Introduction
The Darfur conflict is perceived as one of the greatest world conflicts in recent times. The conflict mainly pits the Sudan Liberation Army against the Justice and Equality Movement (both of which are comprised of pro-Arab fighters and non-Arab fighters) (Hilde 1). The Darfur conflict started when the mainly Christian population of Southern Sudan accused the Sudan government of oppressing the black population.
The war started in 2003 until a ceasefire was realized in 2010 (Hilde 1). The reaction of the Sudanese government to the conflict was one-sided because the Sudanese government admitted to mobilizing self-defense militias to protect the mainly Muslim north (but they denied claims of supporting the Janjaweed militia that was fighting the black Sudanese population in the south) (Hilde 1).
The Sudanese government has denied claims that the Darfur conflict was a genocide because the Sudanese president (Al-Bashir) claimed that the international community was exaggerating the conflict (Hilde 3). It is difficult to determine the accurate death toll arising from the conflict but it is estimated that about 300,000 people have died from the conflict (Hilde 1).
However, the Sudanese government claims that the death toll only amounted to about 10,000 people (Hilde 1). It is difficult to ascertain the correct human death toll figures arising from the war because the Darfur conflict also brought a lot of human devastation, hunger and starvation. These elements also caused widespread death.
It is also estimated that about 2,000,000 people have been displaced from the conflict (with most internally displaced people moving to larger towns and neighboring countries) (Hilde 1). The atrocities witnessed in the Darfur crisis were mainly inhumane and extreme. Such acts ranged from rampant killings, rape, murder, burning people’s homes and the likes.
The international community blames Sudanese president, Al-Bashir, for supporting rogue militias in the conflict. It is claimed that Al-Bashir supplied the militias with arms and offered them protection during the war (Hilde 4).
It is also believed that the Sudanese president consistently used oil revenues to fund the conflict because international observers note that it is difficult for a poor nation like Sudan to finance such a long conflict (Hilde 10). So far, Al-Bashir has received a warrant of arrest for war crimes in Sudan but he has not been arrested due to the lack of cooperation by some nations.
Many African nations like Chad, Nigeria and Kenya, have tried to mediate the Darfur conflict and several peace treaties have been signed as a result. However, only a few rebel fighters signed these treaties because isolated attacks continue.
Other international bodies like the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) have also contributed to the same peace efforts (which have only until recently yielded fruits when the Southern Sudanese people seceded from Northern Sudan). Currently, Southern Sudan is the newest nation in Africa and although there is relative peace in the former Sudanese nation, there are isolated hostilities between the rival factions.
The role of civil organizations in the Darfur conflict however comes into sharp focus because they have been present in the war-torn nation since the start of the conflict. In evaluating the role of the civil society in the Darfur conflict, it is important to explain the nature of civil societies and their composition.
Bechtold explains that the “civil society is composed of voluntary civic and social organizations that together form the basis of a functioning society, rather than social organizations sponsored by the state” (Bechtold 7).
In understanding the role of the civil society in Darfur, Straus (123) also elaborates that it is important to understand the nature and role of the civil society in Darfur because it is different from other civil societies in other parts of the world.
In other words, the role of the civil society in Darfur has been complicated by the fact that the civil society’s role in the war-torn country has been reduced to peacekeeping. Therefore, the civil society has had to negotiate with real individuals who wield a lot of power, but are not part of the government.
Jody (3) explains that the main role of the civil society in the Darfur conflict was also to initiate negotiations with influential people in the society and communicate their resolutions to the government (in the hope of finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict).
For instance, one of the strategies of the civil society in Darfur was to bring together different from people from different communities to a meeting where they were to chart the way out of the conflict (in the hope of creating a stronger sense of accountability to the government) (Bechtold 7).
The role of the civil society in the Darfur conflict was further complicated by the involvement of rebels in the peace process because some people expressed reservations regarding the fact that rebels are often “attention seeking” and their grievances are often highlighted at the expense of other smaller groups (Jody 3).
The strategy used by civil society groups is also different from rebel strategies of intimidations and threats because civil societies are more representative of the general population and they allow the input of all stakeholders in a conflict.
Nonetheless, the role of civil societies in mediating conflicts has been highlighted in other nations around the world. Therefore, undoubtedly, the civil society has a huge role to play in mediating conflicts. The Darfur case is no different. This paper therefore proposes that upon the realization of the right environment, the civil society can be able to chart a peaceful resolution to the Darfur crisis.
