Just Africa

A Step in the Right Direction for Sudan?

On September 29th, 2009, the Associated Press reported that women and girls who escaped from the fighting in Darfur have become victims of rape within refugee camps, a disturbing trend found in countries torn apart by war. Refugee camps that should symbolized hope, freedom, and peace have become Darfari women’s nightmare. Getting water and firewood outside of the refugee camps in Chad is a known risk factor for women. When confronted with reports of rape within the Chad refugee camps, U.N. officials refused to comment. The next day, UN officials, led by Secretary of State Clinton, signed a resolution that condemned sexual violence in war zones.

Clinton stated,  “The United Nations had a special obligation to protect women and children, war's most vulnerable and violated victims." Yet, officials still refuse to acknowledge incidents in the Chad refugee camps.   The UN is not only to blame. The government spokesperson for Chad, Mahmat Hissene, stated, "Before the refugees came, we did not have rape cases in Chad; rape cases started when the Sudanese came. If there are cases of rape in the camps we cannot prevent them. The government is not responsible for security in the camps."  

In addition, through a lack of UN support, the United States is also complicit.

Therefore, the UN is posed with a difficult situation:  The Chadian government, the host of the majority of refugees in the region, blames the victims of violence. And while it is noble the U.S. signed a resolution that condemns sexual violence, more actual action is necessary to provide security for women in the region. Rape should not be an expected occurrence in one’s daily routine. 

The U.S. should take decisive action against sexual violence in refugee camps and support UNAMID so that the peacekeeping force can fulfill its mandate and those perpetrators of violence are held accountable. It is imperative that the United States keeps its promise, and protects these women.

Sudan, "War is over" but where's the peace?

General Martin Luther Agwai’s recent comments regarding the situation on Darfur are not only controversial but grossly underestimate their potential consequence. Agwai made the remarks as the outgoing military commander of the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in the region stating that:

"Since May until today, what have we had on the ground? The only thing I see is banditry taking place now: carjackings, breaking into people's homes to look for electronics and mobile telephones… What you have is security issues more now: banditry, localized issues, people trying to resolve issues over water and land at a local level. But real war as such, I think we are over that." Agwai said.

The outgoing General’s term was not without success. It is certainly important to praise those aspects of the UNAMID peacekeeping operation; the world’s biggest, where warranted. Take for instance the reopening of women’s centers in the Abu Shouk camp by UNAMID’s Gender Advisory Unit. These efforts will allow women to learn job skills and participate in educational programs focused on literacy, reproductive health, as wealth as important education regarding sexual and gender-based violence, which unfortunately remains a part of everyday life in the region. The General himself hopes to rest his laurels on the reduced number of deaths in the region stating: ''I have achieved results. The main result is the end of massacres in Darfur.''

However, it is a mistake to suggest, as is implied the General’s comments, that the gravity of the conflict is best measured in numbers and the ability for violence to be dolled out through large, collective deployments. If anything the disorganized nature of the violence has further exacerbated the already tenuous foothold of peacekeeping operations and humanitarian assistance. Nevertheless, as the comments were made while still head of the hybrid peacekeeping mission, these personal opinions reportedly not shared by many within his staff, have received an unfortunate definitive perception.

It is in this light that General Agwai’s comments stand to do the most damage. As news organizations around the world picked up the story in the last week, headlines read “War in Darfur over, according to UN Peacekeeping Chief.”  In a media world dominated by Headlines on RSS feed Titles this message risks undermining much of the work to bring the situation in Darfur to international attention. With the threat of aid fatigue always a danger, overgeneralization such as those made by the General are severely detrimental to any international effort. Agwai’s “mission accomplished” attitude is not only largely misplaced but consequently irresponsible.

The authorized strength of UNAMID is 19,555 personnel. Despite more than two years of authorization there are currently less than 14,000 troops according to its website. The mission remains severely under funded with limited financial and logistical support. Furthermore it’s mandate (available here) remains largely unfulfilled.  Most notably lacking in its goals to:

·B (1)To promote the re-establishment of confidence, [and] deter violence

·(b) To contribute to the protection of civilian populations under imminent threat of physical violence and prevent attacks against civilians, within its capability and areas of deployment,

· C (v) To ensure an adequate human rights and gender presence capacity, and expertise in Darfur in order to contribute to efforts to protect and promote human rights in Darfur, with particular attention to vulnerable groups

· D (i) To facilitate the effective provision of humanitarian assistance and full access to people in need.

