Array
(
    [status] => success
    [country] => United States
    [lat] => 39.043800354004
    [as] => AS14618 Amazon.com, Inc.
    [region] => VA
    [regionName] => Virginia
    [isp] => Amazon.com, Inc.
    [query] => 18.205.176.39
    [city] => Ashburn
    [lon] => -77.487396240234
    [org] => AWS EC2 (us-east-1)
    [countryCode] => US
    [zip] => 20149
    [timezone] => America/New_York
)
        

Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Long reads
13 April 2008updated 24 Sep 2015 11:16am

Appeasement in Darfur

When nations refuse to stand together in the face of Sudan’s violations on international law, they s

By Becky Tinsley

This is not a sophisticated geopolitical analysis, but in the four years I have been campaigning against the genocide in Darfur, I have realised that the rules of the schoolyard apply to international relations. Unless nations come together to call the bullies’ bluff, the thugs will continue to divide and rule, to terrorize, and to make the rest of us look like irresolute fools.

In Darfur, the ‘international community’ allows the Sudanese junta to run rings around it. Time and again the West’s diplomats refuse to acknowledge the true nature of the Khartoum regime, patronisingly assuming we can ‘manage’ them.

It has been five years since the systematic destruction and ethnic cleansing of Darfur’s black African tribes began. The mainly Arab military junta ruling Sudan has destroyed ninety per cent of the mostly black Africa villages in Darfur, aided by their proxies, the Janjaweed militias.

An estimated 200,000 to 450,000 civilians have died as a consequence, and four million people have been affected by the ongoing genocide.

The United Nations Security Council has expressed concern, but very few of its resolutions have been enforced. When nations refuse to stand together in the face of Sudan’s violations on international law, they signal to the Khartoum dictatorship their lack of serious intent.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

The same ruthless, oppressive, extremist and totalitarian Sudanese regime used similar tactics to kill an estimated two million black Africans in southern Sudan over the last two decades. Again, the lack of political will to confront Khartoum assured the junta that they could kill with impunity.

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

Consequently two million people are in refugee camps where they have no security, and a quarter of a million have fled to neighbouring Chad, pursued by the Sudanese and their proxies. The brave work of humanitarian agencies is hindered by rebels and militia who steal supplies, kidnap, kill and terrorize.

Meanwhile, the Sudanese regime has played the world’s diplomats and politicians for fools. For instance, in 2007 the International Criminal Court in The Hague indicted a top Khartoum official, Amhed Haroum, on twenty-two counts of crimes against humanity. Sudan promptly appointed Haroum as Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs. Shortly after, Sudanese officials met UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, fully expecting him to object. They were, reportedly, astonished when he did not even comment.

In February this year, Khartoum finally signed a watered-down agreement allowing a hybrid African Union-UN peacekeeping force into Darfur. Within three days, Sudanese officials were rewarded with a top level trip to Washington for ‘discussions of mutual benefit.” At the same time, their armed forces unleashed a ferocious and sustained attack in west Darfur, killing hundreds and displacing thousands.

Rather than calling for talks to be suspended, Lord Malloch Brown, the Foreign Office minister, urged more “constructive engagement” with Sudan. Ignoring a UN resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Darfur, Gordon Brown insisted it would be impractical, despite its proven success in Kurdish Iraq since 1991. At just the time when Khartoum should be scrambling for diplomatic cover, it senses our lack of backbone, and is pushing aggressively to be dropped from the US State Department’s list of sponsors of terror.

In the latest Orwellian twist, when the Sudanese shot dead a French peacekeeper on March 3rd, the European Union apologised to Sudan for accidentally crossing their border.

Meanwhile, the people I have met in refugee camps in Darfur live each day filled with terror, incredulous that when we say ‘never again’ about genocide, we don’t actually mean it.

The most pitiful aspect of our appeasement is that whenever we speak with one voice, the Sudanese give in immediately. When will our diplomats learn from the simple rules of the schoolyard?

Becky Tinsley is director of Waging Peace