Opinion Focus: Dying in Darfur
Daniel Wolf
President of the George Wolf Operating Foundation
Thursday, August 05, 2004; 2:00 p.m. ET
The death toll in Darfur is climbing. While nearly 30,000 Sudanese have died on account of Sudan's destructive government, the United Nations has been loathe to intervene. Many are demanding reasons for the nonintervention.
Daniel Wolf, a Washington lawyer and president of the George Wolf Operating Foundation, has just returned from a fact-finding mission in Sudan with Refugees International. He will be live online at 2 ET on Thursday, August 5, to explain why action in Sudan is critical.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Paris, France:
Is the military action was crucial for stoping the critical situation in Darfur?
Daniel Wolf: One would hope not -- though it may have to be a last resort. I think that the Sudanese Government may well respond to strong pressure, such as the threat of serious sanctions and/or the threat of deployment of a peacekeeping mission.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Samantha Powers' book on America's response to genocide in the 20th century discusses an argument that the U.S. government is always eager to avoid calling atrocities (she gives examples of Rwanda and Bosnia) "genocide" because giving such a label would obligate the U.S. to do something under the U.N. Convention on Genocide, to which the U.S. is a signatory. Would you say that this case is similar? How eager are world leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere to use or avoid the term "genocide" (with its concommitant obligations) in speaking of Darfur?
Daniel Wolf: Speaking for myself I think the issue whether this is genocide in Darfur is a tricky one. Certainly, the effect has been genocide-like. But it seems to me that the primary motivation of the Government has been to separate the rebels from their base by terrorizing the populace and cowing it into submission. Some of the things you normally see in a genocidal campaign -- a history of intense violence, scape-goating and a massive propaganda campaign against the target population are not present here.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
We say that the UN is 'loathe to intervene' -- but do they really have the mandate to intervene in a sovereign country? Maybe the discussion needs to focus on how the UN can be re-tooled / re-imagined so that it can have more relevance in the new century. It is a vital organization that often has its hands tied through it's restrictive constitution.
Daniel Wolf: I think it is generally agreed that the UN has the power to intervene through action by the security council on the basis of its authority to maintain international peace and security. The practical problem is achieving consensus in this regard, as such action can be prevented by a single vote from a veto-yielding state. Here, its unclear whether one could achieve a simple majority. In this regard, one alternative means to deal with problems like the one in Darfur is through regional groups like the African Union, which has begun to deploy monitors, but which needs to do a lot more if the violence is to be brought under control and the situation stabilized.
_______________________
Annandale, Va.:
Since you've been there, give your eye-witness take on this: Is it fair to say that Darfur is part of the global Muslim extremist problem? We all know that this is the same country that once embraced Osama bin Laden, and clearly they've never reformed. Now, what we're seeing is not isolated terrorist activity, but a genocidal campaign by Arab Muslims - is that correct?
Daniel Wolf: I think that is clearly incorrect. The African villagers who are being attacked are themselves Muslims. They are adherents to Islam, speak Arabic and have adopted much of the Islamic culture. In essence, one could say they have already been "Arabized". So, I do not think this is part of the broader extremist dynamic of which you are speaking. Indeed, the Arab nomads who have done the attacking (the "Janjaweed") have not hesitated to detroy mosques and have sometimes disparagingly referred to the Arab villagers and/or the rebel forces as "tora bora", equating them with the Bin Laden folowers, which is ridiculous.
_______________________
Raleigh, N.C.:
In what ways is the Iraq war affecting this crisis? Is it spurring action and interest because of the "casus belli" of Saddam's human rights record, or is it inhibiting action and interest because we lack troops and world cooperation has been damaged?
Daniel Wolf: I think it is definitely the latter. We have not seen the international humanitarian response to this crisis that we have seen in other emergencies, such as Kosovo, East Timor and Rwanda. The US Government has tried to lead the effort, but its power to lead seems to be diminished and traditional humanitarian donors have been suspicious and been very slow to respond. For instance, we have seen very little in the way of support from Canada, Japan and many of the European countries. I also believe that with so many resources devoted to Iraq, it has been difficult to get resources to Darfur. I am talking about the humanitarian assistance side. I think obviously there is far greater reluctance to send troops.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Did you have any reactions to Sec. Powell's oped in the Wall Street Journal today?
Daniel Wolf: Unfortunately, I have not seen the Wall Street Journal today, but I would be very interested to read the article.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Will Sudan become the next Somalia?
Daniel Wolf: Good question. The Government is presiding over something of a failed state and there is a lot of internal division and lack of control within the Government itself. I don't think, hiowever, that the situation will ultimately degenerate into utter anarchy in which clans of competing warlords are fighting with each other for control. If you are talking about a situation where an international force comes in and then exits after suffering casualties, that could happen. I think it depends a lot on how well the country that sends the troops prepares its citizenry for the possibility of casualties. I would note that in terms of numbers of potential casualties, Somalia is probably a more accurate model than Iraq.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Many are comparing this conflict to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What are your thoughts?
