March 22, 2004
Mukesh Kapila, in the waning days of his tenure as UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, has presented the world with the starkest assessment to date of the realities in Darfur, far western Sudan. Declaring that war-torn Darfur is “the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis,” he has forcefully used the Rwandan genocide of 1994 as his point of reference in describing the conduct of war by Khartoum and its Arab militia allies (the “janjaweed”):
“‘The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved’ [said Kapila].” (UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 22, 2004)
Kapila was in Rwanda during the genocide, and hence his words carry a ghastly authority. In declaring that “this is more than just a conflict, it is an organised attempt to do away with a group of people,” Kapila is offering us an explicit account of a new genocide. And this genocide is accelerating, despite Khartoum’s claim of early February to have brought Darfur under full military control:
“The pattern of organised attacks on civilians and villages, abductions, killings and organised rapes by militias was getting worse by the day, [Kapila] said, and could deteriorate even further. ‘One can see how the situation might develop without prompt [action]…all the warning signs are there.'”
(UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 22, 2004)
There could be no more explicit or ominous warning to the international community.
Amnesty International, in a press release of March 15, 2004, has also reported on an intensification of conflict in Darfur, with attendant increases in human rights violations, human destruction and suffering, and war crimes—and has again emphasized the direct responsibility of the Khartoum regime:
“‘The government of Sudan has made no progress to ensure the protection of civilians caught up in the conflict in Darfur,’ Amnesty International said today. Scores of civilians have reportedly been killed and dozens of villages burnt by the government-backed Janjiwid militias over the last few weeks.
“‘This is not a situation where the central government has lost control. Men, women and children are being killed and villages are burnt and looted because the central government is allowing militias aligned to it to pursue what amounts to a strategy of forced displacement through the destruction of homes and livelihood of the farming populations of the region,’ Amnesty International said.” (Amnesty International [London], Press Release, March 15, 2004)
Highlighting a series of brutal attacks on civilians and extremely dire humanitarian assessments, Amnesty also emphasizes Khartoum’s continuing refusal to permit humanitarian access:
“‘The government is still severely restricting humanitarian aid in Darfur and appears unwilling to address the human rights crisis in the region. As a result international attempts, including attempts by the United Nations, to resolve the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur are being delayed.” (Amnesty International [London], Press Release, March 15, 2004)
Already described by a number of humanitarian aid officials as possibly the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, with a desperate need for more food, water, medicine and shelter, and with what Doctors Without Borders last month described as “catastrophic mortality rates,” Darfur is on the brink of utter disaster. Civilian casualties will soon increase dramatically, possibly by orders of magnitude. Any yet, despite such compelling circumstances, Khartoum deliberately refuses to grant unfettered humanitarian access, or to agree to the opening of humanitarian aid corridors from Chad (Al-Sahafa Paper [Khartoum], cited by the UN Daily Press Review, March 10, 2004). Such refusal is but another tool of genocidal destruction.
Khartoum’s responsibility for supporting, supplying, and coordinating with the Arab militia forces now responsible for most human destruction in Darfur is also highlighted by Amnesty International:
“Information received by Amnesty International indicates that the Sudan government is encouraging the actions of the Janjawid. Sudanese refugees in Chad have described the Janjawid attacking villages accompanied by soldiers. Often they have described attacks by the Janjawid wearing army uniforms. Some Sudan army soldiers have described following the Janjawid in attacks on villages which, they said, were clearly civilian targets. For the past year no member of the Janjawid has been arrested or brought to justice for a single unlawful killing.” (Amnesty International [London], Press Release, March 15, 2004)
Beyond participating in the ground assaults, Khartoum’s military continues to mount aerial attacks on noncombatant populations and villages.
The authoritative comments of Mukesh Kapila on this score were recorded in a recent dispatch by Reuters: “We’ve heard reports of planes and helicopters being used in attacks on villages and reports of civilians being killed in those attacks” (Reuters, March 19, 2004). An earlier Reuters dispatch reported that “Sudan’s army bombed a town in the western Darfur region, killing six civilians and injuring 25, eyewitnesses said on Saturday [March 13, 2004], weeks after the government said major military operations were over in the area” (Reuters, March 13, 2004). IRIN reported on March 17, 2004:
“Military attacks against civilians continue in Darfur, where on Sunday [March 14, 2004] Sudanese aircraft had bombed the villages of Wad Hajar and Goweighin in Southern Darfur, killing at least eight people and injuring at least 20 in the former, a local source told IRIN” (UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 17, 2004)
According to reports reaching this writer from Darfur, on March 8 and 9, 2004, Khartoum’s forces bombed Derbat village and the area around it (in the eastern part of Jabel Marrah), killing approximately 40 civilians, including 17 women and 14 children.
