Weblog nr 20
April 28, 2006
The Abuja talks to reach a peace agreement in Darfur take place between the Government and a number of rebel movements. Instead of fighting they try to find a political solution to the conflict. Instead of fighting? During the last phase of the talks clashes on the ground have intensified. It seems as if all parties try to expand the area under their control before agreeing to cease the fire.
However, there are other fights as well. Quite a few tribes are engaged in violent conflict with each other. As a matter of fact, many Sudanese believe that the Darfur conflict is not political, but tribal. In my view it is both. The demands of the rebel movements concerning sharing of power and wealth are of a political nature. A high government official in Darfur, a Darfurian himself, appointed by the Khartoum government and member of the ruling National Congress Party, once told me that there are Darfurians who fight the government and other Darfurians, who do not fight, but the latter share with the rebels a grudge against the government. Darfur against Khartoum; it is a political conflict.
But the conflict is also tribal. The tribal dimension is often underestimated by people outside Sudan. However, tribal conflicts are age-old and deeply rooted. There is an ethnic dimension to the tribal conflicts, to the extent that some tribes are considered to be African, others Arab. There is also an economic dimension: the struggle for land and water, the looting of cattle, the most important resource of many tribes. Tribal conflicts are often related to land claims, with a long history. Some tribes consider themselves as more Darfurian than others, because they settled in Darfur much earlier. Some tribes, though living in Darfur since many generations, are still considered to be Chadian, or West African. Some tribes were favored by the British colonial regime. Others were accustomed to keep slaves. Some tribes are more closely affiliated with the rebels (the Fur, the Zaghawa and the Massaliet). Other tribes are more inclined to support notions of pan-Arabism.
Many tribes have militia, in order to defend their interests. They fight ruthlessly, retaliate out of proportion and often use pre-emptive strikes. Killing if women and children is seen as an acceptable form of revenge for the looting of cattle. Militia do not respect human rights or international law. No wonder that notions of genocide and ethnic cleansing have been used in order to describe the ordeals of the victims of the militia.
The Sudanese government and the authorities in Darfur have taken many initiatives to organize tribal reconciliation conferences. There are old traditions underlying such reconciliations. Respecting them would guarantee that the tribal leaders representing their tribes in the reconciliations have been chosen by the tribes themselves, instead of being appointed by the authorities. The tradition also guarantees that there is mediation by respected facilitators, independent of the government. An essential element of reconciliation is the payment of blood money as a form of compensation of the victims. However, though some efforts were successful, most reconciliations did not last long. The modernization of the governance system in Darfur during the last twenty years has undermined the position of traditional leaders. The war did the same. A new generation with easy access to weapons has lost respect for traditional leaders. Moreover, the government, eager to stay in power, has not been able to withstand temptations to manipulate traditional leaders. The outcome of quite a few of these reconciliations could not be sustained. Some were more or less imposed on weaker tribes, who were threatened that they would be attacked if they would not sign. In other reconciliation conferences appointed leaders dominated the deliberations. Often not all damage that had been done in the past was considered due for compensation. Perpetrators of the crimes often were not indicted, but only had to pay blood money. This practice did not help to bring an end to the impunity prevailing throughout Darfur. Moreover, the agreed sums of blood money often were not paid. So, often new attacks took place, again resulting in revenge and retaliation.
To a certain extent this was due to the fact that the authorities had an understandable interest in reconciliation amongst tribes fighting each other. Too soon success was claimed. The government was even more enticed to do so, when tribal reconciliations were considered an alternative to the political negotiations with the rebel movements.
For these reasons the UN has been reluctant to associate itself with the reconciliation efforts. However, they are necessary, not as a substitute for political talks, but as an essential complement. We have participated as observer in some sessions and promised that, if the conditions of fairness would be met, we could help in the follow up of the reconciliation with reconstruction and development programs to the benefit of the tribes concerned.
I went this week to Nyala to talk with leaders of the Birgit, the Myseria and the Zaghawa about the possible restart of reconciliation efforts between these tribes who are fighting each other in the area around the town Sheria. Many Zaghawa support the Minnie Minawi faction of the SLA. All Zaghawa have been expelled from Sheria. That includes women, children, elderly and others who do not carry weapons. I was struck by the deep and total mistrust. No distinction is made between combatants and others. Everybody belonging to a tribe is, in the eyes of other tribes, responsible for the doings of the tribal fighters. I met only people who consider themselves victims. Nobody admits having attacked, everybody claims having been attacked. Attacks always have been made by 'unknown' people. Conspiracy theories abound.
It is not very different from the political talks. I had a similar experience one day later, when I flew to North Darfur, to meet with a number of SLA commanders. I visited them, sitting under some huge trees in the edge of the desert, in order to plead for an end to the infighting between the rebels which cause much victims and endanger the humanitarian assistance by the UN and the non-governmental organizations. Here again the same song was sung: it is not us, but the others, and behind the others there is the government, the Janjaweed, other countries, and so on.
Deep mistrust is typical for Sudan. Double-speak, denial, divide and rule, dishonoring of agreements, it has been customary practice since the beginning of the war between North and South Sudan. It has not disappeared since peace was reached. It has affected Darfur as well. It will take decades to reach sustained reconciliation throughout Sudan and to install a new culture of peace and trust.
However, there are other fights as well. Quite a few tribes are engaged in violent conflict with each other. As a matter of fact, many Sudanese believe that the Darfur conflict is not political, but tribal. In my view it is both. The demands of the rebel movements concerning sharing of power and wealth are of a political nature. A high government official in Darfur, a Darfurian himself, appointed by the Khartoum government and member of the ruling National Congress Party, once told me that there are Darfurians who fight the government and other Darfurians, who do not fight, but the latter share with the rebels a grudge against the government. Darfur against Khartoum; it is a political conflict.
But the conflict is also tribal. The tribal dimension is often underestimated by people outside Sudan. However, tribal conflicts are age-old and deeply rooted. There is an ethnic dimension to the tribal conflicts, to the extent that some tribes are considered to be African, others Arab. There is also an economic dimension: the struggle for land and water, the looting of cattle, the most important resource of many tribes. Tribal conflicts are often related to land claims, with a long history. Some tribes consider themselves as more Darfurian than others, because they settled in Darfur much earlier. Some tribes, though living in Darfur since many generations, are still considered to be Chadian, or West African. Some tribes were favored by the British colonial regime. Others were accustomed to keep slaves. Some tribes are more closely affiliated with the rebels (the Fur, the Zaghawa and the Massaliet). Other tribes are more inclined to support notions of pan-Arabism.
Many tribes have militia, in order to defend their interests. They fight ruthlessly, retaliate out of proportion and often use pre-emptive strikes. Killing if women and children is seen as an acceptable form of revenge for the looting of cattle. Militia do not respect human rights or international law. No wonder that notions of genocide and ethnic cleansing have been used in order to describe the ordeals of the victims of the militia.
The Sudanese government and the authorities in Darfur have taken many initiatives to organize tribal reconciliation conferences. There are old traditions underlying such reconciliations. Respecting them would guarantee that the tribal leaders representing their tribes in the reconciliations have been chosen by the tribes themselves, instead of being appointed by the authorities. The tradition also guarantees that there is mediation by respected facilitators, independent of the government. An essential element of reconciliation is the payment of blood money as a form of compensation of the victims. However, though some efforts were successful, most reconciliations did not last long. The modernization of the governance system in Darfur during the last twenty years has undermined the position of traditional leaders. The war did the same. A new generation with easy access to weapons has lost respect for traditional leaders. Moreover, the government, eager to stay in power, has not been able to withstand temptations to manipulate traditional leaders. The outcome of quite a few of these reconciliations could not be sustained. Some were more or less imposed on weaker tribes, who were threatened that they would be attacked if they would not sign. In other reconciliation conferences appointed leaders dominated the deliberations. Often not all damage that had been done in the past was considered due for compensation. Perpetrators of the crimes often were not indicted, but only had to pay blood money. This practice did not help to bring an end to the impunity prevailing throughout Darfur. Moreover, the agreed sums of blood money often were not paid. So, often new attacks took place, again resulting in revenge and retaliation.
To a certain extent this was due to the fact that the authorities had an understandable interest in reconciliation amongst tribes fighting each other. Too soon success was claimed. The government was even more enticed to do so, when tribal reconciliations were considered an alternative to the political negotiations with the rebel movements.
For these reasons the UN has been reluctant to associate itself with the reconciliation efforts. However, they are necessary, not as a substitute for political talks, but as an essential complement. We have participated as observer in some sessions and promised that, if the conditions of fairness would be met, we could help in the follow up of the reconciliation with reconstruction and development programs to the benefit of the tribes concerned.
I went this week to Nyala to talk with leaders of the Birgit, the Myseria and the Zaghawa about the possible restart of reconciliation efforts between these tribes who are fighting each other in the area around the town Sheria. Many Zaghawa support the Minnie Minawi faction of the SLA. All Zaghawa have been expelled from Sheria. That includes women, children, elderly and others who do not carry weapons. I was struck by the deep and total mistrust. No distinction is made between combatants and others. Everybody belonging to a tribe is, in the eyes of other tribes, responsible for the doings of the tribal fighters. I met only people who consider themselves victims. Nobody admits having attacked, everybody claims having been attacked. Attacks always have been made by 'unknown' people. Conspiracy theories abound.
It is not very different from the political talks. I had a similar experience one day later, when I flew to North Darfur, to meet with a number of SLA commanders. I visited them, sitting under some huge trees in the edge of the desert, in order to plead for an end to the infighting between the rebels which cause much victims and endanger the humanitarian assistance by the UN and the non-governmental organizations. Here again the same song was sung: it is not us, but the others, and behind the others there is the government, the Janjaweed, other countries, and so on.
Deep mistrust is typical for Sudan. Double-speak, denial, divide and rule, dishonoring of agreements, it has been customary practice since the beginning of the war between North and South Sudan. It has not disappeared since peace was reached. It has affected Darfur as well. It will take decades to reach sustained reconciliation throughout Sudan and to install a new culture of peace and trust.