Daniel Wolf: I think that is a very inaccurate comparison. It implies a history of intractable conflict and also conflict that is religious in nature. Neither of these factors is present in the Darfur conflict. First, it is not religious. Both sides are Muslem. Second, while there is a history of conflict between the Arab herders and African villagers, that conflict has always been manageable through traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and never exploded into the levels of violence we are seeing today.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Would you discuss the strategic significance of Sudan (in terms of region and religion)?
Daniel Wolf: I went to Darfur as an attorney with a background in human rights and humanitarian issues. I apologize, but I don't really feel qualified to answer the question you have posed.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
What kind of organization is Refugees International and how does it help refugees? What specifically is it doing for the people of Darfur?
Daniel Wolf: Refugees International ("RI") is an advocacy organization that serves as a voice for refugees and displaced persons around the world. RI generally operates by sending its expert staff and consultants to areas of crisis, interviewing government officials, relief workers, UN agency officials and, especially the victims themselves, and assessing the overall humanitarian situation. RI then advocates with US government officials, UN officials, international relief agencies, etc. for solutions. That is precisely what RI is doing now for the people of Darfur and what it will continue to do. You can find out more about RI and how you might help RI in accomplishing its mission by visiting its website at www.refugeesinternational.org.
_______________________
Quebec, Canada:
What countries are granting asylum to the Sudanese?
Daniel Wolf: Nearly 200,000 Sudanese refugees are presently in Chad, which has offered them what is called "first asylum". I am not aware of any resettlement program in which any countries have offered any significant numbers of Sudanese refugees permanent resettlement. In other words, Chad is basically the last stop and, if/when it become safe to go back, the Sudanese refugees will almost certainly do so.
_______________________
Detroit, Mi.:
What other humanitarian organizations are in Darfur right now?
Daniel Wolf: As I mentioned before, RI is an advocacy orgnaization. Thus, it has no permanent presence in Sudan. Indeed, if it tried to, it probably wouldn't last long, as RI's job is to speak out on what it sees. Implementing orgnaizations that are in Chad include Medecin Sans Frontiers, Save the Children, CARE, CONCERN and, more recently, International Rescue Committee, Oxfam, World Vision and the American Refugee Committee. There are others, but that's a good start.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Economics is often a means of regulating a country's behavior. Who are Sudan's most significant trading partners?
Daniel Wolf: Good question. I think that the most significant trading partner is Egypt. There is also significant trade with Chad, but I'm not sure that would be much help. I am not sure who are presently the most significant European trading partners.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Do you think there is a level of unwillingness by humanitarian workers (in particular those that are more experienced) to go to Sudan? I have heard that the experience level of some humanitarian workers and NGO representatives is lacking. From the perspective of someone that has just returned from the region, what are your observations?
Daniel Wolf: There is no question about this. We heard again and again from international relief organizations that they were having great difficulty attracting experienced perople to the region. It is hard to understand why this is so, because there is a cadre of relief workers out there that is typically drawn to major hot spots like Darfur. This is only speculation on my part, but it may be that many have been sucked up by Iraq and Afghanistan or are burned out (at least for the time being) by their experiences there. Sudan is a difficult place to be and it would be understandable that someone who has just been in Iraq or Afgahanistan might be reluctant to go there. That's probably part of the explanation, but it is still something of an enigma as to why more people haven't been rushing into help in what is by all accounts a terrible crisis that could well end up taking hundreds of thousands of lives.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
What's your opinion of the responses from the U.S., Europe, and other African countries to the crisis in Darfur?
Daniel Wolf: I think the response by the United States has been quite strong in terms of taking the lead on the political front and providing financial support. Great Britain has also responded well. For many other countries, however, the response has been poor or non-existent. Ireland has also been good. There has been almost no response from Canada, Japan and many countries of the European Union that are traditional donors. This is inexcusable and has led to a shortfall in humanitarian assistance that is going to translate into lost lives. How many will depend on the response in the next few weeks.
The African countries don't have the financial ability to contribute, but the effort by teh Africal Union, which has committed to deploy 300 monitors and is now considering two or three thousand more, is very important and welcome.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Do you think that the Sudan crisis highlights the weakness of the UN to respond to humanitarian disasters? For example, the US drafted resolution finally approved last week was only approved after the word "sanctions" was removed.
With 1000+ people dying a die and 2 mil+ in danger of starvation, what is the answer?
Daniel Wolf:
I think I more or less answered this question earlier. From the international relief perspective, I think the UN has generally done a very good job of responding to international crises. In this particular, instance, however, the international community has fallen short and that is inexcusable, since so many lives hang in the balance and could be saved with a serious effort. The situation has been called an emergency, but many in the international community simply have not treated it as an emergency and, if they don't soon, the price will be paid in hundreds of thousands of lives.
With respect to the issue of more forceful intervention, the UN has always been an imperfect mechanism, because of internal divisions that prevent action and its slowness to respond. As mentioned in one of my earlier answers, one solution could be regional mechanisms such as the African Union, the OAS and the European Union. But ultimately it is a question of caring for others more disadvantaged than we are and, unfortunately, there has been a distinct shortage in the world on that score.
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