The recommendations of this study will be of importance to international institutions and organizations, which are engaged in mediating peace. In addition, the recommendations of this paper will improve the understanding of the role of civil societies in resolving conflicts around the world. Therefore, the study’s findings may act as a precedent to the resolution of future world conflicts.
To convey the potential of the civil society in solving the Darfur crisis, this paper explores the response of the international community in the Darfur conflict, the role played by the civil society in the conflict (so far), and the potential of the civil society to solve the Darfur crisis.
International Response to the Conflict
As noted in earlier sections of this study, the international response to the conflict has been directed at the contribution of the Sudanese government in facilitating the conflict. However, this has not been the only perspective pursued by the international community in resolving the Darfur conflict. Fearing the worst, the international community has been proactively engaged in finding an amicable solution to the Darfur conflict.
This commitment has been strengthened by the fears of witnessing another genocide in Africa (such as the Rwandan genocide that saw millions of people die and thousands (more) displaced from the conflict) (Flint 4). The international response to the Darfur conflict has therefore been multifaceted.
Justice has been one front, which has been pursued by the international community. The international criminal court has intervened to investigate the conflict and identify the real perpetrators behind the violence. So far, incriminating evidence has been gathered to prosecute Al-Bashir.
However, it has been difficult for the international criminal court to investigate the Darfur conflict because the Sudanese government has not signed the Rome statute (Walker 9).
However, through a recommendation by the UN Security Council, the international criminal court investigated crimes against humanity in Darfur and found the Janjaweed leader, Ali kushayb, and the minister of state for the interior to be guilty of war crimes against humanity (Walker 9).
However, Sudan has protested these warrants of arrest and declared that they cannot submit the two individuals to the Hague-based court since the international criminal court does not have a jurisdiction within its borders (Walker 9).
This standoff exposes the fragile nature of international prosecutions but observers see that it will be difficult for the Sudanese president to move around countries because of the warrant of arrest issued against him. This has been one front to the reaction on the Darfur conflict.
The international community has also supported the deployment of peacekeepers in the Darfur region to facilitate the realization of Peace. France and Britain are some of the most instrumental western powers that have since deployed some of their troops to quell the violence in Darfur.
African countries (under the umbrella of the African Union) have also deployed their troops to Darfur. Some of these countries include Burundi, Nigeria and Senegal (Jody 3). The US has also facilitated the movement of such troops in Sudan using its military equipment and hardware.
However, the joint efforts by the international community in the Darfur conflict have been hampered by logistical challenges. For example, poor road networks, lack of communication channels and such like logistical challenges have hampered the deployment of troops in the Darfur region.
For instance, in 2007-2008, it is estimated that about 20% of the transportation companies, which were sought to provide logistical support in the Darfur conflict quit after they sighted poor road networks and high insecurity (Jody 3).
Western powers have also made oral statements regarding the conflict (with the aim of boosting the efforts of the international community in the Darfur conflict). For instance, in 2006, former US president George Bush declared that international troops in Darfur should be doubled so that they improve the effectiveness of the peacekeeping mission (Jody 3).
In the same year, former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, also petitioned other European nations to find a common response to the Darfur conflict. In 2007, Gordon Brown also declared that the Darfur conflict was among the worst humanitarian disasters in recent times and the world should rise up to stop any further loss of lives (Jody 13). He said this statement in support of a UN resolution to increase the number of troops in Darfur.
The international response to the Darfur crisis has mainly been to find a political solution to the conflict. For instance, in 2004, the UN Security Council declared that the Sudanese government should find a political solution to the conflict by disarming the local militia and bringing their leaders to justice (Jody 13).
In 2005, the UN Security Council further declared that though the Sudanese government did not pursue a “genocide” strategy of conflict resolution, it was still faced with serious accusations of crimes against humanity.
However, despite these revelations, the international community still preferred a political solution to the conflict. This conviction prompted the birth of the Abiuja talks (in Nigeria) where all relevant stakeholders in the conflict met and came up with the Darfur peace agreement (Jody 13).
