Maastricht Debates: International responsibilities: what Darfur teaches us

On the evening of March 29th, a full house at the Grand Theater La Bonbonnière — over 200 mostly international students — waited expectantly for Jan Pronk to speak. Launching off with the incendiary declaration, “Everything went wrong and everyone is responsible,” Pronk didn’t disappoint.

For this third event of the fledgling Maastricht Debates series, co-organised by the Young Socialists of Maastricht, the topic was ‘International Responsibilities: What Darfur teaches us.’ Slated to speak were Jan Pronk, former United Nations Special Representative for Sudan, and David Mepham, associate director and head of international programme at the Institute for International Public Policy Research (IPPR, London), with a subsequent period of questions and comments from the audience.

Jan Pronk: Darfur presents “complex and cruel” circumstances
Pronk began his comprehensive lecture by outlining the context of the current situation in Darfur, where the government and allied militias have been accused with attempting to quell Darfur rebel groups by embarking on a campaign of ethnic cleansing of the region.

Unlike many media sources report, Pronk explained, the conflict is economic and ecological at root rather than religious. Problems of overpopulation and scarcity of resources, spurred in part by climate change and including the conflicting land uses of nomadic groups and permanent dwellers, culminated into the violent conflict beginning in 2003.

Elaborating on the “complex and cruel” circumstances that prompted the crisis, Pronk noted other factors at play: a political and historical sense of marginalisation of the Western Sudanese, elements of racism, and tribal competition.

At blame for what Pronk terms the genocide in Darfur: the Sudanese government and the international community. The UN Security Council “paralysed itself by resolutions,” Pronk said, pointing to the various resolutions on Darfur passed by the Security Council since 2004, few of which provided for more financing or personnel for the peacekeepers on the ground.

The utter lack of international pressure in the form of serious UN efforts and well-funded UN and African Union peacekeepers, Pronk argued, enabled the Sudanese government to continue to seek a military solution to the unrest in Darfur even after signing the 2006 peace agreement.

“The UN is not the US”
From what he learned while serving in Khartoum, Pronk offered several suggestions for future such crises. First, policy-makers must understand that no standard approach towards peace-keeping exists; rather, the specific context of each incident must be understood. International bodies must take an active role in establishing peace; without this engagement, Pronk claims, there occurs an “erosion of the possibility of international organisations to guard and uphold their own values.” Finally, the peacekeeping forces must be robust enough in number and capacity to deter violence and protect civilians, and he noted the relative inexpensiveness of peacekeepers as opposed to the costs of war.

A complicating element of the Sudan crisis, Pronk continued, was the international political context: the Arab world views international action against the Sudanese government as an attack on them, as Sudan is perceived as the next theatre for an Arab-Western clash after Afghanistan and Iraq. Pronk said that in this sense, reforming the UN system is necessary so that global decisions better reflect all member nations, and all member nations feel adequately represented. According to Pronk, reform should show Sudan that “The UN is not the US, the UN is you, plus 200 other countries.”

David Mepham: A Responsibility to Protect
David Mepham followed up Pronk’s analysis by locating the topic within the framework of the international legal “responsibility to protect,” recounting the options to address this kind of crisis, and suggesting how to deal more effectively with subsequent situations.

Mepham eloquently explained how after the atrocities of the Balkans and Rwanda, the international community began to prioritise their collective responsibility to protect people from crimes against humanity over the right of sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty was officially re-conceptualised by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty as the responsibility to prevent certain atrocities from occurring within state borders rather than control of a state’s internal affairs. This notion was endorsed by the UN in 2005, although Mepham said there remains a huge gap between theory and practice, a problem embodied by Sudan.

Mepham then defined what he saw as the essential next steps for Darfur. First, there must be an intensified collective international effort to forge another, stronger peace agreement, and at the same time, expanded and more effective peacekeeping troops. Tough economic sanctions must also be imposed on Khartoum by all governments and endorsed by the UN, which, Mepham argued, are a non-military weapon that has been shown to have been very effective in Sudan in the past.

