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.

Worry over Women’s Dress or sense of Empowerment?

It seems like every time you open the paper to the world section there is Sudan; another speculation of the south Sudanese war uprising once again, and my favorite, the war in Darfur is over. Imagine my surprise when I opened the New York Times on the 6th September, it read “Sudan Court to Define Indecent Dress for Women”. In the article, journalist and ex-employee at the United Nations Mission in Sudan, Lubna Hussein was arrested in Sudan for violating the dress code. According to the article, Hussein was arrested because her clothes were in violation of Article 152 of Sudan’s penal code that states, if caught wearing clothing deemed to be “indecent,” the perpetrator faces a fine and 40 lashes.

One of the witnesses stated, “[Hussein] was wearing pants and a blouse and the pants were tight and flashy and shows from underneath it the thighs and the outline and the form of the underwear and the color of her panties that can clearly be seen which is beige in color and short shirt with sleeves up to her elbow and it is transparent and light reflecting everything inside it within such as the shape and form of the bra and that the start of her chest is showing because the blouse opening and it also has two holes on the side lengthwise from top to bottom, and there is a gap between the confluence of the shirt so that they appear able to view the navel and the underwear of the accused.”

This incident is an example of a strong-willed woman undeterred by Sudanese Government officials who consistently try to repress the freedom of expression by limiting fundamental individual rights. Women in Sudan can no longer be invisible. Any efforts to create a sustainable peace in Sudan must include women. The absence of sufficient participation by women leaders was one major flaw in the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA).

It is not exclusively Sudan where women because victims of sex crimes, or gross violations of human rights. Everyday there are undocumented cases of repression, like Hussein and yet the international community is still far from taking the necessary steps to protect women. This is not about clothing alone; this is the need for people in power, most often men, to restrict the movement of women by silencing them. Violence against women can take the form of silencing them by telling them to dress a certain way, or by physical violence such as rape, torture, abduction, or even psychological violence- making them feel ashamed of being a woman, making them outlaws to their families because they have “dishonored” them when they were raped or have become victims of human trafficking.

One positive step in stopping gender-based-violence was the August 18th announcement made by the United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID).  The UNAMID has set up a seven-member unit as a response to the alarming high rates of sexual and gender-based violence reported in Darfur over the last two years. This unit also seeks to encourage victims of violence to report incidents, reduce the stigmatization of sexual abuse victims and help to rehabilitate victims. This is a step in the right direction for the women of Darfur and all of Sudan, as they will investigate crimes against women such as child abuse, child abandonment, prostitution, human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual harassment. These women are the face and the future of Africa.

The U.S. government should support African efforts that address women’s empowerment and education. Secretary of State Clinton remarked in her New York Times interview on the empowerment of women in developing countries, “Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. President Obama and I and the United States will not tolerate this continuation of wanton, senseless, brutal violence perpetrated against girls and women.”

While Clinton’s statement is encouraging and may attract people to become more interested in women’s rights in Africa, the Obama administration must fulfill these commitments and reflect more than just rhetoric.

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.

Spotlight on Disputed Territory: The Ilemi Triangle

It’s time to pull out that map of Africa and get ready for another spotlight in this week’s post to Just Africa! As mentioned in the Spotlight on Swaziland these blogs are meant to highlight different aspects of the continent – countries and regions - whose images and people you may not be familiar with, and that are rarely (if at all) in major newspapers or on television. By providing some brief background and recent developments, I hope to pique your interest to learn more about the great diversity, that can be found in Africa – bringing yourself one country closer to knowing all abut the continent!

This week, the topic is disputed territory in eastern Africa and, depending on the size of your map, you may just need to look very close indeed in order to spot the lines that haven’t been drawn in the sand. Let me make it a bit easier:

The Elemi or Ilemi Triangle is an area of disputed land in eastern Africa, notable because not two but three different countries contest its boundaries: Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan. The origin of the dispute goes back to the colonial era and to the unclear wording of treaties between European power seeking to set boundaries that allowed for the movement of nomadic, Turkana herders in the region. These early treaties were often made without the involvement of surrounding African powers and, even later, various colonial territorial commissions disputed the details of the border location while ignoring local people in their demarcations.

