Overcoming the Obstacles to Deploying UNAMID

Monday’s New York Times carried a front page article by Lydia Polgreen detailing the many obstacles that are compromising the full deployment of United Nations African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Meanwhile, renewed Sudanese government sponsored violence in West Darfur has left at least 115 people dead and rendered tens of thousands of people homeless. These are precisely the types of atrocities that UNAMID was created to prevent, but it continues to lack the troops and equipment to do its job.

Blame for the UNAMID deployment predicament does not rest in one place, it is a combination of factors including, importantly, Khartoum’s determination to see that the mission fails. However, the Security Council deserves special scrutiny as well because it authorized UNAMID, but has done little to ensure the mission’s expedited deployment since. This sends an implicate message to the Sudanese government that it can continue to orchestrate mass atrocities in Darfur, and signals to all governments around the world that contributing troops and equipment to UNAMID is not a priority.

There is no doubt that a central reason the Security Council has done little to ensure the deployment of UNAMID is China’s close relationship with the Sudanese government. As a powerful permanent member of the Security Council, China has already weakened nine out of fourteen resolutions in the Council that have addressed Darfur.

If history is any guide, Khartoum’s perpetual intransigence towards UNAMID combined with China’s veto power in the Security Council greatly diminishes the possibility of seeing UNAMID fully deploy. But not all hope is lost. One potentially encouraging sign is that China recently urged Khartoum to allow UNAMID to fully deploy, perhaps signaling a shift from its traditional support of Khartoum’s obstructionism. The international community should now see if China’s actions will match its rhetoric. China is known to have an aversion towards vetoing resolutions in the Security Council, so Council members should push forward a strong resolution aimed at speeding the deployment of UNAMID and force China to vote without first weakening the resolution. Such a vote will demonstrate in a very concrete way whether China is truly committed to achieving a sustainable peace in Darfur and the whole of Sudan.

U.N. Report Details Renewed Violence in Darfur

Yesterday the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in cooperation with the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur, issued a report on the renewed violence in Darfur. The report details attacks by the Sudanese Armed Forces in cooperation with Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, on the four West Darfur villages of Saraf Jidad, Sirba, Silea and Abu Suruj.

The report states, “As a result of the attacks, at least 115 persons were killed, including elderly people, women, and children, and more than 30,000 individuals forcibly displaced to other locations, including neighboring Chad. Civilian homes, NGO clinics and offices, community centers, water structures, schools, food storages, milling machines and shops were systematically pillaged, vandalized and/or set ablaze. Livestock were also looted.” The report also documents accounts of rape and other forms of sexual violence committed against women and girls—as young as the age of nine—by armed uniformed men in the village of Sirba. The report concludes that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Janjaweed committed serious violations to international human rights law and international humanitarian law (or the laws of war).

The experience of one victim, who is reported to be about 80 years old, from the village of Saraf Jidad, captures the macabre nature of the Janjaweed attacks on villages in Darfur:

“I was in my house and Janjaweeds were in the village, looting and shooting at people. I could not run away because I am old. The attackers entered my house. They were four, in military uniforms. One of them hit my head with the butt of his gun. I fell down. He told me, ‘If you do not all move from here we will burn you alive.’ At that, they set my house on fire. I was inside, but managed to escape though I had my arms injured by the fire.” My two brothers died I the attack. One of them was shot in his head with a bullet. He was an old man. There were no Tora Boras [local term for rebels] in our village.”

The SAF maintains it attacked these West Darfur villages to retake them from the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group operating in Darfur that is also accused of committing serious human rights abuses. But the government denies that it coordinated its aerial and ground assaults with the Janjaweed, claiming that it is “…possible that tribal groups [Janjaweed] may have exploited the SAF attack in order act in their own interests and pursue their own agenda.” Such claims by the government of Sudan have been common during the six-year conflict in Darfur, but it is well known that the government of Sudan coordinates closely with Janjaweed and supplies them with the arms they need to carry out atrocities in Darfur.

While the violence in Darfur rages on, the government of China continues to deny the weapons it sales to the Sudanese government are used in Darfur. However, the latest public trading figures show that between 2004-2006 China was supplying approximately 90% of small arms purchased by Sudan, and Chinese made weapons have been spotted recently in Darfur.

China claims that through its diplomacy, it is working to champion peace in Darfur. While that may be true to an extent, China’s arms transfers are doing just the opposite: they are helping to enable continued atrocities in Darfur.

Boycott the Beijing Olympic Games?

Human Rights First is not calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games. However, the organization does think that the Beijing Olympics offer a unique opportunity to engage the government of China and pressure it to take concrete actions to improve its human rights record.

There are a growing number of communities and organizations that support a boycott of the Beijing Olympics due to China’s abysmal human rights record both at home and abroad. The Chinese government has been particularly sensitive about calls for an Olympics boycott. This is understandable; China has worked hard to engineer the Beijing Olympics as its grand entry onto the twenty-first century stage as a harmonious and peaceful emerging world power.

Chinese Special Representative on the Darfur Issue Liu Guijin recently struck out against calls to boycott the Beijing Olympics. At a press conference held earlier this month upon Mr. Liu’s return from his fourth trip to Sudan, a reporter asked him a question about calls for boycotting the Beijing Olympics because China was not doing enough to help end the violence in Darfur. Mr. Liu responded, “…for those few who attempt to tarnish the Olympic Games on the pretext of issues totally unrelated to the Olympics, like the Darfur issue, we are firmly opposed to such attempts.”

