Problem
What should the United States do vis-à-vis the Darfur crisis after the Naivasha agreement? Should the USA take a stern position towards Sudan government?
Background
There has been tension in Darfur for many years over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities. The conflict in Darfur began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, claiming that the Darfur region was being neglected by Khartoum. The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favor of Arabs. Two main rebel groups are the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), which have been linked to senior Sudanese opposition politician Hassan al-Turabi.
Over the last two years 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur, where many have seen their families killed, abducted, abused or raped and are now living in makeshift shelters in camps or on the edge of villages in Darfur and across the border in eastern Chad. The UN estimates that at least 70,000 people have died since the start of the conflict.
Options
There are two reasons for USA’s intervention. First of all, this is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world right now. Secondly, the stability of Sudan and regional security of Africa depend on a peaceful resolution of Darfur issue. Sudan won’t succeed its implementation of Naivasha agreement with an internal violence. How could the USA do to stop this humanitarian crisis? Should the USA sanction the Sudan government? There are some options that the USA has.
1. USA, as an energetic mediator in the peace process, could not step aside as to the genocide in Darfur; however, USA should act only after deliberation. Given the difficulties of peace arrangement, the nascent comprehensive Naivasha Agreement and its implementation are still unstable. If other states exert too much pressure on the Darfur issue, they will undermine the unstable peace right now. Hence, instead of sanctioning Sudan directly, which would provoke antipathy, USA may urge the ultimate solution to humanitarian predicament by third parties. For example, Chad would have an interest of appeasing the conflict because of its adjacency to Darfur region. UN came short of calling the atrocities genocide; however, USA should campaign for multilateral actions. The United Nation Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) would enlarge its mandate. African Union force would have a bigger responsibility of not only monitoring the situation but of preventing the spill-over of conflict.
2. USA could sanction Sudanese government to force it to solve the conflict. The peace talk did not reach any constructive conclusion last time. Sudanese president Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir tends to use the Naivasha Agreement to ward off the international intervention in Darfur; moreover, Sudan government has obstructed the aid workers to reach the region. Although USA could have acted more coercively towards the humanitarian issue in the region, USA did not do it. USA did not want to give too much pressure to the local government lest it would impede the peace talk in Naivasha. Nevertheless, USA could not sit watching the atrocities continuing. USA’s attitude would be a key indicator of the settlement of conflict. Therefore, USA could threat Sudan government to ban its arms trade. USA could then urge the government to give access to aid workers to the region.
Recommendation
USA should not be docile, which will make the Arab militia and Sudanese sovereignty think they can continue the genocide; on the other hand, USA could not be too aggressive, either. USA should avoid a direct interference in Sudan to avert antipathy of the others. Moreover, USA doesn’t have many resources due to Iraq and its own economy. Regional framework would give USA a better opportunity to step in.
No comments:
Post a Comment