Showing posts with label Save Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save Darfur. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 01, 2024

Save Darfur. Save Sudan. Conflict and Humanitarian Emergency in Sudan: An Urgent Call to Action.

US Department of State Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Sudan today, Wednesday, May 1 2024. Click here to watch it on video. 

This is a copy of the statement of U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello:

Statement of
Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello
U.S. Department of State
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“Conflict and Humanitarian Emergency in Sudan: An Urgent Call to Action” 

May 1, 2024

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the horrific crisis in Sudan. I also want to thank this Committee for your untiring and vital advocacy for the people of Sudan over many years, and particularly since this tragic war began last April.

As this Committee well knows, the war and humanitarian crisis in Sudan are already catastrophic. Worse yet, the most likely trajectory forward is towards famine, fighting that takes on increasingly ethnic and regional aspects, and the possibility of a failed state of 50 million people on the strategic eastern gateway to the Sahel. For the past year, the people of Sudan have suffered death, crimes against humanity, sexual violence and starvation as a weapon of war, and ethnic cleansing. More than 8 million Sudanese people have been displaced– more than if every resident of Maryland and Idaho combined was forced from their homes, 3 million children – approximately one in eight children – have fled violence since mid-April, making it the world’s largest child displacement crisis. 25 million people are in need of basic food and medicine with 4.9 million of those people on the verge of famine. This brutal war is having a disproportionate impact on women and girls, who both parties have subjected to ongoing atrocities, including rape and conflict-related sexual violence.

The scale of the suffering is shocking. Beyond each of those statistics are human beings, like the woman I met who had recently escaped Darfur. She described the horrors committed against her by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and then being re-traumatized when she got to a neighboring country. Sadly this is all too common. Yet the world has treated Sudan as an invisible crisis, rarely covered in the world press. While much of the world turns a blind eye to this crisis, the Sudanese that I’ve met – including women and youth - have let me know how much they notice the statements and speeches Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Risch have made. I appreciate that Senator Booker led a recent delegation to witness first-hand the scale and stark conditions of refugees flooding into Chad from Darfur. When these women and children – too many with bone-thin arms and thousand-yard stares – were asked at the border why they had fled, the answer repeatedly was simple – “food.”

Food insecurity and malnutrition have reached alarming levels across Sudan, driven by conflict and blockage of humanitarian aid. Nearly 18 million people in Sudan faced acute food insecurity, with nearly 5 million people on the brink of famine. According to the latest data from February, nearly 3 million children in Sudan are acutely malnourished. A woman carrying her baby of 7 months said to me, “this Ramadan, we’ve had more iftars with no food than with food.”. Absent a change in humanitarian access and flow of aid, conditions are expected to worsen with the imminent arrival of the ‘lean season’ which lasts through the summer. Sudan is on the verge of famine, due to blatant and systematic violations by both SAF and RSF of international humanitarian law. Amidst this fragility, the SAF made the unconscionable decision earlier this year to block, disrupt, and limit humanitarian aid in a way that has made it impossible to meet the scale and urgency of hunger facing the Sudanese people.

But even in areas without major limits on humanitarian access, like the refugee camps in Chad, resources have fallen painfully short. The World Food Program (WFP) had cut daily rations to 30 percent below recommended levels in case no new funding arrived. For this reason, the decision of this Congress to pass supplemental humanitarian funding earlier this month was truly a lifesaving decision for many Sudanese. The United States has now committed over $1 billion in food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid since the war began, and I hope that the media will let more Americans see how their generosity is helping some of the world’s most vulnerable people. However, much work remains to mitigate famine, including pressure to translate donor pledges into results on the ground and escalating pressure on both the SAF and RSF to allow unconditional, safe and sustained cross border and crossline delivery of aid in accordance with international humanitarian law.

While humanitarian aid is vital, the hundreds of Sudanese with whom I have met have spoken with one voice on this fact – the only true solution to the humanitarian crisis and human suffering is to end this war, and that is my top priority as the U.S. Special Envoy. While two armed factions launched this conflict, this is less a civil war between two sides than a war which two generals and their affiliates are waging against the Sudanese people and their aspirations to a free and democratic future. Let’s be clear: the RSF and its leadership are rooted in the Janjaweed militias who committed genocide and widespread crimes against humanity. They have conducted this war with unspeakable brutality, including through ethnic cleansing of the Masalit, sexual violence as a weapon of war, and torching whole villages. Any external actor providing support to the RSF cannot claim ignorance of its past or on-going atrocities.

