Posted By Sean P. Brooks Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:00 AM Share
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Members
of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) pledged
$850 million dollars for future development in Darfur on Sunday in Cairo. Egypt
and Turkey co-chaired the
donor's conference--which aimed to jumpstart international commitment to
long-term reconstruction and development in Darfur
after seven years of conflict, mass displacement, and humanitarian crisis. Some
countries making generous pledges willfully ignored the ongoing security
challenges and unresolved conflict between the Darfuri rebels and the Sudanese
government. In this way, the OIC--like the League of Arab States in its
response to the Darfur crisis--sought to help the people of Darfur
without addressing those most responsible for their deplorable conditions.
Egyptian
Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, for instance, said in his opening statement,
"Since the beginning of the crisis in Darfur,
the basic issue has been one of development, which has taken on political,
tribal and social dimensions." This short-sighted view of the recent bloody
history of Darfur conveniently avoids placing
blame on the government of Sudan or any other political agents.
Having
just returned from Darfur, I know that Aboul Gheit's prescription that
"the core solution to the Darfur crisis must focus on increasing rates of
development and improving the standard of living for each citizen in
Darfur" will be met with heavy skepticism by the over 2 million people
living in internally displaced camps and many of the United Nations agencies assisting
them.
To
a person, they told me that security does not exist yet in Darfur
to begin large-scale development projects in rural areas. Continued clashes between the Sudanese
government and various rebel factions, as well as general banditry, prevent
Darfuris from returning home from the camps and development staff from
venturing out into what's referred to as "the deep field." For instance, the Arab League over the last
year has been championing its funding of "model villages" in Darfur--but those on the ground say that the few
villages that have been built thus far are located in areas still not secure
and therefore remain empty.
It
is quite ironic that even Sudanese
President Omar al-Bashir acknowledged this past Saturday that security and
development are two sides of the same coin.
On a trip to Darfur for an election campaign rally in El-Geneina, the
capital of West Darfur that sits on the border with Chad, he pledged the
government's willingness to make peace with all of the rebel movements and then
to turn his government's attention to reconstruction. Unfortunately, Bashir and his party after so
many years of conflict have lost the complete trust of people in Darfur to make good on these promises.
So
when Darfuris hear of these pledges from the OIC, most will assume the
assistance will be controlled by the Sudanese government to pave over its past
crimes. For this reason, the OIC should encourage full transparency of all of
the donors to ensure that Darfuris know where and how the money is being spent.
The OIC should also coordinate all planning and implementation of development
projects with relevant UN agencies that have been working in Darfur
since the early days of the conflict. Likewise, rather than relying on the
government as the chief intermediary, the OIC should engage directly with
Darfuri civil society and local leaders.
More
importantly, for the OIC's considerable investment in development in Darfur to contribute to durable peace, its members must
understand the political nature of their assistance and then use this leverage
to press for behavioral changes by the Sudanese government and rebel movements. It could rely, for example, on independent
assessments from the United Nations/African Union peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) and mediation team to tie development
assistance to progress on security and political issues. If, however, the OIC cannot muster the
courage to confront Sudan--a member state--on dangerous elements of its
military and security policies in Darfur (such as its failure to disarm the
notorious janjaweed, and continued impunity for all military personnel operating in
Darfur), then its members should hold back their assistance until peace has
been firmly achieved.
It
would be so much easier if Darfur's problems
amounted simply to a lack of development.
Poverty though did not arm militias to push millions of people off their
lands, and impoverishment does not today prevent the Sudanese government and
rebel movements from taking actions to finally protect their people and secure
peace. Until the OIC members acknowledge these facts, they will not be able to
contribute significantly to peace and prosperity in Darfur and the rest of Sudan.
Sean
P. Brooks is a policy expert at the Save Darfur Coalition. He recently returned from a trip to Sudan during which he spent a week in Darfur.
Is there the slightest reason to believe that the states represented in the Organization of the Islamic Conference will do any of the things Sean Brooks calls on them to do here?
Full transparency? Coordinate with the UN? Engage Darfuri groups, not just the Sudanese government? Muster the courage to confront Khartoum? Seven years after the Sudanese government launched its war against civilians in Darfur, is there any reason to think that OIC and its member states have any thought of doing any of this? Any reason at all?
I personally don't think it should even be called the OIC.
If we're being completely honest, it's more of an "Organization of Pseudo-Republics and Arab Sheikdoms who happen to have Muslim Majority populatons." Populations which the vast majority of them repress.
So what exactly were we expecting from them again?
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE