Brains Like a Shoe

First posted at Save Darfur….please also see my colleague Robert’s post with our initial reaction to the Sudan Policy Review.

This morning Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and General Gration all spoke of the “sense of urgency” in dealing with Sudan’s interlocking crises.  Two breaking headlines from Sudan today confirm the urgent necessity of finding a durable solution to Darfur and preventing the collapse of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).

First, Bloomberg News is reporting that the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement announced today that it will boycott parliament for a week to pressure the country’s ruling party to amend bills including one that gives “unlimited powers” to intelligence services.  This move comes after a weekend where the National Congress Party and SPLM reached a tentative compromise on the referendum.Yet, this progress was not enough to meet the SPLM’s ultimatum last week that gave parliament a week to make significant progress on a number of pieces of critical legislation:

“We want to see a parliamentary schedule for the discussion of all the nine laws,” Yasser Arman, head of the former rebel group’s northern sector, told reporters today in Khartoum. “The current security law allows for detention, search and arrest, and gives a lot of immunity to the security body. And this is against the constitution.”

Arman goes on to say that the NCP now has until October 26; otherwise the SPLM will boycott the remaining sessions in parliament that run until November 30.

The other troubling news comes from UNAMID, the African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur, which released the following warning about a noticeable increase in military activities in Darfur:

UNAMID personnel in the field have recently observed a sizable and unusual increase in military activities by the Government of Sudan (GoS) and Sudan Liberation Army/Abdul Wahid Faction (SLA/AW) forces, notably in the areas of Sortony and Kabkabiya in North Darfur. UNAMID is gravely concerned by this build-up as it may signal the impending start of a new cycle of armed confrontations in the area.

UNAMID wishes to emphasize that armed clashes invariably result in casualties and fatalities among combatants and in dire consequences for the civilian population, with loss of life, destruction of property, and massive displacement, thus negating the gains made so far in attempts to restore peace to Darfur.

UNAMID solemnly calls on all parties involved to refrain from resorting to violence and reiterates its conviction that the only way for a peaceful resolution of the conflict is through dialogue and negotiations.

These troubling reports demonstrate why – as Secretary Clinton remarked – the conflicts and issues in Sudan “cannot be ignored or willed away” and why the U.S. government must immediately begin implementing a policy that “empowers the people of Sudan to solve their own problems.”  The status quo no doubt portends the worse for Sudanese.  The complex diplomatic tasks at hand require – as we have called – the full leveraging of every relevant piece of the U.S. government and the generation from the administration of multilateral, coordinated support.

Egypt is now suffering the consequences of irrationally killing all its pigs last spring.  The whole episode points to other major flaws in the system:

What started out as an impulsive response to the swine flu threat has turned into a social, environmental and political problem for the Arab world’s most populous nation.

It has exposed the failings of a government where the power is concentrated at the top, where decisions are often carried out with little consideration for their consequences and where follow-up is often nonexistent, according to social commentators and government officials….

“The state is troubled; as a result the system of decision making is disintegrating,” said Galal Amin, an economist, writer and social critic. “They are ill-considered decisions taken in a bit of a hurry, either because you’re trying to please the president or because you are a weak government that is anxious to please somebody.”

Meanwhile, my friend Nate tells a short story about the long suffering of  of a Kurdish family from Halabja.

Finally, Sec. of State Clinton raised some (lofty) expectations for this administration’s foreign assistance and development approaches at Brookings on Friday.  Until now, President Obama has been pillioried by the development community for his failure to appoint a USAID administrator:

Now, many of you have heard me describe our plans to integrate diplomacy and development as two of the three pillars in our foreign policy, along with defense. I’ve talked in different venues about the Obama Administration’s commitment to leading with diplomacy and engaging other nations. Next week, I will outline how we will approach development in tandem with our diplomacy – to be effective and efficient and enable the State Department, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation to pursue and execute 21st century foreign policy goals.

The foundation for our approach will be principles that will move us away from top-down assistance that too often fails to meet the needs of those we are attempting to help, or has only short-term effects. To solve the complex problems of poverty, hunger, health, climate change, where they intersect, we want to focus on those root causes, and look for approaches that really change, transform the environment in which people are making these decisions and in which governments are held accountable to a higher degree of performance and transparency. We will be looking for ways to not only explain our approach, but to highlight issues. I will be, for example, participating in an event with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, hosted by the UN and the United States Government, on food security.