In December, Secretary Blinken determined that the SAF and the RSF have committed war crimes, and that the RSF and allied militia have also committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The SAF bombed civilian areas, and now proactively interferes with humanitarian operations, repeatedly refusing the flow of lifesaving food and medicine in direct violation of international humanitarian law. The Biden Administration has also issued OFAC sanctions against SAF and RSF targets, as well as entities responsible for supporting these violations.

In a moment, I’ll share why I believe that a peace deal could be on the horizon, but first, let me be crystal clear that there is undeniable momentum now for this crisis to get much worse. A two-sided war is in danger of factionalizing, with more ethnic militias moving from neutrality to combatants. Many of these groups have populations that overlap with neighboring countries, increasing the chances of this becoming a regional war. We see credible reports about the growing number of negative actors, including Islamists and former regime officials, and a rise in hate speech and polarization. The current battle over El Fasher in North Darfur could eliminate one of the last semi- safe civilian havens in western Sudan and produce a flood of new refugees. The possibility of famine and a fractured state is real, and we are communicating that with urgency from the highest levels of our government to those who have leverage to end this war. As Secretary Blinken said in his April 13 video message to the Sudanese people, “more fighting cannot, and will not, end this conflict.”

Let me summarize three of our lines of effort focused on ending the war.

We have elevated and focused U.S. leadership on Sudan across the inter-agency. This has included repeated engagement by Secretary Blinken, and tremendous support from the Department’s

African and Near Eastern affairs bureaus, and tireless support from our Embassies for a ten-week sprint of shuttle diplomacy. We have also seen Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield publicly and consistently pursue Sudan as one of her top three priorities and push the United Nations Security Council to call for a Ramadan ceasefire. The U.S. Department of Treasury is playing a crucial role on expanding sanctions and ensuring consequences for those committing atrocities and spoiling the peace, including through the imposition of sanctions against perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict, implementing the Presidential Memorandum to Promote Accountability for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. USAID, along with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), has been a key partner in tenaciously advocating for humanitarian access, aiding Sudanese pro-democracy and civil society groups to continue organizing in their communities, and supporting courageous youth who continue to find innovative ways to deliver food and medicine at great risk.

Second, we have focused our strategy on building and aligning sufficient political will in the region to compel a peace deal consistent with the aspirations of the Sudanese people. Over recent months, we have made clear to regional and European counterparts that Sudan now represents not only a humanitarian and human rights crisis but also a threat to regional and Europe’s stability. We expect all actors, even those previously playing a negative role, to now be partners in a peace deal to prioritize stability over a failed state that would have consequences for the broader region for a decade or more. This is reflected by – but not limited to – a commitment to new peace talks in the coming weeks. These talks will be (1) inclusive of key African and Arab regional leaders, (2) focused on aligning external political will, and (3) designed to produce a comprehensive cessation of hostilities. We expect all partners, even those who have previously fueled the conflict, to understand that the United States government now expects them to be partners in peace.

While this revised formulation of the Jeddah platform represents our best opportunity for formal talks, I have been clear publicly and privately that we are not waiting for Jeddah talks to resume to negotiate an end to this war. We are actively engaged in it every day, with every meeting and every signal sent. In this effort, I want to thank so many of our African partners, the United Nations, and the African Union who are leading efforts to create greater global consensus and urgency for compelling a deal.

Third, we are continuing to raise the costs of those conducting and fueling this war. We are engaged directly with both fighting factions, including their top generals, to deter escalation and atrocities. We have led the world on sanctioning bad actors – both individuals and entities like banks that are enabling the atrocities – and have made clear our readiness to expand those sanctioned.

Finally, the greatest source of hope is the resilience and unity of the Sudanese people, and we continue to center and amplify their call not just for peace but for the restoration of their shared aspirations for a democratic future. They are united in wanting the war to end, full access to humanitarian aid, and a unified professional army under the authority of a civilian government. They do not want to see former corrupt regime officials or extremists use this war as a backdoor to power. In short, they want their future back – the future they so courageously began with the

overthrow of the authoritarian Bashir regime. That is the North Star of our policy - standing with the Sudanese people.

As we speak, Sudan faces two distinct but accelerating trajectories– one towards famine and possibly a failed state, and the second towards peace and a democratic future. The only two barriers to ending this war are, first, the political will of two Generals and those fueling this horrific war, and second the absence of enough political will by those of us who could compel a peace. Our North Star is the aspirations of the Sudanese people. Our path is building and aligning enough will in the region to silence the guns and restore the Constitutional transition. That path can be paved, but time is very much not on our side.

