Sudan in denial

The government of Sudan would have the world believe that an international campaign is gratuitously smearing its reputation and could provoke a broader catastrophe in the country (see letters to the editor). Khartoum fails, in its lengthy defense of itself, to address the gathering storm of evidence illustrating its complicity in what has been, at best, homicidal ethnic cleansing, and, at worst, genocide.

The death toll in Sudan’s western region of Darfur largely speaks for itself. An estimated 30,000 Sudanese have lost their lives in what is currently the world’s most severe humanitarian crisis. Another 1 million are in dire need of aid relief after they were driven out of their homes by murderous militias known as the Janjaweed.

The Janjaweed have been described as Arab militias, but ethnic lines are not always clear in Darfur, given historic intermarriage. The conflict pits predominantly black farmers against the herd-raising, nomadic Janjaweed, most of whom are Arabs. Last February, the “black” tribes rebelled against government forces out of frustration with the government’s systematic marginalizing of their people in favor of Arabic-speaking nomads.

What followed was a hair-raising attack on black tribes and their life-giving resources by the Janjaweed. There have long been reports of government support for the Janjaweed, including the use of helicopter gunships. Human Rights Watch recently uncovered official records demonstrating that support. One such document called on local officials to step up militia recruitment, another demanded additional supplies for militias, and a third laid out an ethnic-cleansing plan. It is likely that proof of the government’s complicity will mount, so Khartoum would be wise to try to neutralize that prospect by taking diplomatic steps to save lives.

Such a move looks unlikely. In his letter, Sudan’s ambassador appears to suggest obliquely the atrocities against some tribes in Darfur were justified or understandable. “Public opinion, reflected in the daily newspaper in Khartoum, including that of opposition elements, is that it is unfair on the part of many Americans to ignore the starters of fire in Darfur, the two rebel groups and the atrocities they have been committing to this very day,” the ambassador writes. The women and children who have lost their lives or been brutalized surely cannot be pegged as “starters of fire,” yet they’ve certainly been targeted. According to Amnesty International, the Janjaweed have used rape as ethnic punishment against women in Darfur.

The question remains, how should the international community respond? The African Union is deploying into Darfur 60 cease-fire monitors and up to 300 troops. That deployment is insufficient given the scale of the crisis. According to John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, who recently returned from Darfur, there is an ongoing debate within the African Union regarding the potential deployment of thousands of peacekeepers to guarantee a cease-fire, delivery of aid and safety of the Sudanese people. For the United States and the European Union, that debate represents an opportunity.

EU and U.S. officials should quickly offer financial support for a broad deployment. France has a large number of troops in Africa that could aid in airlift and other logistics, while others, including the United States, could also play a supporting role. This type of cooperation proved successful in the African Union-led mission in Liberia in last year. Rwanda and Nigeria have the most battle-hardened and experienced troops, while South Africa could apply diplomatic muscle in Khartoum.

The United States and other countries should also contract with experts to collect evidence in Darfur that could be then used as leverage to convince Khartoum to let troops in, according to Mr. Prendergast. African states should let Sudan know that the troops are on their way. The regime has an opportunity to save face by approving the deployment.