Many other such reports of bombing attacks make clear Khartoum’s deep involvement in ongoing conflict. For of course, as has been true of Khartoum’s war in the south and marginalized areas, the only military air assets are those of the regime.
The unspeakable savagery of the militia attacks that constitute Khartoum’s primary military weapon against the African tribal groups of Darfur is reflected all too well in the character of an attack in the Tawilah area of northern Darfur. As IRIN and other wires services have reported,
“In an attack on 27 February  in the Tawilah area of northern Darfur, 30 villages were burned to the ground, over 200 people killed and over 200 girls and women raped—some by up to 14 assailants and in front of their fathers who were later killed. A further 150 women and 200 children were abducted.”
(UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 22, 2004)
Accelerating genocidal destruction, clearly the responsibility of the Khartoum regime, has produced a moment of critical choice for the international community: acquiescence, or preparation for humanitarian intervention. And every day that passes becomes more fully a choice of acquiescence, ensuring the destruction and terrible suffering of more and more innocent human beings.
To be sure, there is talk of peace negotiations between Khartoum and the two major insurgency groups in Darfur, and talk of a humanitarian cease-fire; but if Khartoum wishes, this will all remain merely talk. Nor does the commencement of negotiations mean anything in itself: Khartoum’s record of negotiating obduracy, delay, stalling, and duplicity has been well established over many years of talks with the south.
Indeed, just how far the National Islamic Front regime is from accepting the urgency of the situation in Darfur is reflected in comments made in response to Mukesh Kapila’s remarkable frankness:
“The [National Islamic Front] Humanitarian Affairs Ministry said claims by Mukesh Kapila were ‘a heap of lies,’ Sudanese radio reported. On Friday, Mr Kapila described the situation in Darfur as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Kapila, the UN co-ordinator for Sudan had said [ ] more than one million people [were] affected by ‘ethnic cleansing.’ He said the fighting was characterised by a scorched-earth policy and was comparable in character, if not in scale, to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. ‘It is more than just a conflict. It is an organised attempt to do away with a group of people.’
“However, the Sudanese government said that, in his comments, Mr Kapila had ‘deviated from the virtues which a resident representative should have, that is neutrality, and transcended to open political work.'” (BBC, March 21, 2004)
It is, of course, entirely in character for the Khartoum regime to expect that the world will respond “neutrally” to the terrible realities of genocide. And in attacking Mr. Kapila’s motives, without characterizing them or suggesting why brutal honesty amounts to “open political work,” Khartoum is moving in a very familiar vein. But whether the international community will accept this expedient characterization of Mr. Kapila, or meet this perverse expectation of “neutrality,” is perhaps—perhaps—still a matter undecided. Certainly Khartoum’s strategy, beyond prevarication and bluster, presumes a willingness by the international community to mute its criticism of the realities in Darfur, and to hold off on possibly “provocative” preparations for humanitarian intervention, until an agreement is reached in Naivasha (Kenya) between Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).
But though the genocidaires of the National Islamic Front hope that the world’s attention will remain expediently upon peace talks in Naivasha, no one understands more clearly than the SPLM that there can be no real peace in Sudan as long as such murderous, racist savagery is “national policy.” Having been for so many years the victims of this very savagery, the SPLM knows full well that no peace agreement, or power-sharing agreement, or agreement on security arrangements signed in Naivasha can mean anything so long as Darfur is the site of genocidal destruction.
To be sure, some peace agreement will likely be signed in Kenya within the next several weeks. But if the world awaits such a symbolic signing and only then begins to respond appropriately to the all too real human catastrophe in Darfur, it will be too late for many thousands more innocent civilians of the African tribal groups being targeted for destruction. Mukesh Kapila’s honesty should have been the catalyst for immediate action; instead, he has been reduced to saying in frustration,
“‘I was present in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, and I’ve seen many other situations around the world and I am totally shocked at what is going on in Darfur [ ]. This is ethnic cleansing, this is the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, and I don’t know why the world isn’t doing more about it.” (BBC, March 19, 2004)
Mr. Kapila is not alone in his incomprehension.
Northampton, MA 01063