What the Civil Society has done in Darfur
Recent proclamations by the UN expose the importance of the civil society in resolving the Darfur crisis. Ban Ki-moon reiterated that the civil society was comprised of many communities, which expressed different opinions about the conflict (Lupa-Lasaga 4). This homogeneity brings a new wave of commitment, energy and patience in resolving the Darfur conflict.
Unlike many conflicts around the world, it was witnessed that, people from one nationality, language and religion characterize the Darfur conflict. Therefore, there was a new wave of optimism that these commonalities would bring together all the warring parties and find a definite solution to the Darfur conflict.
The role of the civil society in the Darfur conflict has been characterized by various interventions. However, at the core of these interventions is the prevention of further conflict in Darfur. This goal has been facilitated by the role of the civil society in being non-partisan and willing to reconcile the two warring factions.
The civil society has always stretched an olive branch to the disputing parties in the Darfur conflict by trying to find a tangible solution to the Darfur conflict. The civil society has tried to communicate to the leaders of the two groups, the government and all the stakeholders involved in the conflict with the aim of averting more deaths (Bechtold 7).
In addition, the civil society has tried to reconcile the warring groups by proposing a raft of recommendations for the realization of a common solution to the conflict. Though much of their efforts have been aggressive, little evidence exists of significant progress in resolving the conflict.
The main challenge faced by the civil society (here) has been the suppression of violent expression of conflict at the expense of solving the underlying causes of the conflict (Bechtold 7).
In preventing further conflict, the civil society has tried to address hostile mistrust among the fighting communities so that no party feels like the only way they can resolve their difference is through war. The civil society has therefore tried to create an environment where all the conflicts between the two groups can be resolved in a non-violent and non-aggressive manner.
The civil society has also been engaged in providing rehabilitation services to the communities affected by the Darfur conflict. These services have been diverse and they have ranged from providing sanitation services, food, shelter, clothing and such like humanitarian efforts to the affected communities.
These rehabilitation efforts have been non-partisan and they have extended to providing facilitative services to the more than 2,000,000 people who were internally displaced by the conflict (Bechtold 7). However, the main role of the civil society in providing rehabilitative services has been the mobilization of funds and resources to assist the weak.
These mobilization efforts have been focused on mobilizing money and expert knowledge in solving the Darfur conflict. For instance, through the civil organizations, doctors have been able to volunteer by treating malnourished children. Mainly, most of these services have been centered on helping women and children who have been affected (most) by the conflict.
Therefore, the most important service offered by the civil society and other humanitarian organizations has been the provision of health services to weak and malnourished children.
These rehabilitation efforts have also been focused on providing tents, blankets and food to the affected families. The human death toll that could have been realized from the Darfur conflict was therefore severely reduced by the contribution of the civil society in the Darfur conflict.
Potential of the Civil Society in Solving the Darfur Conflict
Unlike many governmental and non-governmental entities that have tried to mediate the Darfur conflict, civil organizations are perceived to be impartial. There is a growing school of thought among most scholars (and indeed, among most observers) that some of the international resolutions advanced by certain international bodies like the UN are mainly pro-western (Armstrong 1).
The UN is therefore perceived as a western-dominated intervention in the Darfur conflict and due to this fact; the mainly Arab speaking population of Sudan do respect some of the interventions introduced by the UN. This is the main ground advanced by the Sudanese government for failing to respect the international criminal court resolution of arresting Al-Bashir for crimes against humanity (Armstrong 11).
The Sudanese government mainly perceives the international criminal court as a western-dominated influence on African affairs and due to this fact; they perceive the court to be an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan. The negative perception of western interventions has therefore further complicated the realization of peace in Darfur.
In addition, the introduction of western conflict resolution policies is seen as another invasion of western powers on the affairs of Arab states. Similarities are therefore drawn between the intervention of western powers in Darfur with the intervention of western powers on certain Arab states such as Iraq, Iran and Libya.
The civil society therefore stands out as a non-partisan entity to conflict resolution because it does not side with any dominant world power. The civil society therefore stands a high rate of acceptance among the warring parties (in Darfur) because it is all-inclusive. In fact, the composition of most civil organizations around the world is comprehensive of various communities, races and ethnicities (Armstrong 11).
It is therefore easier to adopt the recommendations of civil organizations as opposed to western-backed powers in the Darfur conflict resolution. More so, it is easier for civil organizations to reconcile communities who have long perceived one another as enemies.