In closing, let me express my appreciation to this Committee for your support for the people of Sudan, for the mandate of the Special Envoy, and the light you shine on the crisis in Sudan. 

The Honorable Tom Perriello

U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan

U.S. Department of State

Washington, D.C.

DOWNLOAD TESTIMONY


END

US urges countries supplying weapons to Sudan's warring parties to stop, warning of a new genocide

"TWO decades ago, Darfur became synonymous with genocide and war crimes, particularly by the notorious Janjaweed Arab militias, against populations that identify as Central or East African. Up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were driven from their homes.


That legacy appears to have returned, with the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, saying in January there are grounds to believe both sides may be committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide in Darfur.


The RSF were formed from Janjaweed fighters by former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who ruled the country for three decades before being overthrown during a popular uprising in 2019. He is wanted by the ICC on charges of genocide and other crimes during the conflict in Darfur in the 2000s." Read more.


From The Independent UK
By Edith M. Lederer
Dated Tuesday, 30 April 2024 - here is a full copy:

US urges countries supplying weapons to Sudan's warring parties to stop, warning of a new genocide

The United States is imploring all countries supplying weapons to Sudan’s warring parties to halt arms sales, warning that history in the vast western Darfur region where there was a genocide 20 years ago “is repeating itself.”


The United States on Monday implored all countries supplying weapons to Sudan’s warring parties to halt arms sales, warning that history in the vast western Darfur region where there was a genocide 20 years ago “is repeating itself.”


U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told reporters after an emergency closed meeting of the U.N. Security Council that El Fasher, the only capital in Darfur not held by paramilitary forces, is “on the precipice of a large-scale massacre.”


She urged all countries to raise the threat that “a crisis of epic proportions is brewing." Britain’s deputy ambassador James Kariuki echoed her appeal saying: “The last thing Sudan needs is a further escalation on top of this conflict that’s been going on for a whole year.”


Thomas-Greenfield said there are “credible reports” that the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and their allied militias have razed many villages west of El Fasher and are planning “an imminent attack on El Fasher.”


“An attack on El Fasher would be a disaster on top of a disaster,” Thomas-Greenfield warned, saying it would put the two million people who live in El Fasher and 500,000 Sudanese who have sought refuge there at risk.


Thomas-Greenfield urged the paramilitary forces, known as the RSF, to end their siege of El Fasher “and swear off any attack on the city.”


She urged the RSF and rival government forces to take urgent steps to de-escalate the violence and engage in direct negotiations, protect civilians and enable humanitarian access, especially to the 5 million Sudanese “on the brink of famine” and 10 million others in desperate need of aid.


Sudan plunged into chaos in mid-April 2023, when long-simmering tensions between its military, led by Gen. Abdel Fattah Burhan, and the RSF paramilitary commanded by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo broke out into street battles in the capital, Khartoum. Fighting has spread to other parts of the country, especially urban areas and the Darfur region.


U.N. political chief Rosemary DiCarlo told the council on April 19 the year-long war has been fueled by weapons from foreign supporters who continue to flout U.N. sanctions aimed at helping end the conflict. “This is illegal, it is immoral, and it must stop,” she said.


She didn’t name any of the foreign supporters.


But Burhan, who led a military takeover of Sudan in 2021, is a close ally of neighboring Egypt and its president, former army chief Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. In February, Sudan’s foreign minister held talks in Tehran with his Iranian counterpart amid unconfirmed reports of drone purchases for government forces.


Dagalo, the leader of the RSF, has reportedly received support from Russia’s Wagner mercenary group. U.N. experts said in a recent report that the RSF has also received support from Arab allied communities and new military supply lines running through Chad, Libya and South Sudan.


Thomas-Greenfield said Monday that all regional powers must stop providing weapons to the warring parties as the U.N. arms embargo demands, and told reporters the United States will continue pressuring them.


In response to a question, she said one of the countries the United States has engaged with is the United Arab Emirates, which has repeatedly denied providing any weapons to Sudan.


The U.N.’s DiCarlo painted a dire picture of the war’s impact — over 14,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, looming famine with 25 million people in need of life-saving assistance, and over 8.6 million forced to flee their homes.


During the war, the Arab-dominated RSF have carried out brutal attacks in Darfur on ethnic African civilians, especially the ethnic Masalit, and have taken control of most of the vast region – with El Fasher its newest target.


