11.03.12
Whatever happened to Darfur?
Only a few years ago, genocide in Darfur was the humanitarian crisis du jour, the hot topic on every human rights activist’s mind. A note jotted by American president George W. Bush in the margin of a briefing on the conflict led to widespread sale of bracelets proclaiming “Not On Our Watch”.
Darfur, a region in western Sudan, was home to a civil war beginning in early 2003 between rebel groups and the Janjaweed, an (unofficially) government-sanctioned militia, as well as official Sudanese military and police. The rebel groups, which included the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), took up arms in a guerrilla warfare attempt to end the historic political and economic subjugation of Darfur by the government. The government responded quickly, using the Janjaweed to target ethnic groups in the region that supported the rebels’ cause.
During a few years of fighting, 400 villages were demolished, hundreds of thousands were left dead from direct battle or starvation and disease, and millions of civilians were forced into refugee camps and across the border into Chad and other African countries.
In 2006, around the time journalists like Nicholas Kristof and activists brought the conflict to an international stage, the Sudanese government signed a peace agreement with one rebel group, part of the SLM, but kept fighting with the rest of the SLM and JEM. A United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force had come into the picture by early 2008, but didn’t have the resources to end the fighting while helping refugees and internally displaced persons.
That same year, most of the world that had cared about the conflict lost interest. Nothing seemed to be improving, and their efforts may have been better spent elsewhere.
When South Sudan seceded from Sudan in July 2011, some advocates hoped that it would turn the attention back to Darfur, but it didn’t.
Only a year earlier, the International Criminal Court for the first time issued a warrant against a current head of state: three counts of genocide in Darfur against Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir.
It’s difficult for the average person to quantitatively measure the change since the world stopped watching, simply because no one is talking about it. In 2009 all humanitarian aid was pushed out of the region, and has only partly returned.
The Sudanese government has continued limiting travelling by journalists and humanitarian workers in Darfur, and few statistics have left the area in the past few years but stories are getting out: on February 29, a United Nations-African Union peacekeeper was killed, and three more were injured in a rebel attack.
Things are—relatively—looking up. The New York Times recently reported that more than 100,000 Darfurian natives have left the refugee camps they’ve been living in to return to their villages, calling it “the biggest return of displaced people since the war began in 2003 and a sign that one of the world’s most infamous conflicts may have decisively cooled.”
But is it enough? Is there a way to make people care about and remember a conflict that is distanced from them and rarely brought up in conversation? If an African boy dies of starvation on his way across the border to Chad does he make a sound?

Filed by