The outreach and network of civil organization is also wide and comprehensive such that family and individual ties can be easily strengthened within the same framework. The context of engagement usually varies with the level of development within a society because some civil engagements normally take place in a traditional context, while others take place in the context of a social get-together.
For instance, cities usually provide the right environment for formal associations while villages provide the right environment for informal associations. The network and outreach of civil organizations can therefore not be compared with the outreach of other international mediators such as the UN.
Organizations such as the UN usually operate at a national and international level but civil organizations interact with the “grass root” population (Armstrong 11). The effectiveness of civil organizations in conflict resolution is therefore very high. India is one such example where civil organizations have had a positive impact on the conflict resolution process between Hindus and Muslims.
It was reported that 4% of all the deaths that occurred in India during the conflict happened between 1950 – 1955 (Armstrong 11). A paltry 10% of the riots in the Asian continent also occurred during the same period.
After this period, relative peace was realized because there were everyday engagements that were forged by civil organizations to ensure Hindus and Muslims met on a daily basis to chart the way forward (with regards to conflict resolution).
These engagements were observed to be highly effective because they managed to keep potential rioters at bay while the negotiations continued (Armstrong 11). The type of engagmenets, which were going on in the cities were however not enough, and associations were proposed as the most effective ways of conflict resolution.
The success of civil organizations regarding conflict resolution can therefore be traced to the link between religious, ethnic or tribal conflicts and civil life. The role of civil organizations is usually to preempt violence by ensuring that different communities are in constant talk with one another.
This interaction improves communication between the two parties and it is easier for organizations to reduce tensions between different communities in this manner. This situation is only destabilized if politicians or rebel leaders start rumors regarding a specific social or political issue.
The civil society is therefore equipped to solve the Darfur conflict in this regard because it has a strong social outreach and it is impartial when compared to other dispute resolution bodies.
Conclusion
Historically, the civil society has played a huge role not only in conflict resolution but also in reducing corruption, improving democracy and upholding human rights. The rate of success for civil societies is very high when compared to other governmental or non-governmental bodies that try to do the same.
Civil societies tend to have a high rate of acceptance among different societies because they are perceived to be free from external control (such as government control). Therefore, civil societies tend to share a higher level of trust with the common people (than the government or other known international bodies such as the UN).
Though traditional institutions in the society such as churches, religious groups and community groups have long played an important role in upholding the cohesiveness of the society, the civil society has introduced a new dimension in solving global conflicts.
It is therefore correct to say that without the involvement of the civil society we would witness increased conflicts, more human rights abuses, social injustices and other forms of human degradation.
The Darfur conflict cannot be solved by traditional dispute resolution mechanisms because the root-cause of the conflict started with rival communities fighting for pasture and natural resources. The conflict should therefore be perceived as a “common-man” problem and not a religious conflict or a tussle between the west and the Muslim nation.
Emphasis should therefore be given to civil societies in reconciling local communities by empowering their activities. More importantly, governments should ensure such organizations enjoy government protection as they go about their duties because governments should perceive them as friends of peace and not enemies.
The role of the civil society in dispute resolution is therefore very strong in deriving a concrete solution to world conflicts. Future conflicts should therefore be understood within the context of civil relationships because this is the true essence of humanity.
Works Cited
Armstrong, David. Civil Society And International Governance: The Role Of Non-State
Actors In Global And Regional Regulatory Frameworks. London: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Print.
Bechtold, Patrick. “A History of Modern Sudan.” Middle East Journal 63.1 (2009): 149 – 150. Print.
Flint, Julie. Darfur: A Short History of a Long War. London: Zed Books, 2006. Print.
Hilde, Johnson. Waging Peace in Sudan: The Inside Story of the Negotiations That Ended. New York: Trans Pacific Press, 2011. Print.
Jody, Williamson. “Sudan’s Enablers.” The Wall Street Journal 5.23 (2007): 3-6. Lupa-Lasaga, Vukoni. The Slow, Violent Death Of Apartheid In Sudan. Oslo: Norwegian Council for Africa, 2006. Print.
Straus, Scott. “Darfur and the Genocide Debate.” Foreign Affairs 84.1 (2005): 123-133. Print.
Walker, Peter. Darfur Genocide Charges for Sudanese President. London: Guardian, 2008. Print.