Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur

Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur

Order Code RS21862
June 16, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur
Ted Dagne
Specialist in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The ongoing crisis in Darfur Province in western Sudan has raised serious concerns
about a major humanitarian disaster, with an estimated one million people displaced and
more than 140,000 people forced into neighboring Chad. There are no reliable estimates
of the number of people killed as a result of the conflict. The government of Sudan has
denied or severely restricted access to relief officials in Darfur. Some observers and
U.S. officials estimate that between 10,000-30,000 people have been killed over the past
twelve months. U.S. officials assert that an estimated 320,000 could die by the end of
2004 irrespective of the international response. This report will be updated as
developments warrant.
The Crisis in Darfur
Background. The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups
emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Darfur. The Sudan
Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) claim that the
government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic groups in Darfur. The
government of Sudan dismisses the SLA and JEM as terrorists. The conflict pits the three
African ethnic groups, the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit, against nomadic Arab ethnic
groups. Periodic tensions between the largely African-Muslim ethnic groups and the Arab
inhabitants of Darfur can be traced to the 1930s and most recently surfaced in the 1980s.
Successive governments in Khartoum have long neglected the African ethnic groups in
Darfur and have done very little to prevent or contain attacks by Arab militias against
non-Arabs in Darfur.1 Non-Arab groups took up arms against successive central
governments in Khartoum, albeit unsuccessfully. In the early 1990s, the NIF government,
which came to power in 1989, began to arm Arab militias and disarm the largely African
ethnic groups.
The Current Crisis. At the core of the current conflict is a struggle for control of
resources. The largely nomadic Arab ethnic groups often venture into the traditionally
1 International Crisis Group (ICG). Darfur Rising: Sudan’s New Crisis. March 25, 2004.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
farming communities of Darfur for water and grazing, often triggering armed conflict
between the two groups. Darfur is home to an estimated 7 million people and has more
than 30 ethnic groups, although these groups fall into two major categories: African and
Arab. Both communities are Muslim, and years of intermarriages have made racial
distinctions impossible. Fighting over resources is one of several factors that has led to
intense infighting in Darfur over the years. Many observers believe that the NIF
government has systematically and deliberately pursued a policy of discrimination against
and marginalization of the African communities in Darfur, and has given support to the
Arab militia to suppress non-Arabs, whom it considers a threat to its hold on power. In
2000, with the ouster of the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, and a split within the
Islamist Movement, the government imposed a state of emergency and used its new
authority to crack down on dissidents in Darfur. By 2002, a little known self defense
force of a largely Fur-dominated group emerged as the SLA, challenging government
forces in Darfur.
With the NIF regime internally in turmoil and mounting international pressure to end
the North-South conflict, the SLA and JEM were able to gain the upper hand in the initial
phase of the conflict against government forces in early 2003, and appear well prepared
and armed. The rebels also enjoyed the support of the local population as well as officers
and soldiers in the Sudanese army. A significant number of senior officers and soldiers
in the Sudanese armed forces comes from Darfur. The SLA benefitted from outside
support, including from fellow Zaghawa in Chad and financial support from Darfur
businessmen in the Persian Gulf. The government of Sudan has accused Eritrea and the
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) of providing support to the SLA.
The government of Sudan also accuses the founder of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, of
having links with JEM. Some observers say that Turabi, through his supporters, provides
political and financial support to JEM. In late March 2004, Turabi, along with a number
of senior army officers, was arrested. The government claimed that Turabi was behind
an attempted coup, although officials in Khartoum seemed to back away from that claim
by mid-April 2004.
The Military Campaign and Human Rights Abuses. In mid-2003, the
government of Sudan significantly increased its presence in Darfur by arming the Arab
militia, the Janjaweed, and by deploying the Popular Defense Force (PDF). The
Janjaweed, under the direction of regular government forces, reportedly unleashed a
campaign of terror against civilians.2 The Arab militia engaged in what United Nations
officials described as “ethnic cleansing” of the African ethnic groups of Darfur. Men
have been summarily executed, women have been raped, and more than 100,000 have
been forced into exile in neighboring countries.3 In early February 2004, the government
launched a major military offensive against the rebel forces, and by mid-February 2004,
President Omar Bashir, in a nationally televised speech, declared that the security forces
had crushed the SLA and JEM, and offered amnesty to the rebels.
2 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). Report of
UNHCHR Mission to Chad, April 2004.
3 Office of UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan. A Briefing Paper on the
Darfur Crisis: Ethnic Cleansing. March 25, 2004.