Two decades ago, Darfur became synonymous with genocide and war crimes, particularly by the notorious Janjaweed Arab militias, against populations that identify as Central or East African. Up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were driven from their homes.


That legacy appears to have returned, with the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, saying in January there are grounds to believe both sides may be committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide in Darfur.


The RSF were formed from Janjaweed fighters by former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who ruled the country for three decades before being overthrown during a popular uprising in 2019. He is wanted by the ICC on charges of genocide and other crimes during the conflict in Darfur in the 2000s.


View original: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/rapid-support-forces-ap-linda-thomasgreenfield-darfur-south-sudan-b2536848.html


END

Sunday, July 09, 2023

Sudan: Darfur rebellion in 2003 was not genocide

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: This is my attempt to clarify that anyone who refers to the Darfur rebellion and counterinsurgency of 2003 as genocide is in fact, most likely unwittingly, spreading US propaganda.

African (and European) leaders did not say that the Darfur rebellion started in 2003 was genocide because it wasn't. For the sake of simplicity, and to save trawling through the extensive archives of this 20-year-old site, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the international response to the rebellion:

"The ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since that time however, no other permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide." Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide." - Wikipedia June 26, 2023.

A handful of US activists online were the first to shout genocide in Darfur. They and many others used Darfur and South Sudan as political footballs for personal gain and work. After the Bush administration (Republican) left office, most of the Save Darfur crowd faded away or moved on to pastures new, in media, govts, NGOs, UN, charity startups related to genocide etc. 

In 2003, social media platforms Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Tik Tok, Bing etc., didn't exist. Global citizens took to the Internet and 4-yo Blogger like ducks to water. Power to the people. It was wild and exciting.

Thousands of bloggers put the spotlight on Darfur by piling enormous non-stop pressure on politicians and the UN to send aid to Darfur, stop genocide in Darfur and stop (mainly black) Darfuris being slain, starved or forced to flee by gun-toting (mainly Arab) militia on horses, camels or trucks. 

The Internet, home computing and smartphones now used by billions worldwide, have taken massive leaps with Artificial Intelligence. Evidence of atrocities can be gathered, checked and verified to stand up in a court of law.

Going by the report below, it's easy to see why Sudan's military junta is against Kenyan President Ruto helping to bring peace to Sudan: it quotes President Ruto as saying "there are already signs of genocide in Sudan". 

Now in 2023, ill informed people and others with vested interests, media included, write of genocide in Darfur in 2003 based on conjecture without doing any homework or citing verifiable sources and facts. 

Social media is mainly a free for all soapbox from which anyone can say almost anything. Recently, I saw some displaced Darfuris interviewed on camera (English subtitles) using activists' buzz words and "genocide". 

AI wizardry is moving at lightening speed and is now used to spread propaganda and fake news online to great effect. Experienced journalists with access to fact-checking technology are needed now more than ever.  

In Sudan, fighters from several different countries (and prisons) use heavy weapons and custom-made trucks to help the belligerents grab land and power. There is no functioning government in Sudan, anarchy reigns.

From what I can gather, the only way to stop Sudan's collapse is for a unified civilian-led government to claim its right to govern now, even in exile, backed by the AU, IGAD, NAM, LAS, UN and the international community. African solutions to African problems, African land for African people.

________________________


Report at France24

By Marc Perelman 

Published Friday 23 June 2023 - here is a full copy:


Kenyan President William Ruto: 'There are already signs of genocide in Sudan'

In an interview with FRANCE 24 on the sidelines of the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact, Kenya President William Ruto said the world's multinational financial architecture needs to be "fixed". He also reacted to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, saying "there are already signs of genocide". More than 2,000 people have been killed there since fighting broke out on April 15.


"We pay, especially those of us from the Global South and on the African continent, up to eight times more for the same resources, because of something called risk," Kenya's Ruto said. Calling the current system "broken", "rigged" and "unfair", Ruto said the multinational financial architecture needs to be "fixed". He also insisted on the importance of clarifying climate financing in order to deal with poverty and the "existential threat" of climate change.


Ruto narrowly won re-election in August 2022, but his opponent Raila Odinga claims to have won instead and has since been organising protests. Ruto said: "I don't have a problem with Raila Odinga, we are competitors. I have no problem with Raila Odinga organising protests (...) It's part of democracy." 


