Stop Stalling on Sudan

Speaking on Monday, President George W. Bush stated that “the United Nations should not wait any longer to approve a blue-helmeted force” for Sudan’s war-torn Darfur region as mandated by UN Resolution 1706. Sudan’s President Omar El Bashir responded by insisting that the situation in Darfur is under control. But even as he spoke, gun fights erupted between his army and Darfuri rebels in the posh streets of Omdurman, across the river from the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

With a third of Darfur’s 7.4 million people displaced and an estimated 200,000 killed by the conflict since it began in 2003, aid agencies continue to report new bloodshed. Gopvernment-armed Arab Janjaweed militias are launching a fresh assault in Southern Darfur, while opposing Darfuri rebel groups are said to be re-arming in neighboring Chad. If fighting continues, already malnourished farmers won’t be able to harvest their staple crop of millet and Darfur’s four-month-old peace accord will lie in tatters.

At this pivotal moment, the international community must offer Sudan one last chance to accept peacekeepers. If that fails, the UN should invoke Chapter VII of its charter to authorize a peacekeeping mission without Sudan’s consent.

Critics of UN intervention argue that it’s unfeasible. In Darfur’s complex civil conflict even militants can be hard to identify—the word “Janjaweed” literally means “hordes” in the local dialetic. Furthermore, it is questionable if the UN has the right to impose troops against a nation’s will. Better, say critics, to offer a new package of incentives to Sudan.

Moreover, critics worry that planting a foreign force in a predominantly Muslim nation like Sudan risks sparking jihad. Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, released a video last Friday urging Muslims to defend Sudan from “crusaders masked as United Nations [troops].”

In light of such alarming sentiments, it is unsurprising that all internal efforts have failed to bring peace. A 2004 ceasefire was soon violated, and a more recent peace agreement signed in Nigeria this past May received the support of just one of Darfur’s three major rebel groups.

The status quo is unacceptable: 7,000 demoralized and often unpaid African Union troops are patrolling a region roughly the size of France. Without planes they are completely unable to enforce the no-fly zone mandated by UN Resolution 1591, even as the Sudanese Air Force carpet bombs villages suspected of housing rebels.

The UN is capable of assuming this role. It has already spearheaded large humanitarian relief efforts in nearby Sierra Leone and the Congo, showing that it can coordinate such operations. That was, after all, why the Security Council called for 23,000 peacekeepers to be sent to Darfur.

The situation in Sudan demands action. Its government has consistently refused to rein in the Janjaweed militias it supports, while its insistence on centralization prevents any meaningful peace deal. Given that it took over 20 years, and as many as two million deaths, before the government agreed to a peace deal in Sudan’s south, a future without UN intervention does not look rosy.

Finally, the risk of jihad erupting in Sudan is overstated. Most Sudanese do not see the Darfuri conflict as a sectarian war, a view supported by the one million Muslims who live in Darfur but often oppose the Janjaweed. Moreover, the Arab League has hinted that it may support a UN force, a decision that would surely mute most Arab criticisms.

The largest impediment to action is political will. China, Russia, and India, all importing Sudanese oil and investing in the country’s booming economy (Sudan’s GDP grew by 14 percent last year), are loath to ruffle the Khartoum government’s feathers. But if they are to ensure their long-term interests they must act. An unstable Sudan is a powder keg that could incite violence across Northeast Africa, raising oil prices and fueling sectarian hatred.