Similarly, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi maintains that China is opposed to the “politicization” of the Beijing Olympics by trying to link the Games with human rights abuses occurring in places such as Darfur and Tibet. An Associated Press reporter recently asked Mr. Yang about the Chinese government’s opposition to the politicization of the Beijing Olympics. Mr. Yang responded, “…not to politicize the Olympic Games is what is laid down in the Olympic Charter. Those people who attack China often talk about the importance of abiding by laws and regulations. Then why are they openly violating the relevant provisions of the Olympic Charter?” One implication Mr. Yang is apparently making in this statement is that China does not mix politics with the Olympics.

A look back in the history of Olympic boycotts is instructive in this case. As it turns out, China has actually boycotted the Olympic Games twice. The first instance was the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia, to protest a decision allowing a delegation from Taiwan to participate in the Games. China also boycotted the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow in protest of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Given China’s past practice of engaging in Olympic boycotts, it seems disingenuous for China to claim that the current calls for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics are nothing more than attempts to politicize the Games. No doubt China views its boycotts of the Olympic Games in 1956 and 1980 as much more than political stunts.

It is time that China take seriously the human rights grievances that are being raised by its critics in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics and take concrete steps to resolve them. For instance, China should immediately halt its arms sales to Sudan and stop obstructing efforts in the United Nations Security Council to help resolve the crisis in Darfur. Such actions would contribute in helping to create a positive image of the Beijing Olympic Games that the government of China so desperate wants.

China's Rebuke of New HRF Report is Erroneous

China is clearly on the defensive when it comes to its arms sales to the government of Sudan. A new report issued Thursday by Human Rights First found that when the violence was peaking in Darfur, China was the near exclusive provider of small arms to the government of Sudan. These weapons were flowing from the Sudanese government into the hands of government-backed militias that carry out countless atrocities in Darfur.

Yesterday Qin Gang, spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing, rebuked Human Rights First’s report. In a press conference Qin denied that China is the largest supplier of arms to Sudan. He is right. But Qin's assertion was apparently meant to avoid confronting Human Rights First’s revelation of China being by far the largest small arms supplier to Sudan during the height of the violence in Darfur. There is little reason to doubt that China continues to supply the government of Sudan with large amounts of small arms, but it is impossible to know since the last figures on small arms trading between the two countries was reported to the United Nations in 2006.

During the press conference, Qin also said that China’s arms sales-polices are “always very prudent”. Such claims are debunked by China’s actions: there is nothing prudent about supplying arms to the Sudanese government, especially when China knows that the government of Sudan uses its weapons to commit mass atrocities in Darfur.

In the lead up to the Olympic Games in Beijing, the government of China is determined to make it seem as though it is a harmonious and peaceful rising world power. China has a chance to start matching this rhetoric with reality by immediately halting its arms sales to Sudan and doing all it can to promote a sustainable peace in Darfur and throughout the whole of Sudan. Such actions would represent concrete steps towards China achieving the status of being the peaceful nation that it claims to be.

Where do the Janjaweed's Weapons Come From?

Yesterday a little noticed article appeared in UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph that previewed a new Channel 4 documentary called “Unreported World: Meet the Janjaweed,” which will air in the United Kingdom tomorrow night.

The article profiles Mohammed Hamdan, a leader of the Sudanese government backed Janjaweed militia, who confirms the Janjaweed receives robust support from the government of Sudan in the form of weapons and vehicles, which the Janjaweed then uses to carryout attacks in Darfur.

The Janjaweed have committed many of the most serious human rights atrocities that have occurred in Darfur since the violence erupted in 2003, including killing, maiming, raping and displacing civilians.

The government of Sudan vigorously denies any connection with the Janjaweed, a position that is rejected by experts on the conflict in Darfur.

Hamdan states in the Telegraph article, “All the hardware that we have – where did we get it from? Do you think we just magicked it out of the air? It belongs to the government [of Sudan].” The article goes on to describe that, “Hamdan spoke near a Toyota Land Cruiser, mounted with a heavy machinegun, and his fighters were armed with mortars, anti-aircraft guns and Kalashnikov rifles.”

One important question to ask is where does the government of Sudan acquire the weapons with which it supplies the Janjaweed?

A new report released today by Human Rights First reveals that starting in 2004 (the year in which the U.N. Security Council imposed a legally binding arms embargo on Darfur), China sold the government of Sudan on average 90% of its small arms, and continued to be the near exclusive provider through 2006 (the last year in which small arms data is available). However, as recently as last week, a Chinese official astonishingly claimed that China’s weapons sales to Sudan are not fueling the conflict in Darfur. This seems hard to believe since small arms are the weapons of choice for the Janjaweed who are carrying out many of the atrocities in Darfur, and China provides the vast majority of such small arms to the government of Sudan, which then ships the weapons to the Janjaweed.

The only way for China to truly ensure that its weapons are not reaching Darfur is to immediately halt all sales to Sudan. But that is unlikely to happen without sustained pressure from governments and people around the world. With the Beijing Summer Olympics growing ever closer, China is particularly concerned about its public image, opening a unique advocacy window to get China to halt its arms sales to Sudan. You can sign a petition urging China to stop arms sales to Sudan here.