Originally published on the CGS blog on June 19, 2008.
One must keep in mind the immense complexity and fragility of the governmental, as well as societal, politics of Sudan. The nature of relationships and agreements are constantly changing throughout this unstable country regarding tribal alliances and loyalties. Jerry Fowler, President of Save Darfur, addressed the need, at a lecture held at the Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 19, 2008, to always be mindful of the civilian casualty rates that result from the North-South struggles from each trying to maintain a greater influence.
The mode governing the nation of Sudan has been based around a flawed economic system in which loyalties are bought and sold depending on monopolies (and monopsonies). Since the buyers and the sellers of these “so-called” loyalties seem to have no other option, i.e. competition, along with the sheer immorality of buying and selling personal devotion as a commodity – and the human rights violations associated with that – create a market that is far from humane. Shifts in loyalties are not uncommon: today’s friend could be tomorrow’s enemy, and vice versa. Clearly, trust and honesty are two characteristics that would not be used to describe this corrupted political system.
Statistics show that theSudanese system itselfhas no regard for human life, particularly innocent civilians who become collateral damage as a result of a rejection of the peace agreements. Either militia leaders and politicians enjoy war, or are too narcissistic and will settle for nothing less than full, individual power – or maybe it’s both.
An influx in killing, and the genocide in the Darfur region, tend to be the result of various peace agreements made between the North and the South. It seems that every agreement causes more deaths in the short term than any lasting peace in the long term. Maybe the international community’s role should be in enabling a productive place where the politians, leaders, and head of state can meet to collaborate on an effective method for a sustainable peace. It is unreasonable to expect one, single nation to unilaterally assume full responsibility to address the issues inherent in Sudan; rather what is needed is a full, multilateral effort from the global community. A wrong step would be to try to overwhelm and take over the politics of Sudan; we need to keep in mind that the nature of the country and its future need to be left to the Sudanese to decide. Multilateral aid to affect peace-talks is appropriate, unilateral political takeover is not.