Finally, Mepham sees Darfur as teaching the international community the importance of acting early in conflict situations, as it increases the chances of preventing deaths. Also, increasing the capacity and financing of African Union peacekeeping troops will help to stabilise the region, Mepham suggested.

Thinking about Rwanda and Sudan, he admits that, in terms of military interventions, “Sometimes to save lives we must be prepared to take lives, though that’s a tough message.”

Also, while Western nations typically receive the most pressure for financing peacekeeping troops, Mepham said we can’t forget that protection is a global responsibility, which includes Russia, China, and the Arab League - all of which have been accused of sending weapons to Sudan or not acting critically towards the Sudanese government.

However, all of these possible changes rely on sheer political will, which Mepham understands is difficult or impossible to come by, given the global power politics at play.

An international evening in Maastricht
The third part of the evening consisted of three rounds of questions and comments from the audience, which were then answered by either speaker. James Mackie, coordinator for the European Center for Development Policy Management’s programme on Development Policy and International Relations, served as the able moderator.

Many questions concerned UN reform and the importance of the process of halting genocide. The tension between the ideal of multilateralism and its relatively ineffective outcomes was discussed, with Mepham firmly endorsing whichever option allowed quickest action: “If it’s a choice between multilateralism and protecting human lives, obviously, it’s human lives.”

Pronk and Mepham were also asked about the economic leverage other countries and the UN hold over Sudan. Both believe in the need for targeted sanctions and corporate divestment (dis-investment) from the country.

The two speakers differed somewhat on their ideas of UN reform: Pronk suggested fundamental changes such as reformatting the Security Council to include one EU seat and one seat for another global power, abolishing veto power, and creating a standing force of UN troops. Mepham advocated working within the current power structures by encouraging Security Council members to use their veto sparingly. Either course of action requires a fundamental change in current political attitudes, the speakers admitted, with Pronk stating, “It is very necessary the US gets a new government—I say that analytically,” to laughter and applause from the audience.

But reshaping these power dynamics doesn’t only apply to Western nations, Mepham cautioned, but rather all state actors must be involved. Both Pronk and Mepham ended the session with a tempered optimism that seemed to stem from a mix of experience, frustration, and hope.

The logistics of the debate flowed quite seamlessly. Although the format did not resemble a traditional ‘debate’, the generous Q&A section of the program allowed for a stimulating exchange of ideas and critiques, fully in line with the goal of the coordinators of Maastricht Debates to promote an interactive learning environment. Furthermore, by taking questions from about five audience members each round, the format provided enough time for almost everyone who wished to speak to do so.

The audience listened attentively to the two speakers, many people taking notes throughout the lectures, and clapped appreciatively when they finished. The event especially attracted international masters and bachelors students who were eager to partake in an English-language reflection on issues of Darfur, and its free admission only encouraged more to come.

Judging by the perceptive questions asked during the Q&A section, it seemed that the majority of the audience had some experience – either academic or professional – with the crisis in Darfur.

As an activist around the Darfur genocide at her home institution, Macalester College in Minnesota, US, Sandy Robson thought the debate was an exceptional opportunity to hear the opinions of experts with practical experience. “I was surprised they haven’t had more debates like this,” Sandy, who currently studies at Maastricht’s Center for European Studies, said, “because this one was so well-attended and the speakers were so good.”

Indeed, it was an momentous night for Maastricht, with such distinguished professionals speaking on an extremely important and timely international controversy. For once, it seemed that nothing more interesting or higher-profile was going on in Amsterdam or the Hague: on that Thursday night, Maastricht was the place to be.

If the top-notch quality of this debate is any indication, Maastricht Debates is sure to enjoy a long future. After the debate ended, the Grand Theater slowly emptied out, leaving the audience reflective and thoughtful. Mepham and Pronk’s engagement for Darfur and their firm belief in the power of civil society to help solve international crises was certainly inspiring.

By Jessica Mowles

Note: Jan Pronk will visit Maastricht again in May to speak at a symposium on human rights and peace organised by UNU-MERIT.

Jessica Mowles regularly studies political science at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. During this past semester, she studied gender and development at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and is now studying at Maastricht’s Center for European Studies until June.

Further coverage:

Video of the debate:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8848855987872233617

Related articles: