Darfur Donor Conference: A Park for a Deadly Conflict

Donors are usually generous, as they will donate money to countries affected by war after they reach a peace agreement. Frequently, this money is geared towards peace building activities, nation building or state building. Unfortunately that wouldn’t be the case for the Darfur donor conference scheduled to take place in Doha-Qatar from April 7th 2013, even though on July 14th 2011, the Government of Sudan GoS and the Liberation and Justice Movement LJM signed a fragile agreement known as the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur DDPD.

The main issue is that many people and groups have characterized the DDPD as having no integrity, no accountability, no transparency, no professionalism and no clear objectives. This might be because the agreement that was signed was unable to bring peace or security to Darfur, but rather it increased the level of insecurity, deteriorated the humanitarian situation, created numbers of factions among the Darfur rebel groups and helped to create even new rebel groups who are opportunists making their living out of current conflict while also destroying the social fabric of Darfur ethnic groups.

Thus in Darfur today one can say there is no element of peace, either negative or positive and the DDPD peace agreement was only an agreement they signed without any having convictions to follow through with any of the tenets of it. The situation on the ground now is one where there is an increasing number of IDPs arriving at existing camps who run away from direct fighting between the government and the rebel movement in villages of Judo, Golo, in Jebel Marra and villages Abga Radji, Bir Dageig, El Sant El Madrasa, Tabaldia around Nyala-south Darfur. Coupled with that, the tribal fighting between the Rezegat and Beni Hussein in Jebel Aamir has expanded into Darfur to add to the already harsh conditions that were being experienced there. As such, the situation in the region is one where the donor conference is premature as there is no peace on the ground for their donations to uphold.

The LJM members whom I interviewed to update me on their current economic situations informed me that for four months they have not received their salaries. They further explained how desperate they were waiting for the money. Hence I can anticipate that the proposed conference would most likely help to generating a conflict of interest, proceeding to a deadly conflict between the three main actors:

1.     Government of Sudan GoS,

2.     The Liberation and Justice Movement LJM signatory to the DDPD

3.     The non-signatories  

Here is why:

After the secession of South Sudan, Sudan lost some of its already limited resources and with the government having heavy expenses to pay; this has also helped to deteriorate the economic condition and inflation in Sudan. They have attempted several times to fix their economy however none have been successful. Eventually the GoS have realized that this conference can lead them out of their current economic crises, and as a consequence they arranged with the Darfur Regional Authority DRA about how to handle the money without having any projects or planning in the pipeline to alleviate their plight. What they have rather done thus far is to fight non-signatories; it is therefore more than plausible that some of money if not all will go towards war expenses. I am sure that donors have no interest in funding war but if they are very interesting in making peace and maintaining it, I suggest that donors might think about field assessments before making contribution in order to avoid fueling war and the killing of civilians such as the elderly, women and children as well as innocent people.

In many conflicts there are peace spoilers. Their plan is to pretend that they are the only legitimate body that can ensure peace, as this is what some international actors want to hear. In the case of Sudan, some of the other signatories to the peace agreement who have so far showed an allegiance to the government of Sudan, would benefit more from the government urging them to disrupt the process after the conference as it would ensure their own survival and enhance her power within the framework of further peace agreements. This is exactly what LJM has done so far even though they have no area of control and even in El fasher-north Darfur where their head office is they are not secure. They are not really supported by the masses but since they are from Darfur they have friends and relatives that stand by them. So they need the money not only to fulfill their need but also to buy poor people to support them. I am sure donors are not interested in supporting any form of slavery since donors and the international community has often tried to fight against this phenomenon. Therefore, it is more practical for the donor to assess what has been done for the past two years before sponsoring activities that would eventually translate into inhumane behavior. 

Non-signatories believe that they are the real actors, as they have legitimacy from the people and represent the masses fighting for their rights and so on. They want to show the government that they still exist and their goals have not yet been achieved. They also want to send a message to the international community that the conflict and the genocide in Darfur are still on going. This group controls areas which GoS has no access to and let their military operation from there. They are nearby cities and towns fighting the government to send strong signal to UNAMID and other UN agencies that they have the power and the capacity to reach anywhere in Darfur. This group sees the donor conference as threating their existence because the GoS will get more funds to fight them. They are also interested in the money because as they claim, the government is one of their main sources from which they depend on funding themselves. I think donors are not interested in throwing their money into fire. But they are more interested in putting that fire out. Thereby I believe the best way is to find lasting solution that includes all actors and prevents killing of innocent civilians. 

Suggested solution

1.    1. Suspend the idea of Donor conference for now till the situation is ready for that.

2.    2. Find ways and avenues for real peaceful solution, which include the real actors and stakeholders.

3.   3. Unifying all efforts in one venue for step for peace process NOT negotiation, but first dialogue and    consultation, aiming for unity,

4.    4. Conflict sensitivity programs

5.    5. Then conflict resolving