Is there a crisis in Darfur? This question looks at first sight rather provoking; everybody is aware of what is happening there. It is one of the main international hot spots. All the more so as the horrible events in Darfur are everything but new. However, this conflict takes place while the world looks the other way. Will Darfur just be another example of the United Nations Organization's weakness? The articles we studied are mainly extracted from the newspaper The Economist. They all denounce the international passivity facing a human tragedy and its incapacity to pick up the gauntlet. What is happening in Darfur? How are theoretical guidelines, inspired by human rights and democracy, practically implemented? Why do policymakers and international organizations all look useless? Is the UNO a smokescreen framework which permits to the States to forget basic principles of political duty, when mankind is threatened? Is there an opportunity to put principle into practice, so as to leave this deadlock situation? Firstly, Darfur is the place where an awful tragedy is spreading. In the second part, we will try to understand the international passivity itself, which borders at first sight on pure irrationality. First and foremost, Darfur's tragedy has been going on for three years and a half; slaughters, rapes and civil refugees are increasing day-by-day. A historical and geographical view is likely to be helpful to seize the current situation. Sudan is a former British colony, which reached its independence in 1966. This largest country in Africa has no easy access either to the Red Sea or Indian Ocean.
[...] Already contesting American imperialism, they could consider Darfur as an excuse to continue the civilization struggle on other grounds. Public opinion is rather in favour of intervention, some notice a rising tide of sympathy, but obviously there is not a hard-hitting mobilization. Like it or not, no prominent demonstration has been made. No one wants to pick up the torch of Darfur's tragedy. This is the reason why no clear blueprint has been made currently. To sum up, Darfur is stroke by genocide for three years and a half. [...]
[...] The Arab League should pay, but Darfur is still waiting for the money. Then, the AU contingent just protects camps and NGOs. A rough estimate figures between 200,000 and 2 million refugees. In the meantime, aid convoys are regularly attacked. They pay through the nose for common immobility wriggling out from basic principles. The AU mandate should have ended in September 2006. It is rather a backburner issue. Regarding international law, one can notice Blue helmets' intervention is impossible in an internal conflict, if the government does not ask for UN help. [...]
[...] Khartoum, particularly narrow minded, could not stand such demands, and decided to go to Darfur to put the rebellion down. In reality, it appears to be a pretext to get rid of the black population considered as inferior citizens, too different and too rebellious to be tolerated. This opposed community of voters would disappear, strengthening Khartoum. As the saying goes, ballot is stronger than the bullet” (Lincoln). Unworthily conflicts emerged from such a tense context, between Black tribes and Janjaweed, fighting for the government of Khartoum. [...]
[...] In 2004, America's Congress passed a decision unanimous, qualifying what was happening in Darfur as“genocide”. Then, some legitimately expected that the states would stop sitting on their hands, so as to handle the situation. No one could continue to dither. However, some keep using words such as mass killing, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, or human right violations . which is an obvious pretext to avoid intervention. For instance, President Bush, in embarrassed silence, tries not to use the word “genocide”; Kofi Annan claims the genocide is closer and closer; and the Arab league refuses categorically to admit the genocide's existence. [...]
[...] As Darfur is an arid land, they struggled for water and grazing land. Rebellion took place in the south of Sudan. Their purpose was to reach independence, contrarily to Darfur, which never engaged itself in a secession process. In 2003, the north and the south got to an agreement. The South decides of its own future, thanks to a fair degree of autonomy, plus representatives in Khartoum. President Bush favoured the negotiation. He was looking for a solution to cut off Bin Laden from Sudan. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