Check out my update over at Save Darfur about Lubna’s case and what might happen next…

After being sentenced to jail on Monday for refusing to pay her $200 fine for violating Sudan’s indecency laws by wearing trousers in public, Lubna Hussein has now been freed.  Bec Hamilton in a piece at Foreign Policy explains that the head of the Sudanese Journalists’ Association (SJA) paid Lubna’s fine, but…

Check out my post at Save Darfur on Lubna Hussein’s trial in Khartoum…

Ms. Hussein’s trial demonstrates “to the world” what the Sudanese government in Khartoum considers “justice to be.”  This incident and the responses from Hamilton, APHRA and others also reveal one of the existential purposes of advocacy – to amplify the voices of those who are everyday courageously striving against a multitude of internal obstacles to improve the conditions and institutions in their own countries.  After highlighting these concerns, we in the advocacy community must then demand that our governments and the international community put human rights and justice issues at the center of their relations with regimes like the one in Sudan.

Bec Hamilton, who is currently investigating the past 6 years of Darfur policy and citizen advocacy, just returned from Sudan and Darfur.  She writes on four key issues facing Darfuris today.

Given the national elections scheduled for April 2010 are looming over all of Sudan, I asked her about the current conversations of Darfuris regarding the elections.  Specifically, did what she hear on the ground generally match the concerns expressed in the UN Secretary General’s report from July, in which he wrote:

38. Darfur, opposition parties and civil society actors have called on the Government to ensure the freedom of movement, assembly, association and speech required to ensure a free and fair process. Leaders of the internally displaced have expressed the view that peace, security, compensation, and the return of internally displaced persons should come before the holding of elections. They have also expressed the fear that voter registration of internally displaced persons in camps would be tantamount to relinquishing their lands.

I also asked if she thought any of the Sudanese and international actors that she spoke to are moving forward on the Secretary General’s recommendations (below)?

7. The Government of National Unity and the Darfur movements must address the concerns of the internally displaced persons in Darfur. Concrete steps need to be taken towards a comprehensive peace agreement. These include a cessation of hostilities, and progress towards compensation, land rights and redressing marginalization issues. This would help to create an appropriate environment for the forthcoming elections. Should large segments of the population in Darfur be prevented from participating in elections by the refusal to agree to a cessation of hostilities, technical constraints related to registration, or voluntary or involuntary boycotts of the process, progress towards political stability would be impeded. Accordingly, I urge the Government of National Unity and the Darfur movements to openly discuss these issues and make concrete progress towards a comprehensive peace. The Darfur movements have an obligation to use the opportunity of national elections to pursue their political demands through the ballot box and lay down their arms.

Hamilton responded with a sobering assessment:

Yes – elections and the 2011 referendum are the big picture issues facing the whole of Sudan now. I’m developing a magazine feature on it, so will have my thoughts better organized as I work through that. But from the perspective of Darfuris who are living in Darfur, it is hard to get more than a dismissive wave of the hand from them on the elections. There are huge problems with the census results (and not just in Darfur). Not only are the camps not covered but the numbers don’t add up in areas outside the camps to a large extent either – especially in South Darfur. So with these problems, combined with the fact that for IDPs in Darfur there are much more immediate issues related to day to day survival, trying to even raise the elections with them is difficult. There is not one IDP I spoke with who thought the elections were anything other than a giant waste of time. This response however changes if you speak with Darfuris in Khartoum (they also are completely skeptical, but they have some attention to give to it).  As to your specific question – What the UNSG wrote remains almost entirely aspirational.

As expected, the comments about war being over in Darfur from the outgoing UNAMID commander received considerable coverage on Thursday.  I did an interview with Andrew Meldrum at Global Post who was looking to situate this statement from General Agwai into the broader political and humanitarian realities for the millions of war-affected Darfuris.  Here is what I said (with two corrections):

The Washington-based Save Darfur Coalition also finds fault with Agwai’s statement. “The political and humanitarian crisis in Darfur is not over. Nor is the threat of full-scale fighting over, said Sean Brooks, policy associate of Save Darfur Coalition. “We find Gen. Agwai’s statement surprising, considering that just a few weeks ago he said that the U.N. forces are only at 70 percent deployment and need to be fully deployed to protect the people of Darfur. There are still no [not enough] U.N. helicopters to fully meet the protection mandate for refugees [actually IDPs] and aid workers. 2009 has been the most dangerous year for aid workers with kidnappings and hijackings.”

Concerted international pressure, “particularly from Egypt and other neighboring states, the Arab League and the African Union is needed to get the Khartoum government to be committed to the peace process,” said Brooks.

And if you can read Spanish, here is an interview that I did with BBC Mundo. Using Google Translate, I think the reporter accurately recorded my statement.

Check out my blog from today…some media and other blog links to follow.  Here is the summary.

The outgoing commander of the joint UN-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force, Martin Luther Agwai, made news earlier today when he told reporters that, “As of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur.”

