of this year, the government obstructed “the safe passage of Darfurian delegates from Sudan” to the Mandate Darfur conference organized by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  At the time the organizers wrote:

“Despite numerous attempts at engagement with the Sudanese government, including sending a delegation to Khartoum and inviting senior figures to address the conference, we were greatly disappointed that Sudanese security services harassed our delegates, confiscated passports and threatened the conference coordinators in Sudan.  Ultimately, the government has refused to grant exit visas to the delegates making it impossible for the conference to proceed.”

A second important question to ask is whether the 150 delegates will be representative of the diverse nature of Darfuri society.  That is, will there be the necessary ethnic, geographic, and gender balance and will IDPs and traditional leaders be represented?  Many Darfuris remember the hand-picked civil society “representatives” that the government sent to the Abuja peace talks in Nigeria in 2006.  The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) has already complainedabout the current list of invitees and delivered to the mediators their own list (article in Arabic).

Drawing lessons from Abuja, the Save Darfur Coalition has consistently called for the broadening of the peace process in order to create a sense of ownership among Darfuris.  In our submission to the African Union Panel on Darfur, we wrote:

Limited formal means have existed to date for civil society to contribute to the peace process. The previous practice of giving seats at the table to almost any combatant has had the perverse effect of encouraging the factionalization of armed groups and giving armed groups a greater say in determining the future of Darfur than their unarmed counterparts. To date, the concerns of disaffected Arab tribes in Darfur have also been excluded from the formal peace process because of the focus on only bringing officially recognized rebel movements to the talks.  A vigorous process of consultation with Darfurian civil society, including tribal leaders (including Arab tribes), will ensure the talks are truly representative and limit the ability of individual rebel leaders to put their personal ambitions ahead of a broadly acceptable agreement. With such a process in place, individual leaders will abstain from the process at their political peril.

We then recommended a strong mechanism, like Mandate Darfur, to enhance civil society representation and engagement.  We also highlighted the important work conducted by the Institute for Inclusive Security and Femmes Africa Solidarité to promote the role of women at the negotiating table.  These channels must now be set up to gain the necessary support within Darfur for any final agreement.  Otherwise, a deal reached in Doha – like the one reached in Abuja – could be dead on arrival.  The active involvement of civil society leaders could also help isolate any Darfuri rebel leaders who may try to spoil the peace process because of personal or political ambitions.

In sum, it is good news that the chief mediator has made holding these civil society sessions a priority in advance of the formal negotiations.  With that said, we must look out for reports that the government has blocked participants.  The mediators should also ensure that the gathered group is sufficiently representative – or, if not, that the leaders have concrete plans to fill any significant ethnic, geographic or gender gaps.  Hopefully, these consultations will help build a Darfuri consensus on the substantive issues on the table and, equally important, result in a formal channel for civil society to contribute to the negotiations when they may resume in December.

Will Fischer – a field organizer at Save Darfur, veteran of the Iraq War, and former teacher in post-Katrina New Orleans – contributes his first piece at Brains Like a Shoe.

Here in America we, in recent years, have heard a great deal of the “invisible wounds” that people carry with them. Whether a story about a returning veteran of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or that of a Katrina survivor, the idea of the invisible wound is prevalent.

As someone who has dealt with, both personally and with comrades, the invisible wounds of war, I cannot even begin to imagine those unseen and untreated victims of the genocide in Darfur and Sudan. And I’m not just speaking of the treated gunshot or laceration.

Among many, the first images of the wars in Darfur and Sudan will spawn thoughts of the Janjaweed storming into villages, their AK-47s firing for effect and their torches at the ready. But what of what goes on out front, but in the shadows – in tents, allies, and in front of children. What of the use of rape as a weapon of war? Do these wounds ever heal?

In today’s Washington Post, Michael Gerson pens an article that tells of these very troubling tales.  Bec Hamilton also this week discusses the latest UN Panel of Experts report that states that “sexual and gender-based violence is rampant” in Darfur.

Can you even for a fleeting moment imagine living with the fear of rape at each waking…and sleeping moment? Can you imagine what it the psychological effects must be of waiting your turn…waiting your turn to be raped? So many in Darfur have lived this day in and day out, in villages and IDP camps.  Without proper reporting mechanisms, who knows how many live this reality today?

The crisis in Darfur is anything but over. If anything, aid from the world is needed now more than ever.

We must not allow war criminal Omar al-Bashir and his deadly regime to outlast the resolve of Darfuris, Sudanese and the world. We must not allow our care to fade or their spirits to be broken. We must, in chorus-as fellow humans, demand from our leaders and theirs a new day in Sudan.

Someday the gun barrels will cool, the ashes will no longer smolder, and peace and stability will be realized. But what then? How do we deal with the invisible wounds?  These will be staggering questions for another day.

This week, I have been writing about the African Union Panel on Darfur’s recent report delivered to and endorsed by the AU Peace and Security Council.  Having summarized the recommendations that Save Darfur submitted to the panel regarding the peace process, I will now summarize our recommendations for steps that should be taken to address the challenge of justice and the suppression of impunity arising from the conflict in Darfur.

In our submission, we highlighted the AU’s stated will in its founding documents to suppress impunity and ensure justice for mass human rights violations and atrocities.  As such, we urged the AU that “when faced with a choice between the rights of African people and the interests of African states and their leaders, the African Union should stand on the side of the people.”

To make the case for why justice was paramount to tackling the crisis in Darfur, we pointed to recent Sudanese history:

Parties negotiating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) to end the decades-long war between North and South Sudan decided to leave accountability mechanisms out of the accord.  Less than five years later, implementation of the CPA has fallen far behind schedule, violence has increased on border regions, and regional and international leaders have been forced to devote significant energy and resources to upholding the CPA and preventing a return to civil war.  Similarly, the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) failed to address the need to end impunity and ensure justice for the victims of the conflict that has raged in Darfur since 2003. This deficiency of the agreement was one major reason for its death on arrival – why it was unable to gain the confidence of the non-signatory rebel movements and much of Darfuri civil society, particularly community leaders in the IDP camps.

Noting the challenges of securing justice for the victims of grave crimes like genocide, while at the same time securing peace, we recommended a two-layered solution.

[F]irst, the pursuit of international justice at the level of the International Criminal Court to end impunity for those most responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity; and second, the construction or reform of local, national and regional justice and reconciliation processes to address atrocity crimes in the future…But any genuine progress in ending impunity and ensuring justice at the national level in Sudan is unlikely at present, and current regional mechanisms are unable to provide justice for crimes in Darfur.   As such, the AU and international community must positively engage with the ICC while reiterating commitments to support the development of genuine accountability processes at national and regional levels.

Disputing the charges that the ICC unfairly targeted Sudan, we reminded the panel that the case of Darfur was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council due to the absence of capable alternative mechanisms to deal with the grave crimes in Darfur, including any at the national level in Sudan or at regional levels:

• Failed to initiate criminal justice proceedings against individuals responsible for or accused of crimes against humanity or war crimes in Darfur.
• Refused to arrest and turn over those individuals charged by the ICC with crimes in Darfur.
• Refused to heed advice from its friends and allies – such as the League of Arab States – on compromise measures designed to satisfy the need for justice.
• Prevented justice for rape victims in Darfur, despite rampant sexual violence against women and girls in the region.

Specifically we recommended:

• Supporting the Darfur case before the ICC, as it currently provides the only genuine option for holding accountable those most responsible for crimes against humanity in Darfur.
• Positive engagement with the ICC.  The AU and all states concerned about peace and justice have the opportunity through positive engagement to enhance the ability of the ICC to play a role in achieving the goals enshrined in the AU Charter.
• Ensuring justice in a future Darfur peace agreement. The Darfur peace process should clearly address the need to end impunity and ensure justice for the victims. Mechanisms must include both criminal justice proceedings to hold perpetrators accountable and complementary restorative justice processes that aid victims and survivors of atrocities and their families and communities.

While the AUPD regrettably did not unequivocally support the Darfur cases currently before the ICC, its report serves as a damning indictment of the Sudanese government’s handling of justice issues in Darfur.  The report highlights a number of the failings summarized above and states “[T]he Panel must…recognise that the victims of the conflict simply have no faith that the justice system of Sudan will be deployed fairly to address the crimes they have suffered.”

The report also notes that ICC’s “prosecutorial policy inevitably leaves the overwhelming majority of individuals outside of the ICC system and still needing to answer for crimes they might have committed.”  It is this reasoning that leads the panel to endorse a Hybrid Court for Darfur “as one component of the architecture for confronting Darfur’s past.”  In essence, the AUPD argues that the ICC should be allowed to function, but more justice is better than less.

We believe, like Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations, that this hybrid court system could theoretically work as a mechanism for accountability complementary to the ICC.  This proposal, however,  cannot be a substitute for or an alternative to the current ICC proceedings.  While some Darfuris, including rebel groups, may rightly presume that some African leaders wish to replace the ICC with the proposed hybrid court system, the Mbeki report does not specifically state this intention.  At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that this concern may be realized.  Instead, as with the Obama administration’s Sudan policy review, the proof will be in the implementation of the AU’s hybrid court recommendations and its continuing work to promote peace, justice and reconciliation for the Darfuri people.