| Imagine most of the residents of Wisconsin, approximately three million people, displaced and living in camps in one section of the state with some living in camps in Iowa and dependent upon food supplies flown in by other states and countries. Imagine all of the residents of Madison -- at least 200,000 people -- having been massacred or dying of starvation and disease. Imagine the Village of Pine Bluff and Cottage Grove and 400 other villages and towns burned to the ground. Imagine the threat of violence and rape hanging thick in the air. Imagine this if you can. This is Darfur, Sudan. Juan Mendez, until recently the UN secretary general's special advisor on the prevention of genocide, has witnessed the events that continue in Darfur, plagued by the continued violence of civil war. Mendez was in Madison April 27 to speak at Disaster in Darfur, a symposium sponsored by the UW African Studies Program, and the Humanitarianism and World Order Research Circle. While a peace accord was signed by the government of Sudan and a rebel group in May 2006, the violence has not subsided. "The situation in Darfur is very dire because the peace accord has not resulted in a real political settlement because it only affects one of the rebel forces and a very small one anyway," Mendez said in an interview with The Capital City Hues. "In effect, a majority of the population of Darfur is not satisfied with the peace accord. They actually encourage the other rebel forces to hold out for a better accord. As a result of that, the government of Sudan, in very bad faith, has interpreted the peace accord as a license to go out after the non-signatories and fight them. As a result, not only have there been some defeats for themselves, but also a lot of suffering for the civilian population because when we're talking about fighting, we're talking about the way wars are fought in Sudan. They go after the civilian population that is deemed to be supportive of the enemy." While Mendez emphasized that the situation has not descended to the violence that occurred in 2003, he also emphasized that the situation is not stable. "There are pockets of fighting and pockets of new displacement of the population and attacks on the civilian population and relief workers," Mendez said. "There are interruptions with the delivery of aid. Quite frankly, we're all waiting for the second shoe to drop where we'll have another catastrophe like 2003. I think it's been just good fortune that we haven't gotten to that point. But it could happen at any time." The continued instability and violence in Darfur are the result of complex geopolitical factors as well as a historical western disregard for violence in Africa. And the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashier, is well aware of the western reluctance to intervene. "I think the international community has some political will," Mendez said. "But it's a hesitant political will. Let me put it this way. The president of Sudan thinks about Darfur 24/7. And the leadership of the western world remembers Darfur every six ational community and defies it by pushing against those limits and playing games with it. They say they will accept some conditions and then renege on them and hold out for other decisions. In general, they are testing the will of the international community to get serious. The answer, in the end, is there is some political will, but it certainly isn't enough to match the need. This that has allowed the government of Sudan to resist international pressures to allow for serious protection of the civilian population by international forces, expansion and stabilization of the humanitarian relief efforts, more insistence on accountability including cooperation with the International Criminal Court and getting back to a serious peace negotiation." While the UN Security Council has discussed the situation in Darfur, it is currently divided 3-2 on taking any kind of UN action in Darfur, according to Mendez. And there is no sign of any momentum to go beyond the impasse. "They have reached some agreement on some very basic things, but that agreement is basically everything the traffic will bear, which means that because you think there is going to be a veto, you don't propose that particular thing that will be vetoed," Mendez said. "And the result is that we do only the least common denominator. Interestingly, there has never been a veto on Darfur. But at the same time, we have never proposed anything that could have been the subject of a more serious discussion. We are at a point in which we should press much harder and if there is going to be a veto, make the country that is going to veto the proposal run the political risk of being shone not to be interested in protecting three million people. We haven't gotten to that point yet." With a change in leadership at the UN -- Ban Ki-moon assumed recently began his term as the secretary general -- Mendez feels that perhaps the secretary general soon has to find his footing and style of doing things. "I think a lot is expected of him. It's important for the Secretary-General to show the way to the Security Council. In that sense, I think Kofi Annan many times spoke out on Dafur and took the moral high ground. Now you can also say that wasn't to good effect either. So maybe a different style is in order. At this point, we really don't know. We do know that Mr. Ban has said unmistakably that Darfur is one of his first priorities. And one of his very first trips has been to deal with Darfur. I don't think he went to Darfur, but he did go to meet with President Bashier within a month of his taking office. So in terms of priority, there's no question that he gives it a high priority." Mendez feels there are four main components needed to resolve the Darfur crisis. "First, we need the consent of the government of Sudan to a serious international force combined with the African Union and the United Nations," he said. "That is the step that is missing right now. It's been missing for months, but it will be very important to do that. I think it is also very important to act simultaneously on four fronts. One is protection. It would be initially result from the consent we don't have. Second is humanitarian relief. Obviously, it is dependent on security, but it's also dependent on clear conditions that the government of Sudan must provide for the aid to be delivered. Third is accountability. We need to enforce on the government of Sudan the need to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and not to obstruct it. And fourth is a peace process. We need all of the parties, not only the government of Sudan, but also the rebels as well to agree to sit down at the negotiating table again." In Mendez's view, the peace process could take another 5-7 years. "We need to understand that these are very costly operations and we have to be in for the long haul," Mendez said. "Do we really want to save lives? Do we really mean it when we say we are going to prevent genocide? Or are we only ready to prevent genocide if it is on the cheap and without too much sustained attention." Time is not on Darfur's side. |
| An interview with Juan Mendez Dire circumstances in Darfur By Jonathan Gramling |
 |
 |