CRS-3
The forceful expulsion of the mainly African ethnic groups from their homes was
done in a deliberate, sequenced, and systematic way, according to a briefing paper on the
Darfur crisis by the Office of U.N. Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan.
The report describes the mechanisms used to cleanse the area of non-Arabs by “total
disengagement of administration and suspension of all government services.” These
include suspending most government functions, including payment of salaries to
government workers, and abandoning basic government services, such as health care and
law enforcement. According to the United Nations, once government officials leave
these communities, the people are then accused of being rebel sympathizers and are
targeted by government militias. The Janjaweed burn villages, loot the properties of the
non-Arabs, abduct children, rape women, and prevent people from returning to their
homes.4
Negotiations and the Cease-Fire Agreement
In September 2003, the
Highlights of the Cease-Fire Agreement
government of Sudan and the SLA
(4/8/2004)
signed a cease-fire agreement
mediated by President Deby of
The parties agreed to:
Chad. The agreement collapsed in
! Find a political solution to the
December 2003. In early April
problem.
2004, the government of Sudan and
! Cease all hostile media
the SLA/JEM agreed to a cease-fire
campaigns.
and political dialogue to peacefully
! Accept a 45-day cease-fire
resolve the conflict. The
(renewed in May 2004).
government of Sudan agreed to
! E s t a b l i s h a C e a s e -f i r e
negotiate with the rebels after
Commission and a Joint
Commission.
considerable international pressure.
! Free all political prisoners.
The negotiations were conducted
! Control their allies and ensure
under the auspices of President
compliance with the agreement.
Idriss Deby of Chad and assisted by
! Facilitate the delivery of
the African Union. The United
humanitarian assistance.
States and other international
participants played an important
role in facilitating the negotiations, although the government of Sudan delegation walked
out of the talks in protest when the head of the U.S. delegation began to deliver his
opening remarks.
The parties agreed to observe a cease-fire for a period of 45 days, renewable
automatically if both parties agree. In late May, the parties renewed the ceasefire
agreement. The agreement appears to be holding, although the government of Sudan was
accused of violating the agreement.5 Nevertheless, the humanitarian situation in Darfur,
according to many observers, continues to deteriorate, largely due to repeated and
deliberate denial of access for NGOs to the affected areas by government officials.
Moreover, monitoring mechanisms agreed to by the parties are yet to be implemented, and
4 Flint, Julie. “Refugees Executed in Desert of Sudan.” The Observer, April 25, 2004.
5 BBC Online [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3631785.stm]. Darfur Peace Talks
Threatened. April 16, 2004.

CRS-4
many observers fear that continued delay could unravel the cease-fire agreement. As part
of the agreement, the African Union, with the help of the United States and the European
Union, was tasked to deploy a monitoring team in Darfur and establish a Joint
Commission, consisting of the two parties, Chad, and the international community.
American and European Union officials argue that the monitoring team must be
independent and credible.
The International Community’s Response
The international community’s
response to the Darfur crisis has
Conclusions: Report of OHCHR Mission
been slow and ineffective, in part
to Chad (April 5-15, 2004)
because of the government of
Sudan’s repeated refusal to allow
The mission was able to identify disturbing patterns of
massive human rights violations in Darfur, many of
relief workers into Darfur. It was
which constitute war crimes and/or crimes against
not until late 2003, almost one year
humanity. According to information collected from
after the crisis erupted, that some
refugees, it appears that there is a reign of terror in
members of the international
Darfur the following elements of which should be
community began to speak about
highlighted:
gross human rights abuses and a
(a) Repeated attacks on civilians by government of
widespread humanitarian crisis in
Sudan military and its proxy militia forces with a view of
Darfur. According to some analysts,
their displacement;
the Bush Administration did not
consider the Darfur crisis as a
(b) The use of systematic and discriminate aerial
priority; instead the Administration
bombardments and ground attacks on unarmed civilians;
was largely focused on the talks
(c) The use of disproportionate force by the government
between the government of Sudan
of Sudan and Janjaweed forces;
and the SPLM. The first statement
on Darfur by the White House was
(d) That the Janjaweed have operated with total impunity
and in close coordination with the forces of the
issued in early April 2004. Others
government of Sudan;
point out that the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID)
(e) The attacks appear to have been ethnically based with
officials spoke of a growing
groups targeted being essentially the following tribes
humanitarian crisis and visited the
reportedly of African origin: Zaghawa, Masaalit, and
Furs. Men and young boys appear to have been
area in late 2003.
particularly targeted in ground attacks; and
Administration officials were
(f) The pattern of attacks on civilians includes killing,
reportedly concerned that forceful
rape, pillage, including of livestock, and destruction of
statements or measures against the
property, including water resources.
government of Sudan could
undermine the peace process between the GOS and the SPLM. Some U.N. officials,
however, have been forceful in their statements and have publicly expressed concerns
about the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Darfur. The United Nations Resident
Humanitarian Coordinator consistently reported to headquarters about gross human rights
violations in Darfur. In a letter dated March 22, 2004 to the State Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Sudan, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Mukesh Kapila, wrote
that “the war in Darfur started off in a small way last year but it has progressively got
worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt is being borne by civilians. This
includes vulnerable women and children...The violence in Darfur appears to be
particularly directed at a specific group based on their ethnic identity and appears to be