Largely underreported are the statements and opinions that serve to contextualize the comments for what they are: the opinions of one man seeking to bring a positive light to a difficult tenure over an arduous mission. Perhaps most telling is the lack of endorsement by other UNAMID or UN officials. Rather the response by UN assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, Edmond Mulet, takes a decidedly more cautious approach the situation in Darfur stating:  'whether it is characterized as a war or not, the reality is that threats against civilians do remain''.

Who has been the largest proponent of the now former commander? Sudanese president Omar al-Beshir. Beshir granted the outgoing head of the UN peacekeeping force in the Darfur region one of the country's top honors. Beshir’s Khartoum government estimates the total deaths in the Darfur region since the beginning of the conflict to be some 10,000 at least 290,000 less than UN estimates.

Surprisingly, the most poignant response has come from JEM spokes man Tahir el-Faki stating that,   ‘‘the war is not over. The war is over when there is a comprehensive peace agreement. They [General Agwai and Mr Adada] have taken into consideration numerical data about the number of people who died directly from violence [but] they have not taken into consideration the [internally displaced people], the refugees, the people who want to go back home.''

The situation in Darfur is certainly complicated and at times confusing. Rebel groups in the region have fragment into an estimated 20 small groups further complicating the peace process. Government backed Janjaweed operate as a loose collective of militias throughout the region while a number of new skirmishes, 46 dead last week, have developed along the border with Southern Sudan further threatening the peace talks.

While the nature and scale of the violence in Darfur has changed over the years, violence still rages largely uncontested through the region. Days after the General’s statement, two foreign civilians working for the Darfur peacekeeping forces were kidnapped by armed men. It was the first time international staff members from UNAMID, had been abducted, according to a spokesman for the force. Aid workers and food convoys continue to be attacked while refugee camps continue to grow as “low-level” fighting produces a steady stream of refugees. Within camps and their surroundings violence against women remains high. The attitude of leaders such as General Agwai mistakenly suggests the lack of war as the presence of peace. At the moment peace has a much different definition for those victims of the violence above. UNAMID has failed to stem this violence, and as such has so far failed in its mandate.

To his previous comments Agwai added, "I think the real thing now is to speed up the political process. Militarily there is not much.” The General is certainly right about one thing: a lasting solution to the conflict not only in Darfur but in all of Sudan is to be found in an efficient and transparent political process. Even the full deployment of UNAMID’s authorized strength, only serves as a band-aid without the prospects of a fully implemented and Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

African street children: Kinshasa, DRC

The Invisible Children campaign did a brilliant job of stimulating outrage among young people in the West about Ugandan children forced to walk for miles every night to sleep in doorways and on the ground in a town or city where they would be protecting from marauding groups that abducted children to make them soldiers or sex slaves. In the morning, these children would walk to the miles back to their vulnerable villages, only to return to the relative safety of the city the next night. The documentaries were heartbreaking, the movement was strong among high school and university students, awareness, activism and compassion were sparked.

These children were innocent victims of the war raging around them, with poignant stories and sweet faces; they are the easy subjects of a strong advocacy and popular support campaign.

It seems that this campaign for the Ugandan children could be the foundation for future movements to attract attention to the plights of other groups of children around the world. Sadly, successful campaigns cannot be waged for everyone, especially for children whose plight is effectively overshadowed by massive amounts of violence and astonishing poverty.

Case in point: the street children of Kinshasa, the capital city of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  The United Nations estimates that there are about 15,000 children trying to make a living in the city.  The official government estimate is that there are 40,000 street children in the country, with about half of these living in Kinshasa. They have been abandoned by their families, orphaned, have physical or mental disabilities or are ex-child soldiers who are associated with the war. The average age of these children is about 14 years old.

Some of these kids have been living on the streets for over a decade, even getting “married” and having their own second-generation street children. Gangs have been formed and prostitution and drug use is rampant.

Police brutality is rampant; the children are often beaten, arrested and imprisoned. Efforts have been made in the past to round up these children and relocate them to remote parts of the country, ostensibly to give them a comprehensive education on a farm and therefore make them functioning parts of society. The problem with this is that the children do not consent to this move, are not guaranteed decent living conditions on these farms, and it is unsure whether they are even paid or fed.

The children are sometimes accused of being sorcerers; a convenient way for a family or society to make these children and their responsibility towards them the feared “other” that must be ignored and feared.

And why isn’t anything happening to save these children? Children are supposed to be the bright hope for the future, the generation that will recreate their societies and improve upon their parents’ standards. With other major problems to consider, what with a death toll of 5 million from the protracted conflict in the eastern regions, the struggle over conflict minerals causing mass displacement and instability, a corrupt government, military and police force and an economy that simply cannot sustain its people, the children in the streets are simply not at the top of the priority list.

