The lastest podcast from the
Committee on Conscience, featuring Ken Bacon of Refugees International
JERRY FOWLER: How does the situation on this trip compare to your previous visits? You have been there twice.
KEN BACON: I would say there are a couple of fundamental changes. As you know, there was a peace agreement signed in May, on May 5th, and it was signed between the government of Sudan and one of three rebel groups; that is the Sudan Liberation Army faction, headed by a person named Minni Minawi. After that peace agreement was signed, there has been a fairly marked increase in violence and displacement. I will talk a little more about that later, but that is the first deleterious impact of the peace agreement. The second is that it has made some of the large refugee camps very edgy, and at times, violent. This is pretty new. The camps have generally been calm, but since the peace agreement was signed, there have been some killings; an African Union interpreter was killed in Kalma Camp in Nyala shortly after the agreement was signed, some African Union vehicles have been burned in the camps, and there have been other killings and massive demonstrations against the Darfur Peace Agreement. Basically, the peace agreement has not brought peace; it has brought increased violence.
[edit]
JERRY FOWLER: To explore a little bit the nature of their dissatisfaction, is it a matter of following the lead of Abdul Wahid, or was there much substantive familiarity with the details of the agreement and unhappiness with substantive details?
KEN BACON: In almost every camp we encountered a local leader or sheik who had either read the agreement, been briefed on it, or heard accounts on the BBC or Voice of America. In general, the people had not read the agreement and did not know much about it, but this is what they do know: They know that security has gotten worse rather than better. In the life of the internally displaced in Darfur, security is everything. Security is what they want more than anything else. When security gets worse, they turn against what they think caused it to get worse, and they think that there is a relationship between the growing insecurity on the one hand, and the Darfur Peace Agreement on the other. They tend to be against the agreement on those grounds.
[edit]
JERRY FOWLER: How would it be possible to move to greater security? Who is going to provide that security?
KEN BACON: There are two things. First, despite the greater fighting stirred by Minawi’s troops—and I should tell you that this is a different type of fighting than we have seen from the SLA and Minawi in the past. In the past, the fighting between the two factions of the Sudan Liberation Army has been force on force. It has been groups of soldiers versus other groups of rebel soldiers. The most recent fighting has been soldiers versus civilians, and this way it imitates what the Janjaweed has done, and it indicates what we have called, and what you have called, genocide. The Zaghawa are now coming into camps and they are concentrating on killing young men and boys. They are saying, “If you are not for the peace agreement, if you are not for us, you are against us, and we are going to punish you; we are going to kill you.” It has taken a very disturbing turn against civilians that did not exist in the past from the Minawi group. This is very, very bad news. Now, what is going to change this? I am hoping that during his visit to Washington, the Bush Administration and members of Congress who meet with Minawi will make it absolutely clear that we cannot deal with anybody, even one who signed the peace agreement, if he is killing civilians in Darfur, and therefore, he will put out the orders to his commanders. Second, the good thing that has happened is that the Janjaweed has basically been more under control—this is the Arab-backed militia groups that cooperates with the government—it has not been launching its signature attacks on civilians recently. It has continued banditry, but it has not been attacking and killing large groups of civilians in villages, at least not over the last two months. I hope that continues. One, Minawi will order his troops to stop this fighting, stop the killing. Two, as you know, we are all working very hard to get a United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur to replace the very undermanned, overwhelmed African Union force that has been there for the last two years. A United Nations force will not be a miracle, it will not bring instant peace and stability, but it should have a better chance of stabilizing the situation than the African Union force has.
[edit]
JERRY FOWLER: You are in Khartoum now; you are hoping, I think, to meet with some government officials. Have you been in Khartoum long enough to get a sense of what the attitude is? What are we seeing on the international level is firm statements by Omar al Bashir, the Sudanese President, that under no circumstances will he allow United Nations to come in, even though there seems to be a growing consensus internationally that the United Nations does need to go in. Do you have any sense about whether that attitude is softening?
KEN BACON: There were—I think someone is trying to call me on this line unfortunately—there were demonstrations today against a United Nations force, but there were also stories in the paper saying that maybe they would accept a force made out of troops from Muslim countries; that could range from Turkey to Bangladesh to Indonesia, there is a wide range of Muslim countries. The idea that they will not allow United Nations or international troops in Sudan is just crazy. They have 10,000 international United Nations troops that are peacekeeping right now in South Sudan, so they have already done that. At one point, the President al Bashir said that he would not accept African Union forces. There are 7,000 African Union forces in Darfur, and they have been there for two years. He has changed his mind in the past; we have to hope he will change it in the future. Frankly, what I think is going on here is that he wants to make sure that a United Nations force does not come in with a mandate to arrest him or other people in this government if there is an indictment by the International Criminal Court. There have not been any indictments of Sudanese officials, but the International Criminal Court is investigating events in Darfur; they have found evidence of crimes according to the prosecutor, but they have not indicted anybody yet. I cannot predict whether they will or they will not, but I think that al Bashir, the President, is very keen to avoid any sort of force in Darfur that might arrest him or other people in his Administration.
JERRY FOWLER: I would like to, as we conclude, to step back a little bit. You were in the United States government for a good part of the nineties as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, so you saw first hand United States government response to, I believe, to Rwanda, to Bosnia, to Kosovo, East Timor, challenges like that. Where do you think we stand today in terms of United States government response and international response to these episodes of mass violence?
KEN BACON: The language of a response is better; at least we are admitting that genocide is taking place. We did not do that back in the nineties, during Rwanda or during the Balkans, but the substance of a response is no better. We are not taking a strong against genocide, so we have a curious situation where President Bush, I think, has been correct, and honest and forthright in calling what is happening in Darfur, genocide, but he is not carrying out the action that I believe anybody who is concerned about Darfur would carry out. We have depended on diplomacy, not military action to stop this. Diplomacy, obviously, is the first choice, but if it does not work, I think we should look at something else.