The short answer is probably no. The Sudanese government has expressed that any UN troops in Darfur will be treated as “foreign invaders”. There are already 7,000 African Union troops in the region, but this works out to only 3 soldiers for every 100km of Darfur. Additionally, the AU troops have a weak mandate that must be renewed every six months. The government knows that the West is preoccupied. Truly, there don’t appear to be enough resources to satisfy peacekeeping in Southern Sudan, let alone peaceMAKING in Darfur.
Some argue that Khartoum will say no to any force that would succeed in restoring peace in Darfur, namely because they are at least in part responsible for the ethnic cleansing. All of this means that any (effective) military action would have to be without Khartoum’s permission.
Thanks to Dr. Stephen Brown for his talk on Darfur at The Failing, Failed and Fragile States conference, held at The University of British Columbia March 8 – 10, 2007, during which much of this information was obtained.
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
Canada is not a military giant. In fact, with most of its force otherwise disposed in Afghanistan, Canada is unable to participate militarily, in the foreseeable future, in terms of sending troops (Dr. Jane Boulden, Royal Military College). It is therefore likely that Canada’s role—should it choose to play a role—will be to act as a catalyst, and to provide leadership. Canada should be commended for the role that it has played in the development of R2P, but for all of our talk and leadership, few risky steps have been taken towards addressing the conflict in Darfur.
If Canada can’t intervene, what is to be done? One option that has been discussed among the international community is a no-fly zone over Darfur. Many attacks on Darfuri civilians come from helicopters, and this would significantly hinder the ability of the militias and government to target innocent civilians. Leaders in the UK especially have discussed this as an option for action.
There are some non-military options as well. Canada is able to encourage and then legislate divestment from companies involved in the Darfur region, or in Sudan more generally. For one country to divest may not be significant; indeed, there are other countries able to pick up what Canada has divested. If Canada were to take leadership in encouraging other middle powers to divest, however, the results could be much more significant. Remember, divestment from South African played a prominent role in the fall of apartheid. Sudan HAS responded to pressure in the past. Recall when the government forced Osama bin Laden out of the country under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The Canadian government CAN play a role, be it a multilateral or leadership role. To do so, however, Canada has to have a position, and must explicitly declare that the situation in Darfur is unacceptable. Canadian citizens can get involved by writing to MPs (more info on this coming soon), and in exploring divestment options as individuals and as members of universities or corporations. Queen’s University recently divested its investments in Chinese oil companies operating in Sudan over Darfur. See articles here and here. Just one example of what can happen when people gather together in support of humanity.
- sara
Canada has long been considered a peacekeeping nation, or at least, that is how we perceive ourselves. While in recent years, Canadian military involvement has mostly been green helmet (Afghanistan being the most pertinent example), rather than the blue helmets of a UN-mandated peacekeeping mission, supporting a peacemaking/peacekeeping operation in Darfur would be valuable in maintaining Canada’s reputation on the international stage. Indeed, Canada should be praised for the monetary contribution it has made to the African Union troops, but more can and should be done on the part of the Canadian government with regards to Darfur.
The country also prides itself in respecting and furthering international law and the idea of a global community. In fact, the country was a leader in the development of R2P, and other initiatives such as the treaty prohibiting anti-personnel landmines, have been developed and drawn up in Canada. The conflict in Darfur is an opportunity for the Canadian government to respect and further international law. If international law is ever to be a legitimate force in this world, it needs to be adhered to.
Many have argued—and rightly so—that at least one of the requirements of the Genocide Convention has been met*, and thus, there is an international, legal responsibility for a response. Specifically interesting is Article 3[e], which lists “complicity in genocide” as a “punishable” act.
Finally, it may be in the interest of the Harper government—should an election be called—to be able to say that it did indeed “play its part” in helping the people of Darfur.
This of course, is all without even considering that we have a moral obligation to other human beings.
*If the estimates of 400,000 dead are correct—and some estimate the numbers to be even higher—, that is 1/10th of the population of the Darfur region. The vast majority of these people are Black African Sudanese (Article 2 [a]). It is very difficult to get aid into the region (Article 2 [c]). Even if it’s NOT genocide, the ATTEMPT to commit or complacence towards genocide is sufficient (Article 3 [d,e])
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report was issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, with the support of the Government of Canada. The full pdf document can be found here. Essentially:
“[t]he Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity is an international commitment by governments to prevent and react to grave crises, wherever they may occur. In 2005, world leaders agreed, for the first time, that states have a primary responsibility to protect their own populations and that the international community has a responsibility to act when these governments fail to protect the most vulnerable among us.”
The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts is the first official UNSC reference to R2P; it “Reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.
It is with this in mind that we believe the international community has a responsibility to protect the people of Darfur.
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
Here is a growing list of questions that people have asked us as we’ve prepared for the benefit, as well as questions that we’ve asked of friends, profs, and classmates as we struggle to understand what’s going on in Sudan, and what we can and should do in response. Check back for updates as we add to this list 
.
What do you mean by “Never Again Is Again”?
Would the government in Sudan be willing to allow UN troops into Darfur?
What is The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
What can Canada (and Canadians) do?
Is it in Canada’s national interest to become involved in Darfur?
Aren’t there already troops on the ground in Sudan?
Where can I find further information on the Internet?
Where can I find more general background on Sudan’s history?
Where can I find out more about the conflict in Darfur?
What are some of the current social and political indicators in Sudan?
What has the international response to Darfur been like so far?
What has Canada’s response been to Darfur?
