-AP World History This is a very significant genocide.

1. Darfur Genocide
● The Darfur genocide is the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people which has occurred during the ongoing
conflict in Western Sudan. It has become known as the first genocide of the 21st century. The genocide,
which is being carried out against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes, has led the International Criminal
Court (ICC) to indict several people for crimes against humanity, rape, forced transfer and torture. More than
one million children have been "killed, raped, wounded, displaced, traumatized, or endured the loss of
parents and families".
● Sudan is one of the largest countries in Africa. Located in northeastern Africa, it borders the Red Sea and
falls between Egypt, Chad, Uganda, and six other countries. The capitol, Khartoum, is in the northeastern
part of the country. Darfur is a region in western Sudan that encompasses an area roughly the size of Spain.
The population of Darfur is estimated at 7 million people.
● The on-going conflict in Darfur, Sudan was declared “genocide” by United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell on September 9, 2004, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On
February 18, 2006, President George W. Bush called for the number of international troops in Darfur
to be doubled. In addition, the US has imposed economic sanctions on Sudan since 1997. However,
after working and talking with the Sudanese government for years, the US formally revoked its
sanctions on Sudan in 2017.This was largely in response to the Sudanese government’s “sustained
positive actions in reducing hostilities in conflict areas, improving humanitarian access throughout
Sudan, and addressing the threat of terrorism in cooperation with the US.”
● Since the ousting of Omar al-Bashir in early 2019, the Sudanese government has established and
retained a transitional government. Although this government recently did agree to turn to turn over
al-Bashir to the ICC, its next steps and transition to a permanent government remain to be seen.
Arbitrary detention, torture, limitations of the freedom of press, and gender-based violence continue
to be seen in both Darfur and Sudan as a whole under this new government.
● The spark that ignited the violence in Darfur occurred in April 2003 when the rebels attacked al-Fashir airport
and destroyed military equipment and overwhelmed the Sudanese army. The attack took the government by
surprise. From the beginning the government dismissed the rebel movement, describing them as nothing
more than a band of armed robbers. At first, Khartoum could not mount an effective counter-offensive
because its army was overstretched, particularly in the South. This involved the exploitation of ethnic
differences and the arming of particular ethnic groups and turning them against others. The use of this tactic
in Darfur was best exemplified by the creation of the infamous Janjawid, most of whom hailed from
Arabic-speaking communities. In conjunction with the Sudanese army, the Janjawid engaged in a massive
campaign of violence and pillaging of non-Arab communities. The carnage resulted in the death of 300,000
Darfurians and the displacement of 2 million.

2. In 2003, two rebel movements emerged in Darfur: the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement
(JEM).The leader of JEM is Khalil Ibrahim, who was a former member of the Islamicist movement, which led to speculations that
JEM has Islamicist leanings. The SLA, on the other hand, is considered more secular in its orientation. The manifesto of both
movements called for greater autonomy for Darfur and redistribution of economic resources and political power.
Both the U.S. and European governments were not willing to intervene militarily and could not develop a coherent policy towards
the Sudan. The UN issued a number of threats and passed a series of resolutions. But these were rendered ineffective by the
defiance of the Sudanese governments, and the maneuvering of Arab countries and of China, Sudan's main oil-trading partner
and supplier of arms.
The most important bone of contention is the deployment of peacekeepers in Darfur. The Sudanese government declared its
objection to the presence of any European troops on its soil and maintained that it would only allow African Union peacekeepers.
As a compromise, the UN passed a resolution in 2007 that provided for the creation of the so-called "hybrid force," or a mixture
of UN and African Union troops, to which the Sudan government agreed. However, the deployment of these troops has been
hampered by a lack of funds, complicated logistics, and the foot-dragging of the Sudanese government.
On another level, the UN referred the Darfur case to the International Court of Criminal Justice to investigate accusations of
genocide and crimes against humanity committed by the Sudanese government. Although two Sudanese officials were indicted,
the Sudanese government vowed not to hand them over.
However, in a dramatic move, the court declared in July 2007 that it is seeking a warrant for the arrest of Omer Al-Bashir, the
Sudanese President. A ruling is expected in the near future. It is unclear what will happen if an arrest warrant is issued and how
that will affect the situation in Darfur. While some observers think that it may prompt the Sudanese government to suspend all
UN operations and thereby worsen the humanitarian situation, others believe that the warrant might actually increase the
pressure on the Sudanese government and force it to take the peace process more seriously.
Darfur Peace Process
After a great deal of pressure by the UN, the African Union, and the neighboring countries, the Sudanese government and the
Darfur rebels agreed to hold a series of peace talks in Nigeria, which led to the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) in
2006. However, the agreement was signed by only one rebel group and was rejected by the rest who argued that the DPA was a
bad deal for Darfur.
The major obstacles to reaching a settlement can be attributed to both the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels.
The Sudanese government is notorious for using agreements as a mere tactic. It is willing to sign any agreement, but
determined to find ways to impede or delay its implementation.
Darfur rebels, on the other hand, are highly divided and have no clear vision. It was estimated that there are currently more than
a dozen rebel groups who are competing among each other, a situation that has lead to chaotic violence in the region. Efforts to
unify the rebels have been hindered by the strategy of the Sudanese government of divide and rule, and by the intervention of
foreign governments such as Chad, Libya, and Eritrea.
Most importantly, the Darfur rebels have become part of the proxy war between the Sudanese and the Chadian governments.
For instance, in February 2008 the Chadian opposition, with the help of the Sudanese government, tried to overthrow the
government of Idris Deby. As a quid pro quo, Chad supported the Justice and Equality Movement's daring attack on the
Sudanese capital three months later.
The current situation in Darfur does not allow for much optimism. The peace process is frustrated by the foot-dragging of the
Sudanese government, the fragmentation of the rebels, and the lack of a strong resolve by the international community. The fate
of the Darfur peace process may well be determined by the outcome of the ICC decision on Bashir, the general elections
scheduled for 2009, and the deteriorating situation in the border region between northern and southern Sudan. In the meantime,
the turmoil continues with no end in sight.