Turning to the deadly conflict in Sudan, he said: "There are already signs of genocide. What is going on in Sudan is unacceptable. Military power is being used by both parties to destroy the country and to kill civilians. The war is senseless, the war is not legitimate in any way."


Ruto said he had a regional meeting about the situation in Sudan two weeks ago in a bid to stop the war. But he added: "The issue will not be resolved until we get General al-Burhan, General Hemedti, political leaders and civil society – women's groups and youth groups – to the table." He insisted that this was "feasible".

View original: https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-interview/20230623-kenya-president-william-ruto-there-are-already-signs-of-genocide-in-sudan


[Ends] 

____________________________


Further reading


Sudan Watch - April 08, 2006

What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-is-difference-between-genocide.html


- - -


From ICC website - Darfur, Sudan - excerpts:


Situation referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council: March 2005

ICC investigations opened: June 2005

Current focus: Alleged genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, Sudan, since 1 July 2002 (when the Rome Statute entered into force)

Current regional focus: Darfur (Sudan), with Outreach to refugees in Eastern Chad and those in exile throughout Europe.  ...

The situation in Darfur was the first to be referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council, and the first ICC investigation on the territory of a non-State Party to the Rome Statute. It was the first ICC investigation dealing with allegations of the crime of genocide. 

Former Sudan's President Omar Al Bashir is the first sitting President to be wanted by the ICC, and the first person to be charged by the ICC for the crime of genocide. Neither of the two warrants of arrest against him have been enforced, and he is not in the Court's custody. 

See the ICC Prosecutor's reports to the UNSC on the investigation.

Read more: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur

- - - 

Darfur: A Short History of a Long War and Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2006


Extract

Darfur: A Short History of a Long War. By Julie Flint and Alex de Waal. New York: Zed Books, 2005. 176p. $60.00 cloth, $19.99 paper.

In the last two years, the Darfur region in western Sudan has moved from relative international obscurity to become a symbol of humanitarian crisis and mass violence. Political scientists who research genocide, ethnic conflict, civil war, humanitarianism, and African politics all have taken interest in the region, and Darfur is likely to command scholarly attention in years to come. Yet the academic literature on the region remains thin. To date, scholars have relied primarily on journalistic accounts and human rights reports, which detail the violence but, by their nature, provide only cursory historical background. With the publication of these two short but informative books, Darfur's political history and the path to mass violence are substantially clearer. That said, the books are not designed to build theories of ethnic violence or genocide, nor do the authors explicitly engage in hypotheses testing. The books are useful primarily as detailed, lucid case histories from two sets of well-informed observers. 

View original: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/darfur-a-short-history-of-a-long-war-and-darfur-the-ambiguous-genocide/49A0DF3736227EA14A61989D66F98D14

- - -

Darfur, the Ambiguous Genocide
By Gérard Prunier
212pp, Hurst, £15

Review by Dominick Donald published in the Guardian - here is a full copy:

During 2003, occasional reports emerged in the international media of fighting in Darfur, a huge tract of western Sudan bordering Chad. Over the next year the picture became confused, as - depending on who was doing the talking - a minor rebellion became a tribal spat, or nomads taking on farmers, or Arab-versus-African ethnic cleansing, or genocide.

An outside world that understood political violence in Sudan through the simplistic lens of the unending war between Muslim north and Christian/animist south - a war that seemed to be about to end - had to adjust. And nothing that has emerged since has made that adjustment easy. If Darfuris are Muslim, what is their quarrel with the Islamic government in Khartoum? If they and the janjaweed - "evil horsemen" - driving them from their homes are both black, how can it be Arab versus African? If the Sudanese government is making peace with the south, why would it be risking that by waging war in the west? Above all, is it genocide?

Gérard Prunier has the answers. An ethnographer and renowned Africa analyst, he turns on the evasions of Khartoum the uncompromising eye that dissected Hutu power excuses for the Rwanda genocide a decade ago. He is never an easy read. While his style is fluid, there's too much brilliant, obscure but pivotal erudition, too much confident summarising, and not enough readiness to compromise for the reader cramming in another five pages on the tube.

He isn't helped by the fact that he is usually offering an incisive user's manual for a machine most of us have never seen before. But stick with him. For he deploys his fierce logic to a powerful moral purpose. He builds an understanding of a community and a culture in all its complexity to then strip away the convenient truths and confused equivocations that guilty or disinterested politicians use to explain why nothing should be done. Read Darfur and you will be in no doubt at all that the government of Sudan, whatever it says, is responsible for what is happening there. The killings are the consequence of a logical, realist's policy, stemming from a racial/ cultural contempt. You will also wonder whether anything substantive will be done to stop them.

