ColvenComp1DiaryandMagazine

February 19 2005 It was kind of amazing to fly over what looks like the middle of nowhere - miles and miles of sand, rock, and bush - and suddenly land in this little oasis called El Geneina. Then the drive through town: huts made of adobe-like bricks and thatched roofs; women in brilliantly colored topes (a traditional Muslim garment that wraps around the head and body), balancing trayfuls of food on their heads; men in white galabeeyas (which look like long nightshirts) and turbans; donkeys pulling carts and carrying people; kids waving and calling, "How are you? How are you?" In some ways, it feels like you've gone back in time hundreds of years, except for all the four-wheel drive vehicles and the ringing of cell phones. For the most part, this week has been peaceful. People are generally friendly and curious, and will wave and greet you. At times, it's easy to forget we're in a conflict zone, but we're reminded again before long by the guys with guns walking or driving around town (some in uniform, others not), our strict security guidelines (don't walk alone, always carry a radio, avoid crowds, 9 pm curfew), or the sound of gunshots at night. This is kind of a gun-happy culture, it seems, so gunshots aren't necessarily bad-it could just be someone celebrating something. On the other hand, the presence of guns adds an element of danger to any situation, and can ratchet up a simple incident into something much more chaotic (hence the rule of avoiding crowds). So, we try to be open and foster good relationships with everyone, but always make sure we're aware of what's going on. Today I went to the field for the first time with the agriculture and livelihood team. They're working in a camp of internally displaced people in Azirni, about an hour out of town. (It's actually only about 10 miles or so, but you can't go more than about 30 mph most of the time because the roads are so bad). The ag/livelihood team has been holding training sessions in building fuel-efficient stoves, and we tried to track down a woman named Jedda, who's kind of a community leader, to have her spread the word to her friends and neighbors. In so doing, we inadvertently crashed a wedding party (oops!). No one seemed to mind, though; they offered us beer, dates, and punch, and someone sprayed me with perfume. (Was that a hint?) A number of people were pretty smashed (so much for Sudan being a dry/Muslim country?!); one guy was thumping on a drum, while others were jumping as high as they could and ululating (the women). The bride and groom never appeared - apparently they were inside the hut on their "honeymoon." I don't think I'll be getting married over here, thanks very much. Lastly, I got to ride a camel, thanks to an older gentleman who was passing through and apparently feeling benevolent (perhaps he was a bit tipsy as well). I knew it'd be high up, but I wasn't prepared for the violent rocking as the camel got to its knees before standing. "Whoa-oa-oa!" I kind of stammered, and the crowd of kids started giggling. I'm definitely not in Pasadena anymore. [] Yet, as horrifying reports continue to emerge, and as a humanitarian emergency grows, there is no indication that the United States or the United Nations is prepared to intervene--despite promises of "never again" and explicit obligations under the 1948 Convention on Genocide. For more than a year, the Khartoum government has systematically obstructed access to Darfur and blocked international efforts to establish a relief program. More recently, it has failed to honor the cease-fire it signed in April. As a result, Darfur now faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with 30,000 people already killed and more than a million internally displaced. International aid agencies say that even if humanitarian relief arrives now, 350,000 people may still die. Sudan, geographically Africa's largest country, has experienced civil war with only a ten-year pause since independence in 1956. More than 2 million people have been killed and twice that many displaced in the long-running war between successive governments of the north and peoples of the south. Recent progress toward peace has brought hope that this troubled history will finally come to a close, but the growing crisis in Darfur, which began last year, casts a dark shadow. In Darfur, the Sudanese government is destroying African Muslim communities because some among them have challenged Khartoum's authoritarian rule. As in the conflict between north and south, in Darfur ethnic and racial identities have also been part of the conflict. But at its heart is a repressive minority Arab-centric regime in Khartoum that rules by force, cannot even claim to represent a majority of northerners and has relied on religious fundamentalism to maintain its power. Ironically, the international community's unwillingness to intervene results--at least in part--from concern that a fragile peace deal between north and south will be jeopardized. Across several administrations, the United States has been involved in promoting peace in Sudan, and the Bush Administration is eager to claim credit for its diplomatic efforts. But as long as the Sudanese government is waging a genocidal war in Darfur, the United States cannot pretend that a meaningful peace deal can be achieved. The Administration had hoped that such an agreement would allow it to lift sanctions on Sudan. This, in turn, would permit US oil companies to pursue a share of the country's recently developed oil wealth. Such interests, however, cannot be allowed to compromise a larger moral obligation. As parties to the Genocide Convention, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the United States and more than 130 countries worldwide, are bound to prevent and punish genocide. The convention names genocide as a crime in international law, describing it as the commission of acts with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Genocide in Darfur Salih Booker and Ann-Louise Colgan Ten years after Rwanda, a genocide is unfolding again while the world watches and refuses to say its name. The failure of the United States and the international community to act in Rwanda a decade ago cost 800,000 lives. Now, up to 1 million people face a similar fate in Darfur, western Sudan, as a result of an ongoing government campaign to destroy a portion of its population. What is happening in Darfur is genocide, and must be called that. The term "genocide" not only captures the fundamental characteristics of the Khartoum government's intent and actions, it also invokes clear international obligations. The Security Council continues to hesitate on Darfur, largely because of the economic and diplomatic interests of its permanent members, who don't wish to antagonize Khartoum. Whether the UN can be spurred to action will depend largely on the United States, and Washington has an obligation to act. One reason is its treaty obligations under the Genocide Convention. Another is its involvement in Sudan's peace process, supported by an eclectic domestic constituency, including groups ranging from the evangelical right to the Congressional Black Caucus. A third is the unique US intelligence capacity to track militia activity in Darfur as well as the movements of the displaced. Finally, it has 1,800 troops in nearby Djibouti, some of whom could be mobilized quickly to lead a multinational force to secure the region, to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to enforce the cease-fire until a UN peacekeeping force can be assembled. When George W. Bush hosted the G-8 summit in June, the leaders of the world's richest and most powerful countries merely urged the government of Sudan to disarm the militias. Were this tragedy unfolding in Europe, their summit would have focused on little other than intervention. Unless there is an immediate military intervention in Darfur, up to a million people could die this year. We should have learned from Rwanda that to stop genocide, Washington must first say the word. []