While there may be some well-meaning Congolese or international organizations that want to help, the phenomenon of street children does not happen in a vacuum. They are just another group of victims of violence, greed, indifference, marginalization and most especially, poverty. But for all of that, they are still children; damaged, traumatized and troubled, but children. What better reason is there to become involved in a movement and effort to end the cycle of violence in the DRC, support a sustainable economy and heal the wounds of society that has been destroyed to the point of pushing its children to the dangerous fringes?

Check out these links for more information about Invisible Children and the Raise Hope for Congo campaign that deals with how individuals can affect change in the war for conflict minerals. 

A Gendered Response to Conflict Prevention

The nascent Responsibility to Protect (R2P) approach to international humanitarian law (IHL) in armed conflict is a relatively new addition to the discussion of the rights and responsibilities of sovereign states and the international community in times of internal conflict. The crux of the approach is that the governments of individual states have the responsibility to protect their own populations; if they are unable or unwilling or do so, the international community, whether in the form of the UN or individual states, has a responsibility to act to protect the vulnerable populations from mass atrocities. The international response can be diplomatic overtures, economic sticks (or carrots) and even military intervention, although only in the most extreme cases.

The approach is gaining more credibility worldwide, with more sovereign governments beginning to adopt the language of responsibility towards vulnerable people, though effective and consistent implementation under that pretense remains an elusive dream as of yet. While R2P signals the long-awaited advancement of IHL into the new era of modern globalization, it fails to address one of the most marginalized components of these vulnerable populations: women. Its new framing of responsibility is gender-blind and threatens to leave the gender considerations behind. Doing so would inevitably cripple any effective implementation of R2P in the future,

The focus of R2P is three-fold: prevention, reaction and rebuilding. Considerations of the degree of gender equality is of paramount importance for any of these steps and a gendered response is crucial in giving any reaction or rebuilding process the chance to succeed in the long-term. Conflict affects men and women in different ways, and ignoring women in any way is a recipe for half-hearted attempts at creating peaceful institutions after a conflict.

In the area of prevention, there is a strong link between the level of equality of women in a state and their access to development opportunities and the prevention of conflict. It must be considered that gender inequality in a state increases the likelihood of internal conflict in that state. A study in 2005 found that states with high fertility rates were nearly twice as likely to experience internal conflict as those with low fertility rates. States with women making up 10 percent of their labor force are nearly 30 times more likely to experience internal conflict than states whose labor force was made up of 40 percent women. Based on these conclusions, addressing gender inequality as a preventative measure could clearly have dramatic results in decreasing violence in their countries.  Women’s organizations are also well placed to warn of any impending conflict because women are often the first victims of any violence. As concerns the reaction of international actors to a conflict, the measure of the impact of any reaction on women must be considered. Gender-sensitive responses could include the development of specialized police units and the training of peacekeepers in areas of gender-based violence and protection. Women’s organizations are again instrumental in achieving a sustainable peace and must have a voice in peace negotiations. Women are also a pivotal voice in any rebuilding process; the exclusion of women from any peace-building effort effectively excludes half of the population and cannot be sustainable. Studies have shown that the rate the female suffrage in a state is directly correlated to that state’s use of violence. Women’s political participation is almost the only way that a country can rebuild in a permanent and representative way; their marginalization could be a death knell for any fledgling peace effort.

The argument for including women in a discussion of preventing conflict, reacting to violence or rebuilding for a peaceful future is not only a feminist cause, but a practical aspect of peace and conflict. Cultures that resist the full and equal inclusion of women, which is certainly the majority of them, can hide behind cultural relativism while their government fail, economies weaken, opportunities disappear and violence rages. Cultures are flexible, adapting to technology, altered lifestyles and adjusted goals over time; why should the marginalization of women remain intact while the rest of the culture morphs and shifts? While gender inequality does not guarantee internal conflict, it is a consideration in determining the potential of a state to fall victim to violence; taming the specter of bloodshed within its borders should be impetus enough for cultures to accept the healthy inclusion and participation of women.

This bright new future in IHL heralded by R2P can pave the way for gender to be an essential part of any conflict-related discussion instead of being the afterthought that could determine the fall into violence or the success of peace.

Zimbabwe's own never ending election

Last week Morgan Tsvangirai, Prime Minister-designate of the Zimbabwean government was not in attendance at talks in Swaziland on the crisis in his country because, according to the New York Times "President Robert Mugabe, refused to give him a passport.”

This comes over a month after SADC sponsored power sharing agreements were finalized and signed, in what most observers, including Africa Action and then President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, deemed a historic moment and precedent in African mediated solutions for African problems.

