Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:17:37 +0200
Darfur displaced forced to choose between a rock and a hard place - By Lucy
Hovil
Posted on
<http://africanarguments.org/2014/07/24/darfur-displaced-forced-to-choose-be
tween-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-by-lucy-hovil/> July 24, 2014
Over the past few years, the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region has faded
from the headlines. While levels of violence decreased following a peak in
2004-5, violence is again on the increase and the war is far from over. In
2014, the Rapid Support Force, former Janjaweed fighters re-branded as
government forces, have gone on the offensive. The stark reality is that
over 300,000 Darfuri people have been displaced since the start of 2014.
Every day their displacement reinforces the notions of marginalisation that
lie at the root of the conflict, reminding them not only of the government's
failure to protect their homes, their families and their livelihoods, but
also of its direct and indirect involvement in their displacement.
The International Refugee Rights Initiative has just released a
<http://www.refugee-rights.org/Publications/Papers/2014/ItsAJoke.pdf> report
that documents the on-going violence and displacement in Sudan's Darfur
region. It addresses the highly controversial issue of "return", as
internally displaced persons (IDPs) are coming under increasing pressure
from the government of Sudan to leave the camps where they sought refuge.
The quote in the title of the report, "It is a joke", sums up how one person
living in Darfur described the situation. In fact, the very mention of
'return' and 'Darfur' in the same sentence immediately begs the question how
there can be talk of return when the circumstances that forced people into
displacement have not been resolved.
In response to the concerns raised by local civil society actors about this
development, the report seeks to give a voice to those who have been
displaced by the conflict and document some of their experiences. It shows
that IDPs are being forced to make difficult choices in a context of almost
impossible odds. While most people remain in the camps for much of the year,
people are moving to their villages temporarily or permanently - albeit in
small numbers and in highly precarious circumstances. They are making
rational decisions, but are doing so under enormous pressure due to poor
humanitarian conditions in the camps and the realistic fear of losing their
land. In the view of those who have returned, the war is not over and much
of Darfur remains insecure, yet they have little choice.
Their return is further complicated by the fact that much of the land left
behind has now been appropriated by newcomers or members of militia groups -
referred to as Janjaweed by most interviewees - and they are having to make
deals with and pay 'taxes' to these militias in order to farm their own
land. Although localised agreements are being reached between returnees and
militias, and are, at a stretch, creating benefits by reducing outright
violence and alleviating some of the food shortages, they are fundamentally
unfair and are potentially feeding the broader war economy: inevitably,
those with weapons are negotiating from a stronger position than those
without.
These agreements fail to create an environment in which tensions over land
distribution and resource allocation can be addressed in any sort of
sustainable way. Communities that might accept such arrangements as a result
of precarious conditions in the camps are unlikely to accept them for long,
and the injustice is likely to seed new feelings of marginalisation and
exclusion - and possibly future conflict.
Not surprisingly, therefore, 'return' is failing to come anywhere near to
taking place "voluntarily, in safety and with dignity," as required by the
UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Instead, it is operating
within the same political dynamic as the on-going conflict and is building
on, rather than challenging, that dynamic. It is yet another example of the
way in which civilians are suffering the brunt of this brutal conflict.
Furthermore, the destruction in Darfur is part of a broader picture in which
the government of Sudan has continued to use violence and displacement as a
strategy of control. Similar tactics have been used throughout the country,
including during the war that led to South Sudan's independence and more
recently in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States. Repeatedly, and in
violation of fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, the
government has shown a willingness to force the mass displacement of its
civilian populations in order to alter the political and ethnic fabric of
the country - and to strengthen those who are seen as supportive of the
regime.
At the end of the day, therefore, there needs to be a political resolution
to their exile that addresses not only the specifics of the Darfur conflict,
but the wider national conflict dynamics. With international attention
flitting between the two Sudans - and, to a certain extent floundering in
the face of an ever escalating crisis - the need to balance the bigger
picture with the intimate detail on the ground is as crucial as ever. In the
meantime, civilians in Darfur are being forced to choose between a rock and
a hard place - which, at the end of the day, is not really a choice at all.
Lucy Hovil is Senior Researcher, International Refugee Rights Initiative.
<http://africanarguments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DarfurDisplaced-e140
6208414852.jpg> New displacement in Zam Zam camp
Displaced people in a North Darfur IDP camp (UN photo library).
(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)