Characterized by hilly terrain and good grazing pastures for goats, camels, and cattle, the Ilemi Triangle is an excellent resource for the pastoral people who migrate through the region, though they must compete for the limited browse and scarce water available. Turkana, Didinga, Toposa, Invangatom, and Dassanech communities are common to the region and are members of larger ethno-cultural groups of Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Sudan. At the same time, intermarriage and clan affinities in the area add further complexity to making concrete delineations between peoples.

From a political perspective, the nomadic and pastoral lifestyles makes resolving jurisdiction of the area difficult, as pastoral movement necessarily involves constricting and expanding borders according to need. The modern state, on the other hand is typically all about what is on the actual map i.e. the solid (though invisible) lines between countries. This is an interesting – and important – difference in perspective as far as control of the region is concerned.

The men and women living in Ilemi are not the only ones with a vested interest in the region, however. Natural resources have long been a draw for colonial powers and modern countries, and the Ilemi Triangle has been noted as a potential source of minerals itself, as well as a gateway into the unexplored oil reserves in Southern Sudan. While during the partition of territory in East Africa there was no real need to strictly determine the Kenya-Sudan-Uganda borders, as they were all part of the British Empire, since the early 20th century, borders around the territory have changed numerous times for a diversity of reasons. Here are some of the major changes:

-1902-1903: the Ethiopian emperor Menelik proposes a boundary with the British from Lake Turkana to the Indian Ocean – the British disagree and settle boundaries with other European powers at the “Maud Line” without Ethiopian involvement, placing the triangle in Sudan’s control.
-1907: The Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement treaty between Ethiopia and British East Africa remains vague about the border’s details but maintains the Maud Line
-1938: A Joint Kenya-Sudan survey team establishes the “Wakefield Line” or “Red Line,” temporarily establishing the northern limit to grazing in Turkana after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936.
-1956: Sudan wins independence and from then until the present day has not administered Ilemi (or much of southern Sudan) due to civil war
-1972: Sudan-Ethiopia boundary alteration does not resolve the issue because Kenya is not involved.
-1978: The Kenyan government begins arming Turkana in the region.
-1990s: Ethiopia begins arming Dassanech in the area, further increasing tension in the area.

More recently, perceptions of the region as economically marginal, as well as instability of the region’s governments have long delayed the resolution of this disputed territory. Since 1978 Kenyan maps have marked the Wakefield/Red Line as its official border and, while Ethiopia and Sudan continue to stake their claims, and the country has de facto control over the region’s administration.

The Ilemi Triangle is a fascinating region of East Africa where ideas and points of view about ownership and boundaries may challenge our own. The turbulence in the area unfortunately obscures the ongoing dispute over Ilemi – but it’s worth reading more about. For more information on Kenya, Ethiopia, and conflict in Sudan check out our resources on Key Countries in Africa and our Campaign to Stop Genocide in Darfur. 

UN representative Uta Simon arrested in area affected by Merowe Dam, Sudan

Northern Sudan is one of the country's most marginalized regions. It's currently home to the largest hydroelectric construction project in Africa - the Merowe Dam. While the dam has the potential to drastically increase electricity production for Sudan, the project has come at a massive human cost, forcibly displacing thousands of people from their communities.

Over the past few weeks, I've heard from international aid agencies operating in Sudan that government officials were escalating their pattern of repression in the region by blocking humanitarian access to the populations forced out by recent flooding caused by the dam. A report I received today from the NGO International Rivers is even more disturbing:

Bashir and the ICC - Sudanese perspectives

One of the most controversial topics at the UN General Assembly underway this week is the International Criminal Court's looming indictment of Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir.

Last Thursday I attended a panel discussion in New York, sponsored by the International Refugee Rights Initiative on  "The Case Against Bashir: Perspectives from Sudan." Veteran Sudanese human rights activist and former director of the Sudanese Organization Against Torture (SOAT) Osman Hummaida and renowned Sudanese human rights lawyer and parliamentarian Salih Mahmoud Osman were among the presenters. They spoke eloquently about the need to pursue both peace and justice for Darfur - no easy task. International Crisis Group's Fabienne Harah, another presenter, posited that the Bashir charges present "perhaps the hardest peace versus justice dilemma the international community has faced."

