Opinions | Columnists
A new chance for the people of Darfur
Western analysts and activists should have learned by now that military threats only produce resistance.
- By Stephen Eric Bronner, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 23:56 May 9, 2008
As the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region worsens and negotiations to end it drag on, an international consensus is emerging around a "muscular" policy based on public denunciation, severe economic sanctions, and, increasingly, threats of military force. But none of these steps, taken alone or together, can bring about the ends that their often well-intentioned advocates seek. On the contrary, they risk reproducing the havoc that such measures have unleashed in Iraq and elsewhere in recent years.
In the US, cautionary voices have been notably absent even among liberal newspapers like The New York Times. Foreign policy advisers to the Democratic Party and neo-conservatives alike have called for "action" against Sudan - demands that have been echoed by an international group of intellectuals and celebrities ranging from Umberto Eco, Jürgen Habermas, and Harold Pinter to Bob Geldof, George Clooney, Mia Farrow, Matt Damon, Mick Jagger and J.K. Rowling.
Meanwhile, French troops, with the support of other European Union members - notably Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Poland, Romania and Sweden - are now deployed for putatively humanitarian reasons in the Central African Republic and Chad, where they have already clashed with Sudanese government forces. The International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, and many other organisations support this deployment, while Save Darfur, despite describing itself as a non-political "alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy, and humanitarian organisations," has, in fact, been pivotal in setting the policy agenda.
This agenda's interventionism is incremental: tougher economic sanctions, demands that China exercise its influence, creation of a "no-fly zone" and military force against the Sudanese army. The assumption is that only real pressure will finally force Sudan's government to embrace the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, negotiate with the West, disband the feared Janjaweed militia, allow refugees from the country's brutal civil war to return to their villages, and make peace with Southern rebels.
Useless
But realising these aims requires cooperation from the government in Khartoum, whereas each of the proposed measures would only heighten tensions or prove useless. Existing Western sanctions, for example, have merely driven the Sudanese regime into the arms of China, Indonesia and Malaysia. Indeed, investment in Sudan has actually grown $2.8 billion (Dh10.3 billion) over the past year.
Efforts to "pressure" the Chinese appear similarly futile. Darfur is hardly a high priority for China, which accounts for 20 per cent of African trade, and buys 60 per cent of Sudan's oil. Growing talk - both in Europe and America - about boycotting the Olympics (or the opening ceremony) has proven utterly ineffective in influencing China's behaviour in Tibet. Would the threat of a boycott really prove more successful vis-Ã -vis Darfur?
Likewise, even proponents of a no-fly zone are doubtful about its potential efficacy. After all, Sudan is the size of Western Europe, and Darfur is the size of France, with 158 refugee camps. Strategic constraints would almost certainly overwhelm enforcement.
Finally, there is the "military option," which would merely justify fears in Sudan of Western "imperialism". Worse, given the splintering of rebel forces in the South, where an estimated 80 tribes and clans control their own militias, a military response could generate a power vacuum in Sudan and destabilise the nine countries - many of them fragile or failed states - on its borders. Western analysts and activists should have learned by now that and military threats produce only resistance, and that genuine diplomacy involves using carrots as well as sticks. Yet the emerging policy consensus contains no positive incentives to resolve the Darfur crisis. Nor is it clear whether its aim is to pressure Sudan into changing its policy or to bring about wholesale regime change.
Visit to the camps
I have been to Sudan twice, and, as part of a delegation organised by Conscience International, I also visited the refugee camps in Nyala and Al Fasher in Darfur. I have met with dozens of Sudanese politicians and diplomats.
The regime is not monolithic. Factions within the regime might prove supportive of new policies aimed at tempering the climate of violence in Sudan, decreasing its trade dependency on China, improving conditions for refugees and lowering international tensions. Such policies might include:
Normalising diplomatic relations in exchange for removing obstacles to the deployment of UN-AU forces in Darfur.
Replacing sanctions on Sudan with new investment opportunities and gradually forgiving its foreign debt in exchange for achievement of benchmarks tied to repatriating refugees, rebuilding villages, and demobilising the Janjaweed;
Calling on not only the government, but also the rebel forces, over which the West has some influence, to bargain in good faith;
Engaging China's desire for international prestige by encouraging it to assume a public role in designing and overseeing repatriation, demobilisation, and vocational programmes;
Offering aid to the Sudanese in rebuilding the tribal reconciliation councils that were destroyed during the civil war;
Reintegrating Sudan into the international community through academic exchanges, conferences, political visits and the like;
Strengthening the AU, which Western analysts have consistently underestimated with almost indescribable arrogance, in order to foster African solutions to African problems.
The emerging policy consensus towards Sudan is predicated on an approach that has already undermined respect for Western values throughout the non-Western world. Its interventionist measures won't work. They are unrealistic and, ultimately, counterproductive. There is no time to lose in trying something new.
-Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008. www.project-syndicate.org
Stephen Eric Bronner is Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and author of Peace Out of Reach: Middle Eastern Travels and the Search for Reconciliation.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Tough love
What ways do you use to discipline your child?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Obama must get tough
If any progress is to be achieved, the US president needs to stand up to Netanyahu
-
Trust is the issue with Iran
Resolution is unlikely because of the lack of faith between the 5+1 Group and Tehran
-
Building a knowledge society
Arab Knowledge Report examines the current state of Arab knowledge
