Death of diplomacy in Darfur 
By Levi Obijiofor 

As far back as five decades ago, development scholars have been wondering why Africa seems to be drifting backwards while the rest of the world continues to register significant economic progress. We now know there are many forces that impact socioeconomic progress or lack of progress in Africa. Political instability in the form of civil wars, as well as ethnic, religious and cross-border conflicts can imperil national and regional development. From the 1960s, widely regarded as the decade of political independence in Africa, to the present day, Africa has been saddled with all manner of intra and inter-state conflicts.  

In various parts of Africa, international peacekeepers have been working overtime to enforce peace. It is like the world is trying to save Africa from itself, from an apparent implosion. Africa is truly a continent in retreat. A blunt message needs to be conveyed to African leaders, including the warlords: endless conflicts create instability and poverty. Political instability and poverty also breed economic underdevelopment. When human, material and financial resources are channelled into various war chests, social development takes a back seat. How to achieve the war objectives becomes a consuming passion. Skilled and able-bodied men and women who should be usefully engaged in the productive sectors of the economy are drafted to fight wars, the objectives of which they may not comprehend. In this context, poverty springs. And poverty is a precursor to anarchy. 

Since that era of independence in the 1960s, Africa has presented the world with a mixed bag of excuses for its enduring state of underdevelopment. It is important to examine today one of the raging conflicts in Africa – the Darfur crisis – to illustrate how Africa stands as its own worst enemy. The ongoing lawlessness and carnage in Darfur are upsetting for a number of reasons. Barely less than a decade after the world witnessed the most gruesome slaughter of human lives in Rwanda, no one expected that a similar genocide of unimaginable proportion would erupt so soon in Africa.  

The saddest part of the Darfur saga is that for nearly five years, the Sudanese government and the rebel groups have engaged in criminal gamesmanship designed to delay an end to the conflict. Both sides must be reaping dividends from the conflict, which explains why neither side is willing to end the war. International peace groups are getting tired of the political prank. The Sudanese government and the rebels tell the world one thing and they do the opposite. Negotiations between the government and the rebels have become intractable because both sides have been insincere in their official pledges. In Sudan, inconsistency has been elevated to an art form.  

Equally condemnable is the way the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) have failed to respond promptly to the emergency situation in Darfur. While Darfur is ablaze, the UN and the AU continue to conduct workshops after workshops, talks after talks in order to find solutions to the conflict that has seen 200,000 people killed and over 2.5 million people displaced.  

The failure of the UN and the AU to intervene and stop the genocide in Darfur represents the death of diplomacy. I am particularly upset by the nonchalant attitude of the AU leaders. Darfur is primarily an African problem. It is therefore imperative that the AU should take the lead in ending the conflict. Unfortunately, the AU is a comatose club of fatuous leaders who claim publicly to be advancing continental interests while privately they are busy looting the state treasuries. Worst still, some of them are engaged in the politics of divide-and-rule. They spread hatred among their people and preach guerrilla warfare strategies to their followers.  

The crimes and violence unfolding in Darfur are of such a magnitude that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was moved recently to describe the conflict as “one of the great tragedies of our time”. Good talk! But Darfur should now move from the plane of rhetoric to the platform of action. Someone has to make the move. The conflict has raged for many years, it has consumed thousands of lives and, regrettably, the UN and the AU continue to pander to the capricious demands of the Sudanese government and the rebels. Peace efforts initiated by the international aid agencies (belatedly, one must admit) have collapsed because the Sudanese government and the rebel leaders can’t seem to agree on terms for negotiation. The Sudanese government in particular have reneged so many times on previous agreements to rein in the murderous activities of the Janjaweed and rebel militias in the refugee camps.  

I have heard it said that one of the obstacles preventing the UN and the AU from forceful intervention in Darfur without the consent of the Sudanese government is the decrepit clause in the charters of both organisations which commit them to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member countries. This is all about non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries of the UN and the AU. But, given the realities of the 21^st century, the crucial question must be: does non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries still hold any legitimacy when a government fails to protect its citizens? When would the Sudanese government feel obligated to protect its citizens? The ongoing violence, murder, rape and looting are sufficient evidence that the Sudanese government has failed to safeguard its citizens.  

The logical argument for international intervention in Darfur – with or without the consent of the Sudanese government -- must be that when a government engages (directly or indirectly) in covert forms of state-sponsored terrorism against its own people, when a government refuses to take action to stop the killing fields that are springing up within its own territory, the international community must be legally and morally obliged to step in and stop the criminal activities. The UN, the AU, the Sudanese government and indeed the international community have compelling reasons to protect people whose lives are endangered in Darfur.  

It might sound a bit logical and fanciful to argue that it is better to canvass a more enduring peace in Darfur than to impose a temporary truce through coercion. However, confronted with the Sudanese government’s casual attitude to the conflict, the AU’s indifference, the evasive and endless diplomatic talks at the UN, and the determination of the Janjaweed militia to continue to kill, rape, rob and plunder, Darfur deserves more urgent international attention than it has received so far.  

If it was okay to rush troops to Kosovo in 1999, if there was no problem with foreign intervention in Sierra Leone and Liberia some years ago, why shouldn’t it be okay for the UN, the AU and other international players to intervene decisively and forcefully in Darfur? In 1999, the United States’-led NATO alliance did not wait for approval from Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia before troops were rushed to save the people of Kosovo. The lethargic attitude of international organisations over the Darfur conflict has exposed the contradictions in international politics. There are different rules for different people in different regions of the world. What is good for Kosovo and the Balkans certainly must be good for Darfur and for Africa. 

Thankfully, protests are being planned in over 30 countries this week as the General Assembly of the United Nations begins its yearly session in New York. Perhaps these protests would act as the tonic that would energise world leaders into taking emergency action in Darfur. International humanitarian agencies are battling to save the battered lives of refugees. The agencies want to increase the supply of food and medicines to the refugees in Darfur but they can only do so with the permission of the renegades and the Sudanese government. 

Whatever happens in Darfur, whether the killings persist for another decade or millennium, the UN and AU leaders must hold their heads in shame because they failed to use their diplomatic skills to end the nightmare that is Darfur. The ongoing barbaric slaughter and rape of women and children in Darfur represent an adverse vote of confidence on the UN and in particular on African leaders’ lack of will to prevent genocide in Africa.