Osman Hummaida has been closely monitoring the Sudanese media discourse in the wake of ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's July 14th landmark announcement that he would pursue charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against President Bashir. Osman argues that the ICC pressure has opened NCP hardliners up to public criticism  (particularly in newspaper opinion pieces) from a wider array of voices than have previously spoken out against the dominant partner in Sudan's Government of National Unity.

While the press faces serious governmental restrictions in Sudan ( ranked 140/169  on Reporters Without Borders press freedom index)the country is home to a vibrant and diverse community of independent journalists and public intellectuals. The intense polarization that initially followed July 14th has relaxed in the past two months. More Sudanese academics and commentators are warning that the international isolation the country faces as a result of the NCP's confrontational stance with the Court (and broader international community) is not worth it. As a result, those who don't think Bashir should face ICC prosecution are increasingly arguing that the appropriate way to fight the charges is through technical legal procedures, rather than pressuring allies in the Security Council to invoke Article 16 of the Rome Statute.

Osmane's analysis that the public discourse in Sudan on this topic is widening is heartening. As one activist in Khartoum recently reminded me, for such a diverse country, it's futile to try to construct a single Sudanese perspective on this issue. Even as different perspectives are held within civil society, the political opposition and the academic community, still other distinctions exist between the views of these elites and ordinary Sudanese who lack access to information about the Darfur conflict.

This Save Darfur Coalition video has interviews with some of the civil society leaders who participated in the recent Darfur Consortium conference in Kampala, including Salih Mahmoud, Darfur Relief and Documentation Center's Abdelbagi Jibril and Dr. Mohammed Ahmed Abdullah of the Amel Center for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture in Darfur.

Bashir and the ICC - Amid Reactions, Where are the Voices of Darfur?

After 3 years of gathering evidence, last Monday, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced his intention to prosecute Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir for "10 counts of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide" for the violence against civilians he has helped orchestrate in Darfur. See Africa Action's press release on the case from last week. Many Arab and African governments have criticized the move for complicating the peace process and violating Sudan’s sovereignty. Predictably, the voices of the people of Darfur have been ignored.

The Sudanese government has indicated that it will ignore the indictment of its president. Government ministers swiftly staged a protest against the actions of the ICC and chief prosecuter Luis Moreno-Ocampo, painting the ICC as a Western tool. The African Union’s response has been only slightly less damning. Kenyan Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka told reporters "the move by ICC would threaten the on-going implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Sudan and possibly worsen the fragile situation in Darfur." In response to Bashir’s plight, the Arab League convened an emergency meeting to show support for his government. Hours before the meeting, Yemen released a head-in-the-sand dismissal of the ICC charges as a “complete falsehood and an infringement on Sudan’s internal affairs.” Many Western analysts, including the former U.S. envoy for Sudan, have sided against the ICC, arguing that an attempt to try Bashir needlessly complicates the political situation in Darfur.Despite criticism, Ocampo has promised to continue his quest to bring Bashir to justice. “I am the prosecutor and I have to do my judicial part of the work for the court,” he told the Washington Post. “I cannot be a political factor.”

The people of Darfur are hailing the ICC's bold move with excitement. Predictably, rebel groups have lauded the move, but so have Darfuri refugees and others in the diaspora and leaders in displaced persons camps in Sudan. Sudanese refugee and teacher Halima Bashir recently told an audience in London, “I can't explain how happy I am for the ICC case. It is now more than five years this has been going on and very little has been done. It's as if we've been talking to deaf people. For me this is a step for justice.” Representing Sudanese refugees across the U.S. and the world, the Darfuri Leaders Network submitted a letter to the U.N. Security Council pledging “unequivocal support” for the ICC trial and asking the Security Council to ensure the trial proceeds regardless of its doubters.

From the Sudan Tribune: Hussein Abu-Sharati, the spokesperson of Darfur displaced and refugees at the Kalma camp in South Darfur, with some 90,000 residents, said that "there is not a single dissenting voice among displaced when it comes to supporting bringing Sudanese officials before the ICC."