Since the signing on September 15, this bright vision has dimmed each day, however,  as the two main parties privy to the agreement, Zanu-PF (led by President Mugabe) and the Movement for Democratic Change (Morgan Tsvangirai) have deadlocked over the distribution of four key ministries: defense, foreign affairs, finance, and home affairs. The deal requires consensus over these ministries, yet critics predicted from the get-go that did not seem likely. This “limbo over key ministries” has only emphasized that the power-sharing agreement has really just come down to a power-getting battle.

What are the Real Issues in Somalia?

The recent hijacking of a Ukrainian arms ship off the coast of Somalia has thrust the world's most notorious "failed state" into the spotlight of mainstream Western media. While what appears to be a major weapons shipment to South Sudan is certainly noteworthy, it's unfortunate that it takes such a dramatic, sensational incident to get Somalia in the news. At today's critical political and humanitarian moment, the people of Somalia deserve attention for more than just this "pirate ship."

Here are some other less high profile Somalia stories to take your understanding of Somalia deeper than the pirate drama:

1) October 6: Fifty-two aid agencies working in Somalia released a damning statement urging a stronger international response to the deteriorating humanitarian crisis: "The international community has completely failed Somali civilians. We call on the international community to make the protection of Somali civilians a top priority now." 37,000 people have fled Mogadishu in the past few weeks. 870,000 have been displaced so far in 2008. The city is emptier than it was during the 1994 botched international intervention.

2) May 5: Somalis protest the deaths of civilians after the U.S. launches airstrikes into Somalia, targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. Since January 2007, the U.S. has intervened with cruise missile assaults and air attacks multiple times in Somalia, with little success in eliminating key terrorist targets.

As South African Politics Blaze in Controversy, Zimbabwe Drops From Western Spotlight

A common critique of South Africa’s relations with its southern African neighbors has been its tendency to monopolize the attention of the international community. Since even well before 1994, South Africa’s politics, economics, and societal progress have dominated the scant Western news coverage of the African continent. The momentous events that have rocked South Africa's political sphere this past week are well worthy of coverage. Indeed, without the U.S. presidential election circus and financial crisis, they probably would be more prominent.  The small Western appetite for African affairs however, seems to have settled on the Mbeki drama as its sole sustenance. Zimbabwe's landmark power-sharing deal has been swept off the headlines.

South Africa was widely criticized by Western commentators for its silence on the on-going crisis in Zimbabwe, and President Thabo Mbeki took the brunt of it for his so called "silent diplomacy" policy when it comes to Zanu-PF's violent repression of political opposition. Yet despite the ANC's apparent policy of denial, Mbeki was appointed by the Southern African Development Community to facilitate a resolution that would end the violence in March 2007. Since then he made several fruitless visits to Zimbabwe attempting to facilitate a compromise between the long standing president, Robert Mugabe of Zanu-PF, and MDC opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Mbeki came to Harare after the presidential runoff that was widely condemned locally and internationally as unfair, to head the Southern African Development Community (SADC) sponsored power-sharing talks in Zimbabwe’s capital Harare.

AFRICOM Overtaking African Priorities?

Since September 11th, the Bush administration has increasingly relied on the military to direct its engagements with international players.  Overstretched and underfunded civilian agencies are ceding more and more ground to the Pentagon, which outspends all these agencies combined by a factor of 17 to one.  Until recently, U.S. military engagement with Africa has been minimal; as recently as 1995 the Department of Defense reported "see[ing] very little traditional strategic interest in Africa."  But the Pentagon is in the process of assembling a centralized Africa Command (AFRICOM) to consolidate its military operations on the continent.  The command is expected to cost billions of dollars over the next few years. 

According to AFRICOM commanders, the operation's mission is to train and build up African security forces to allow Africans to handle their own conflicts.  While this goal is commendable, it is fair to ask whose interests the command best serves- African nations, or the U.S.?  The Department of Defense denies that AFRICOM was prompted by the war on terror, oil interests, and fears of growing Chinese influence in the region.  But these three factors undoubtedly played a role in the timing and scope of AFRICOM.  According to a Refugees International report, "the view remains widespread that AFRICOM is a tool to secure better access to Africa's natural resources, erode China's growing influence on the continent, and establish forward bases to hunt and destroy networks linked to al-Qaeda."  The voices of African leaders, who listed their own security concerns in a roundtable meeting as  "poverty, food shortages, inadequate educational opportunities, displaced persons, and HIV/AIDS,"  are conspicuously absent.

The U.S. State Department has also expressed apprehension that AFRICOM "could blur traditional boundaries among diplomacy, development, and defense, thereby militarizing U.S. foreign policy."  The world already views the U.S. military with some suspicion, and any move to plant military bases around the continent smacks of imperialism.