Memorandum submitted by Liberation
Liberation is pleased to supply evidence about
the current crisis in Darfur. Some context is required. Before
independence there was an Anglo/Egyptian Condominium with respect
to the Sudan. In development terms the South was treated separately
from the rest of the country; it is now thought that the British
left the South of the country, where the faiths were predominantly
animist and Christian, vulnerable to the North. In Darfur the
predominant religion is Islam. The victims believe that they have
been targeted because they are black. Darfur means homeland of
the Fur, the black people. There is an open border with Chad,
therefore there is a good deal of border crossing, and many displaced
people are in Chad. There is also some evidence of external intervention
from inter alia the Lords Resistance Army.
Since independence there has been an almost
constant state of civil war. There is a consensus that the Arabised
part of the country has sought to extend its influence over the
Southern part of the country. Another perception is that development
within the Sudan has been disproportionately of the central area.
There are development grievances about all of the peripheral areas.
The problems in Darfur stem partially from a perception that within
the current peace process its interests have been neglected. Peace
negotiations have nearly finalised, with an agreement on revenue
sharing; tactically the government, not wishing to lose income
has no incentive to complete agreements.
There are issues about assimilation. There has
been a civil war for most of the time since independence, except
between 1972 and 1982. At various times the ambition of the Southerners
in exile in the UK has been:
To seek complete independence.
To participate in the government.
To seek to replace the government.
The current position is that six years after
the peace agreement has been implemented there will be a referendum
in the South about secession or unity.
To outsiders, particularly perhaps the fundamentalist
Christians in the USA, the struggle is perceived through an understanding
based upon religion. As the perception of a proselysing Islamic
interest is analysed the Christian Southerners are believed to
be the persecuted. It is a rather more complicated matter. Recently
the issue of genocide has come to the fore. It can be argued that
there has been a policy of assimilation combined with genocide
towards the South for many years. The current government argues
that it is not involved. Others argue that the government uses
various bandit forces as surrogates, currently the Janjaweed has
been identified as a bete noir. The participants plunder
resources and rape women making resettlement more difficult. There
is differing evidence about the Janjaweed operating a scorched
earth policy and elements of it making land grabs. Neither will
contribute towards resettlement.
One problem for anyone seeking to analyse the
problem is that there are elements of truth in all of the explanations
put forward. The present situation is of refugees in camps who
are too frightened to return home in a situation in which informed
opinion has formed the view that it is unlikely that sufficient
food and other resources will be delivered to service those already
in the camps. The British government seems reluctant to admit
this to be the case. This obfuscates when clarity is required.
The Sudanese government has attempted to explain
problems in terms of a conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists.
This is no longer the case when both have fled into refugee camps.
Issues are raised about resettlement; the current government has
a massive refugee problem, which it has tackled in part by arbitrarily
bulldozing camps and resettling people with, apparently, no support
infrastructure whatsoever. This may be a form of genocide. The
government has also adopted a policy of assimilating Janjaweed
within its army and police forces, which will not inspire confidence
in the infrastructure! The government has also declared a number
of, "Safe," areas, again without appropriate support.
One might think that the inhabitants are identified as potential
victims.
Once citizens have become refugees and International
programmes to keep them alive are failing governments experience
massive revenue deficits. At a time of power sharing one might
hope that a focus of International aid might relate to rebuilding
civic societies, able to work together.
The UK government is a major supplier of International
Aid to the Sudan. There have been indications of an allocation
of the order of £63 million from October 2003 to July 2004.
There are questions about where those funds are spent. The UK
funds the ceasefire monitors of the African Union and human rights
monitors.
It is thought that there is a model of peacekeeping
from the Juba Mountains
If suggestions for recommendations for the future
are required a tie into Development Aid should require:
(2) Establish an appropriate maintenance
regime for the camps. If adequate food supplies do not get through
the contribution of International Aid is to delay deaths from
malnutrition.
(3) Establish support mechanisms for resettlement,
which take account of the interests of both nomads and pastoralists.
(4) Make the peace settlement operate appropriately.
(5) Offer support for a civil society.
(6) Build upon existing mechanisms for achieving
advanced education together with programmes for both education
and training in the Sudan.
(7) The Sudan is in an hopeless position
about International Debt. Once a peace settlement has been achieved
the International Community might wish to consider write offs.
The report of the Associate Parliamentary Group
on Sudan of October 2004 point towards a funding deficit for 2004
of the order of $190 million; note recommendation 2.
November 2004
| 