Prunier's Darfur is a victim of its separateness - not just from Khartoum, but from everywhere else in Sudan. Geographically, culturally and commercially it always looked west, along the Sahel, rather than east to the Nile, north to Egypt, or south to Bahr El Ghazal. Its Islamic practices fused Arab with African, unlike the more ascetic, eschatological Muslim brotherhoods prevalent along the Nile, or the animism or polytheism adhered to in the south. Above all it retained a political and cultural identity apart from the homogenising forces of what became Sudan. The Sultanate of Darfur tottered on, essentially independent, until 1916; the Ottomans never established a foothold there, the Mahdists were resisted and co-opted, while once the British brought it into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, they ruled through paternalistic neglect.

Even when Darfur was key to politicians in an independent Sudan - for instance, as a bedrock of support for the neo-Mahdists who ruled the country for much of its first two decades - it was ignored. Ravaged by the 1985 famine - Khartoum effectively denied it food aid - and proxy battles for Chad, it saw in the new century with a marginal economy and a government which, when it paid attention to Darfur, did so through the medium of militias encouraged to define tribal or cultural groups as the enemy.

As Prunier shows, it is the economics and the militias that lie at the heart of the atrocities in Darfur. The Sudan Liberation Army, recognising that the Naivasha power-sharing peace process between Khartoum and the SPLA/M in the south was going to leave Darfur even further behind, took up arms in 2002. All the government could do was unleash the militias in the hope that it could deal with the problem before southerners arrived in government and vetoed any repression. Now probably half of Darfur's population has been driven into camps for internally displaced persons (IDP), beyond the reach of international food aid, where malnutrition and disease are carrying them off at the rate of perhaps 8% a year. This suits Khartoum just fine. For while the international community havers about what it cannot see, Khartoum is free to pay lip service to the Naivasha peace process that will ensure regime survival, keep the Americans off its back, and allow the élite to exploit Sudan's oil.

It is this peace process that ensures the tragedy of Darfur goes on. The UN Security Council has passed powerful-sounding resolutions demanding the Sudanese government behave in Darfur. But it doesn't have the physical tools to coerce anyone. The African Union force it dispatched there is small, immobile, unsighted and with a weak mandate, and neither the US, UK nor France has the troops to send in its place. Above all, it won't apply too much pressure on Khartoum for fear of scuppering Naivasha - the deal that will end 50 years of on-and-off fighting, and bring a recalcitrant Sudan back into the embrace of the international community.

Yet Naivasha will almost certainly fail anyway. The Sudanese government probably has no intention of sticking to the Naivasha deal; it has never stuck to its deals before, choosing to obscure non-compliance with sorrowful tales of lack of control and warnings that enforcement will bring in the bogeyman. The process is driven by external actors, and so is hostage to their brief, easily distracted political attention spans. And it will bind the international community to Khartoum as tightly as vice versa - who will be coercing and who will be coerced? The international community believes it can't pull out of Naivasha in the face of Sudanese non-compliance for fear of losing oil deals, or an Islamic supporter in the war on terror, or of ushering in something worse. In reality it has saddled up a spaniel and sent it over the sticks, ignoring the sturdy point-to-pointer waiting in the wings.

Is what is happening in Darfur genocide? As Prunier points out, in the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention ("deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"), it is - particularly what is happening in the IDP camps. Yet in his superb book on the Rwandan genocide, Prunier argued for a different definition, namely "a coordinated attempt to destroy a racially, religiously, or politically pre-defined group in its entirety". Why quibble about definitions? After all, they're irrelevant to Darfuris - their suffering will be the same, whatever tag is used. They're a concern for the international community alone. But for them, he concludes, the "G" word really matters.

In the west, "things are not seen in their reality but in their capacity to create brand images ... 'Genocide' is big because it carries the Nazi label, which sells well." Unfortunately what is happening in Darfur doesn't look like Treblinka. So the international community finds itself fixated on a distraction - a legal genocide, that doesn't look like a genocide.

Instead it should ignore the "G" word and focus on the key issue. The Sudanese government is responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 200,000 Darfuris as an instrument of policy. It is weak, profoundly unpopular, and hugely vulnerable. It needs the pretence of Naivasha. It can be coerced. Let's get on with it.

· Dominick Donald is a senior analyst for Aegis Research and Intelligence, a London political risk consultancy

[Ends]