…With or without active warfare in Darfur, the situation remains dangerous and bleak for millions of Darfuris. Peace does not appear around the corner and, as we all know by now, over 2.7 million live in IDP camps and roughly 4.7 million are dependent in some way on humanitarian assistance….While the nature of the violence in Darfur has certainly changed, it remains a human rights and humanitarian crisis of the first order.  Agwai’s comments may get headlines, but these reports reveal without doubt that Darfuri civilians lack even the most basic human rights.  Despite their hopes and prayers for peace and protection, the nightmare that began over six years ago continues.

I guess SLA leader Abdel Wahid Nur is not yet a reader of my blogging.  His comments to the Sudan Tribune today help drive home the points that I made on Save Darfur’s blog Friday.  It seems like Abdel Wahid remains intent on making headlines rather than actually engaging in unity talks.  He goes directly after U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Gration:

“Instead of playing a positive role in the resolution of [the] Darfur conflict in order to stop the ongoing violence against Darfur people, the special envoy of President Obama to Sudan abandoned his mission and has become a problem and an obstacle due to his non-neutral position.”

He continues to argue emphatically that his rejection of the Darfur Peace Agreement was the right decision, without even acknowledging the suffering of the Darfuri people over the last three years:

“Days vindicated the rightness of our position to not accept solutions that do not fulfill the demands of Darfur people.”

And finally he makes claims that bear no resemblance to reality:

“This is not something about Abdel Wahid versus Scott Gration; this is about rebels from all different factions unifying to help and ensure that the will of the people of Darfur is carried out in a process that can make a difference.”

Where is Abdel Wahid in the midst of all of these unity talks?  Rather than making positive constributions, the article states that he sacked six commanders who dared show up in Addis Ababa and agreed to work with others factions on a common negotiating platform.

First published over at Save Darfur…

Darfuri rebel politics since the signing of the failed Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006 has been confusing and difficult for outsiders to monitor. Estimates over the last three years about the fragmentation of the two Sudan Liberation Army factions (SLA/Abdel Wahid and SLA/Minawi) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) have ranged from as little as five significant groups to as many as twenty-eight splinter factions. Tracking the constantly fluid relationships among these different Darfuri factions and their leaders has been next to impossible for analysts and advocates. All agree though that this fragmentation has made obtaining peace in Darfur more painfully elusive for the conflict-afflicted Darfuris and more challenging for regional and international mediators.

It is good news, therefore, to see U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Gration on his way to Addis Ababa to participate in unity talks among the rebels. He recognizes that they must have a common negotiating position if any negotiations with the Sudanese government are going to be successful. These are the correct lessons to draw from the peace talks in Abuja that secured the signature of only one major rebel faction led by Minni Minawi for the Darfur Peace Agreement – yet amplified the infighting and mistrust among the rebels which has contributed to the last three years of internal conflict and fragmentation.

It is also good news to hear Gration promoting the role of Darfuri civil society leaders in the peace talks. He told reports today, “Civil society must also speak up so that their voices are heard on issues related to land reform, elections and human rights.” Only three months ago, the Sudanese government scuttled the most promising initiative on this front – Mandate Darfur – by obstructing the safe passage of Darfuri delegates to a large-scale gathering in Addis Ababa. Save Darfur and our partners have urged the international community through their support of negotiations to make the participation of these community leaders a priority. These representatives of IDP camps, women’s and professional groups, and other community-based organizations can help ensure that the true concerns and demands of the Darfuri people are clearly articulated and addressed by all sides during the negotiations.

Despite these positive signs of U.S. leadership in the Darfur peace process, the statements and actions of some rebel leaders remain troubling. The Sudan Tribunetoday reports that Abdel Wahid al-Nur will not attend or send representatives to the unity talks in Ethiopia. This decision continues Nur’s irresponsible negotiating strategy since his refusal to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006. After leaving Abuja at the end of the talks, Nur has spent the majority of his time in Paris where he has refused to commit to new talks with the Sudanese government. Instead, he demands that a long-list of his demands must be fully met and implemented before any negotiations can begin, including the imposition of a no-fly zone in Darfur and the complete disarmament of the janjaweed.

While Nur has reportedly not visited Darfur since 2004 and lost the allegiance of many commanders on the ground, he retains key support in many of the IDP camps. Therefore, his dismissal of unity talks is significant. Can Special Envoy Gration and those Darfuris committed to re-launching peace talks ignore Abdel Wahid’s absence? For now, they have no choice. They must begin the tough work of building a common negotiating platform for the Darfuri people and tearing down the walls of enmity between rebel leaders that have helped prolong the conflict in Darfur. At the same time, Gration and others must continue to think of how to devise an appropriate way in for Abdel Wahid and other hardliners. If Nur shows signs of changing his intransigent negotiating stance, the international community should develop a face-saving path for him to climb down from his past rhetoric and enter into a new process of substantive negotiations with the Sudanese government to bring peace to Darfur.