Darfur - Is humanitarian action under threat?

By Pierre Salignon, Director General of Médecins Sans Frontières in France and member of the Médecins Sans Frontières-Australia Board. This article is based on an article written for La Revue Humanitaire, No.15.

Everyone has seen it. It’s been in the public eye for several weeks now in numerous newspapers. A black and white photo: in the foreground there are dozens of tombs in the middle of a desert landscape, not far from which can be seen what resembles a refugee camp. A headline in capital letters: “When all the bodies have been buried in Darfur, how will history judge US?” Following the initiative of a committee of NGOs (‘Global Day for Darfur. Stop the Slaughter’), this international campaign wants an international military intervention to be launched to put an end to the “genocide” whose victims are the populations of Darfur.

If there is actually a genocide occurring in Darfur, indeed only an international military intervention would be able to stop it from happening. However, without playing down the severity of the crisis and the terrible violence exerted by the Sudanese regime against civilians, we have to acknowledge that the situation is more complex than the classification of ‘genocide’.

In view of this, my visit to Sudan in late October 2006 was particularly enlightening. Firstly, it confirmed that there has been an increase in practical difficulties met by all aid organisations in continuing their activities and assisting the displaced people. Secondly, it confirmed the current deterioration of security conditions (My stay in the Sudanese capital followed an extremely violent attack on a Médecins Sans Frontières medical team. The attack took place on 11 September in the region of Niertiti in West Darfur while the team was transferring patients needing emergency treatment to Zalingei hospital).

But the visit mainly served to highlight the troubling discrepancy between the public discourse on the tragedy in Darfur as pushed by the majority of representatives of the international community and the other, very different discourse, they hold behind closed doorsand which I experienced after being able to meet with some of them.

Despite repeated and even alarmist declarations from some representatives of the UN on the humanitarian situation in Darfur, observations on the ground are more reassuring. Some of the regions are inaccessible due to the resumption of fighting, but within the ICRC and the UN too there’s a certain uneasiness over such alarming claims that “350,000 people are deprived of food aid” and that there are “hundreds of deaths every day in Darfur”. Without denying the risks of a decline in the situation due to insecurity and while acknowledging that NGOs have had to reduce their activities, the situation is not comparable with what happened in 2003-2004, with the huge peaks of mortality which characterised that terrible period. Now the situation is relatively “under control.”

All that said, often the question is asked, and not just by volunteers on the ground:a“Are we not being complicit with the government when we provide assistance to the displaced inside the camps?” I think that this is in part the case, but do we have another choice? Isn’t our role to assist the displaced people in this crisis situation? Should we decide to leave the camps and leave behind populations which cannot and do not want to return to their homes because of security and a lack of political resolution to the conflict, thereby depriving them of humanitarian assistance?

To resolve this crisis by leaving the camps seems unthinkable and unacceptable. We must, without question, pay close attention to the policy of the government regarding the encampment of the displaced people. We must also pay attention to the phenomenon of appropriation of the assistance, as well as to the ongoing violence. Nothing indicates that there would be constraints to a withdrawal, should we decide to do so. But there are perhaps further reasons which allow us to question the possibilities of working in Darfur, or even in Sudan. I’m referring to the violence which has been committed against teams of foreign aid workers. I’m also referring to the constraints imposed by the regime so as to better control NGOs. A new law, for example, proposes that NGOs must from now on should recruit their employees only if the latter are approved by the federal authorities. And I haven’t even mentioned other administrative constraints.

Violence against civilians continues

Violence is continuing in and around the displaced peoples’ camps.. In these camps, tension runs high. The violence is occurring between not only the displaced people themselves, their leaders and the government authorities, but sometimes against the aid actors.

The displaced population is very frustrated with representatives of the international community and with those who promoted the peace accords signed at the beginning of May 2006. Similarly, the adoption of a UN resolution for the deployment of UN armed forces to Darfur has created expectations amongst the displaced people who do not understand the procrastination of the international community. So frustration is increasing with those who have not kept their “promises.”

Humanitarian teams, who cannot move much around the camp areas, have a very limited view of what is going on around. For example, we know that rapes are underreported. Health workers are under constant pressure from the police, and are told that they cannot report rape cases at the risk of encouraging retaliation from the perpetrators. Social and police pressure is such that relatively few rape victims are coming forward.

In regions where fighting is increasing, north of Darfur and south of Nyala, it’s difficult to say what is happening. Due to lack of access to the areas, everybody is very cautious when the situation of the populations has to be accurately assessed.

The main concern is the proliferation in the number of armed groups since the signing of the peace accords in Abuja, and the regionalisation of violence spilling into Chad and the Central African Republic. The second concern is the fact that governmental troops are now attacking some people in the displaced camps - there is a risk that they are using violence against civilians. Among the hawks of Khartoum are those who accuse some NGOs, by virtue of their mere presence there, of supporting some political leaders based in the displaced camps; the wish of these hardliners is to “restore order.” The third concern is that the military solution is at this stage the only answer offered by Khartoum in the Darfur crisis. The military presence of the government will therefore not stop just at a reinforcement of its troops…

Given such a climate of violence, it’s important to note that none of the people whom I met appear to readily agree with the notion that genocide has been ongoing since 2004 in Darfur. Yes, massive executions have been committed since 2004, and violence is continuing today, but the “genocide rhetoric” appears to reflect more the kind of strategy known in certain circles as “megaphone diplomacy.”

Humanitarians are captive of the situation

“How is it possible to so easily adopt a resolution calling on the deployment of a UN international armed force while everybody knows that this is unrealistic and improbable?”

We should be careful that media pressure in the west does not dictate irrational reactions of our governments against the Khartoum government, leading to aerial bombing in Darfur (without ground intervention), such as the NATO bombing that hit Kosovo while the Milosevic army was busy shooting Muslim civilians.

It’s not surprising in this kind of context that humanitarians are easily described by Khartoum as “crusaders”, or “colonisers” acting at the whim of the USA and of all in the international community who are calling for an armed intervention. Or that conversely, if they do not agree with armed international intervention and are against the notion of genocide, they are described as puppets at the service of the Khartoum regime. It’s difficult to be neutral, and to communicate about the situation, without being immediately associated with either one of these extreme positions.

Security of aid actors not stable

As the fighting intensifies, the risks are very high for all humanitarian teams. The situation is different from one zone to the next. More military operations are underway in the north of Darfur for example, even while acts of banditry are becoming widespread and almost routine everywhere in that part of the region.. Following the peace agreement signed in Abuja on 5 May 2006 dissension has broken out between the rebels leading to a multiplication of military actors. Targeted attacks have increased against humanitarian workers and their vehicles by armed militia most often affiliated with the Khartoum government, notably in West Darfur.

The security of aid teams is therefore a real issue in terms of continuing operations. While currently the teams feel safe in the areas where they are working, given the lack of mobility we should be extremely attentive to the development of the situation.

Humanitarian teams are doing useful and important work in Darfur and it is our responsibility to continue to do this work. But there are many risks and difficulties, and we will have to adapt our operations, our presence and our communication on the development of the situation in Sudan. We must remain very pragmatic and be consistent in our approach.

It’s vital that the level of aid required by the displaced populations in Darfur is maintained. This will not be easy in the current context. It’s up to us to try to do it by remaining objective and accurate about the situation, and not join blindly in the calls of others for an armed intervention in Darfur.