CRS-5
systemized. This it is akin to ethnic cleansing.” The African Union and the Arab League
did not make public statements on the Darfur crisis until the signing of the cease-fire
agreement.
In late April 2004, the United
Nations Human Rights Commission
Highlights of the April 2004 U.N. Human
expressed its views on the Darfur
Rights Commission Text on Sudan
situation by adopting a Chairman’s
Statement supported by the
The Commission:
o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f
! Expressed deep concern the about
Commission members. The
human rights situation in Darfur.
statement was adopted with 50 in
! Decided to appoint an Independent
favor, one against (U.S.), and two
Expert on human rights for a period
abstentions (Australia and Ukraine).
of one year.
! Called upon the parties to observe
The U.S. delegation sought,
the cease-fire agreement.
unsuccessfully, a stronger resolution
! Called on the parties to provide
on Darfur. Two amendments offered
unhindered access for humanitarian
by the United States were defeated,
assistance.
! Welcomed the government of
while a motion to suspend further
Sudan’s decision for allowing a U.N.
discussion on a U.S.-supported draft
delegation to visit the country.
resolution was approved by members
of the Commission. The European
Union, led by France, and the
African Group voted for a statement that simply expressed concerns about conditions in
Darfur. Meanwhile, the release of a highly critical Commission report on human rights
conditions in Darfur was delayed in order to secure access for a U.N. delegation to Darfur.
The report, however, was leaked to the public, although it was not made available to
Commission members during the debate on Sudan.6 A U.N. official later stated that it
was better to delay the release of the report and secure access to the region than to inflame
the situation.
The U.S. delegation in Geneva had called for a Special Rapporteur for Sudan to
investigate human rights abuses. In a speech before the Commission, the leader of the
U.S. delegation, Ambassador Richard Williamson, argued that “ The resolution should
call upon the Sudanese Government to stop the events.” He asserted that the government
of Sudan had refused access to Darfur. The representative of the Republic of Congo,
speaking for the African Group, argued that “The African Group remained extremely
concerned by the human rights situation in the Sudan and the draft text would reflect all
the efforts possible that had been made.” Meanwhile, the delegate from Ireland, speaking
on behalf of the European Union, stated that the European Union “was concerned over
the human rights situation in Darfur.” The Cuban delegate stated that “the cooperation
of the government of Sudan in an attempt to solve the situation is applauded.”7 Human
rights groups and U.S. officials criticized the Chairman’s Statement as being too weak on
the government of Sudan. The U.S. delegation declared at the end of the session in April
that Washington will demand a Special Session of the Commission to discuss the
6 Evans, Robert. Reign of Terror Seen in UN Darfur Report. Reuters. April 21, 2004.
7 Commission on Human Rights. Concerns Over Human Rights Situation in Western Sudan.
April 23, 2004.

CRS-6
situation in Darfur again. A majority of Commission members must support a motion
for a Special Session of the Commission to be held.
A United Nations delegation was allowed to visit Darfur in late April 2004 to
examine humanitarian conditions in that region. The head of the delegation, James
Morris, Executive Director of the U.N. World Food Program (WFP), stated that
conditions in Darfur are desperate. At a press conference in Khartoum, Morris stated that
“malnutrition rates among children are soaring and few if any are going to school and this
pattern appears to be repeated across Darfur.” Morris declared that his delegation
witnessed human devastation and that his delegation “received numerous reports of
sexual abuse and harassment that has limited people’s access to water, food and
firewood.”8 Observers fear that the government of Sudan may have attempted to remove
evidence that might implicate its allies. According to press reports, a number of potential
witnesses to atrocities were executed in late April. Moreover, the government reportedly
issued regular army uniforms to the Janjaweed militia to protect them from prosecution.
Some leaders of the Janjaweed were reportedly relocated to other parts of Sudan outside
Darfur.
The Humanitarian Situation and the U.S. Response
According to United Nations and U.S. officials, the situation in Darfur is considered
one of the worst current humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world. Out of a
population of 7 million people, one million are internally displaced, over 140,000 have
been forced into exile, and tens of thousands of civilian have been killed. Since February
2003, USAID has provided an estimated $100 million in humanitarian assistance for
Darfur, and the Bush Administration pledged an additional $188 million in early June
2004. USAID has also established a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) for
Darfur, although the government of Sudan delayed the deployment of the team to Darfur
for several weeks. The government of Sudan has accused USAID of being too
sympathetic to the rebels. Meanwhile, humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate,
in large part because of continued government restrictions. According to USAID, “due
to GOS impediments that block travel permits and relief operations in Darfur,
humanitarian access to vulnerable populations outside of the state capitals of Geneina, Al-
Fashir, and Nyala is extremely limited, and access to many areas is completely denied.”9
And according to Doctors Without Borders, “because of the lack of appropriate, urgently
needed aid, the health of displaced people in Sudan’s Darfur region–particularly
children–is radically worsening.”10 The House International Relations Committee and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee held several hearings on Sudan and the crisis in
Darfur. In 2004, Congress passed several resolutions on Sudan and the crisis in Darfur.11
8 Sudan Tribune. United Nations Demand Better Security, Access to Humanitarian Aid Workers
in Western Sudan. May 2, 2004.
9 USAID. Sudan Complex Emergency, June 2004.
10 Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). Measles and Malnutrition Increasing in Sudan’s Darfur
Region. April 28, 2004.
11 For more, see CRS Issue Brief IB98043.