Brains Like a Shoe

Bec Hamilton invited me to react to Ben Wallace-Wells’ essay, “Darfuristan,” in the current issue of Rolling Stone. You can read the full post on her great blog, “The Promise of Engagement.”

Here is the meat of it…

My issue with this essay though, and other less well-researched criticisms of the advocacy movement (see Mahmood Mamdani’s diatribes), is that it captures the fluidity and complexity of international politics and American activism to the gross neglect of important shifts and dynamics in Sudanese politics. The essay goes half-way by discussing the highly politicized nature of the IDP camps in Darfur today. By reading the complete essay though, one would think that Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP) have successfully rebuffed all international pressures and that they have once again securely protected their monopolization of power and wealth in the country.

But as those who follow Sudanese politics closely know, Khartoum is not the same Khartoum today. The regime has its back against the wall and is fighting for survival in a self-destructive way unseen in its twenty years of dominance. Such an analysis is at the heart of the International Crisis Group recent paper entitled, “Sudan: Preventing an Implosion.”

Consistent international condemnation and isolation of the Bashir regime’s egregious actions in Darfur, South Sudan, and even in Khartoum and other areas of North Sudan, have opened the door for Sudanese actors committed to human rights and a more democratic and liberal form of governance to speak out and challenge the regime. The recent demonstrations of the Juba forces and the emergence of grassroots groups like Girifna are the two most obvious examples.  Reported cracks within the NCP regarding the future of the party and the state also reveal that all may not be well within the ruling cabal. The elections scheduled for April 2010 could put to the test all of these changing dynamics, especially if the opposition and civil society continue to work together to demand greater freedoms and civil rights. The international community and activists should not take sides in these elections, but they should continue to demand greater political space to allow Sudanese politics to take place without resorting to violence and repression.

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.

Read the rest of this entry

First posted at Save Darfur…

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).

Read the rest of this entry