- sara
There are approximately 7,000 African Union (AU) troops in Sudan right now, whose purpose is to provide protection for humanitarian workers. This works out to just over 3 soldiers for every 100km of land. Comparatively, there are currently 11 soldiers for every 100km of land in Bosnia, 10 years after the conflict ended. Some estimate that 44,000 troops would be needed for any effective patrolling and protection of the area.
Their main focus is Southern Sudan, and supporting the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). These troops have a mandate that is supported by the Sudanese government in Khartoum, but it is a weak mandate, and must be renewed every six months. And so, while one may argue that providing better resources for the AU troops would provide an avenue through which to pursue peace in the Darfur region, there are several problems.
First, they are not in the Darfur region; second, they are unable to plan for the long term because they do not have the resources. Third, the AU mandate allows troops to protect humanitarian workers only. This means that, for example, if an AU soldier were to witness a Darfuri civilian being raped and beaten, he would not be able to defend that person under the mandate. Finally, should the AU prove effective, it is likely that the Sudanese government would not renew the mandate at the end of the next six month period. The likelihood of this last scenario would not likely occur anyway; the AU is VERY supported of national sovereignty, for reciprocity purposes.
[Note: Many of these statistics were provided by experts at the Failing, Failed & Fragile States Conference, held at the University of British Columbia in March, 2007.]
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
We are not suggesting that Darfur is another Rwanda. We don’t have a situation where, as in Rwanda, 8,000+ people are being killed every day over a period of 100 days. There is less systematic cohesion in Darfur, but the conflict has been going on for over four years now. Additionally, according to Stephen Brown of the University of Ottawa, many people are dying from lack of food and water. This proves to be cyclical, for what options are left to a starving and displaced population, other than taking up arms?
What IS the same is that while many feel that something very wrong is happening in Darfur, like Rwanda, the international community is being caught up in a web of semantics and apathy, and is standing by as the number of innocent victims increases every day. This is another chance to follow through on international conventions in the face of humanitarian crisis, and nothing is being done.
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
Article 2 of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Recent estimates suggest that the number of deaths in Darfur has reached between 400,000 and 450,000, which is more than one tenth of the population of the region. The vast majority of victims are black African Sudanese.
While the United Nations has chosen not to attach the term “genocide” to what is happening in Darfur, many humanitarian groups, and even the American government, have used genocide to describe the situation.
The difficulty lies in the fact that officially calling the conflict in Darfur “genocide” would legally require action on the part of the international community. Whether it is due to lack of information, lack of political will, or lack of resources, it is clear that the United Nations is extremely hesitant to officially call Darfur a genocide. What we DO know, is that people are dying, and at an alarming rate.
One further thought: A crime is a crime; why does it have to be called “genocide” to be an atrocity against mankind that should be met with an international response?
- sara
Filed under: FAQ - NAIA
The term was first used following the Holocaust of World War II. The international community committed itself to preventing “ethnic cleansing”, or the destruction of an entire or significant part of an ethnic or racial group. “Never again” has been applied to several other humanitarian crises in the 20th and 21st centuries, namely, following the Rwandan genocide of 1994. We believe that “never again” is again, because the international community is once again paralyzed, tied up in semantics, while hundreds of thousands in the Darfur region of Sudan are being violated, displaced, and killed.
- sara
Fellow UBC student Dave Steinbach has put together an excellent and accessible bibliography for further information on the Darfur conflict, and Sudan in general.
For a general background on conflict history and peacekeeping efforts in Sudan, the Accord publication is invaluable and can be located at: http://www.c-r.org/ourwork/accord/sudan/contents.php.
Eric Reeves’ website is also incredibly useful, as he’ll post a new article on a weekly basis about the continuing crises in Sudan. If you’re willing to search through his database, you’ll find some great articles coming from one of the leading advocates for international support in Sudan. Located at http://www.sudanreeves.org
In addition, the Global Security website has a lot of background information but it is somewhat incoherent and more difficult to sift through:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sudan-civil-war1.htm
For data on political and social indicators, as well as for an update report on human rights issues, there are a whole range of NGOs and research institutions that write valuable reports on Darfur and Southern Sudan. It is essential to look at:
1) Freedom House www.freedomhouse.org
2) Transparency International www.transparency.org
3) Failed States Index http://www.fundforpeace.org/programs/fsi/fsindex2006.php
4) CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html
5) International Crisis Group www.icg.org
6) Human Rights Watch www.hrw.org
Needless to say, there are many more For the most reliable statistics on social services, the World Bank is by far the most accurate and comprehensive resource (despite many people’s objections to their actual policies) If you have time it is really worthwhile to read some of their reports that outline potential development projects, especially the ones on health, sanitation, and education. The reports can be found at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/SUDANEXTN/0,
,menuPK:375449~pagePK:64026187~piPK:141126~theSitePK:375422,00.html
Also, data on the sheer poverty of Southern Sudan can be read in the JAM report at
http://www.dep.no/ud/english/topics/sudan/conference/all/032041-120006/dok-bn.html
Like the World Bank for development statistics, the IMF website has the most accurate statistics on macroeconomic performance, and they do an excellent job in outlining the reliance of Sudan’s economy on the oil industry. It can be found at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/cr06182.pdf
Canada’s response to the situation in Darfur and Southern Sudan can be documented on the CIDA, DFAIT and DoD websites. They are:
1) CIDA: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-217124359-NT2?OpenDocument
2) DFAIT: https://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canadasudan/backgrounder-contributions-en.asp
3) DoD: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/augural/index_e.asp
Finally, if you are interested in reading about what is currently happening in Sudan it is best to regularly read the BBC news at http://news.bbc.co.uk where there is a story almost every day. You can also read the archives to find some key information that may have happened in the past year.
(The complete backgrounder in pdf can be found here.)
- sara
