What is the current situation in Darfur?

Violence continues across Sudan, Chad, and the Central African Republic and we’ve seen another increase in Janjawid attacks recently in Nyala, South Darfur state. There are now more than 4 million IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) in Sudan, and a further 300,000 Darfuri refugees in camps along the Chad-Darfur border and in Eastern Chad. The situation of the camps grows increasingly tenuous due to physical and environmental insecurity; the external environmental shows the effects of deforestation up to 30k around the camps, and we’re seeing growing levels of violence and banditry around camps and on convoy routes, disrupting delivery. With the South Sudan referendum in just over a year, violence in South Sudan is also a concern.

What happened when the NGOs were expelled?

The refugee and IDP crisis was worsened by the government’s expulsion of 13 international NGOs following the issuance of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against al-Bashir in March this year. Since the expulsion, basic humanitarian operations have been rebuilt but services for survivors of sexual violence are now non-existent, due to government obstruction.
At the same time, there is insufficient protection for women and girls within the camps, and attacks continue when women and girls have to leave the camps to collect firewood and water.

What is the role of the ICC?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant in March 2009 for President Omar al-Bashir on two counts of war crimes and five of crimes against humanity. This follows two ICC arrest warrants in May 2007 for Sudan’s Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmed Haroun, and Janjawid ‘colonel of colonels’ Ali Kushayb.
The ICC has formally asked its signatories and the Government of Sudan to make the arrests, but without an ICC police force, we’re dependent on the international community. Former South African President Thabo Mbeki recently led a High-Level panel on Darfur as part of the AU Peace and Security Council, recommending hybrid courts to deal with war crimes in Darfur. These recommendations have been designed to keep the al-Bashir government in power, and has many serious flaws, including failure to address the root causes of the Darfur conflict and lack of accountability.

What is the Obama Policy Review?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the Obama administration’s Sudan Policy Review on October 19th, a significant detour from the policy Obama campaigned on. The new policy of engagement has identified the humanitarian situation in Darfur as ‘US strategic objective #1′, but talks of ‘stabilizing’ the current untenable living conditions of IDPs/refugees, and fails to explicitly mention sexual violence. Whilst the new policy recommits to ending impunity, the government has chosen to engage with a head of state who is under indictment from the International Criminal Court, and has a record of reneging on his commitments to the international community.

What role can the international community play?

If the new Obama Sudan policy is going to work, the ‘stick’ of multilateral sanctions is essential – these sanctions need to be put in place now, to encourage that Government of Sudan to continue to engage with the Obama administration and wider international community. The US claims this is not possible because key European players like the UK and France won’t commit to these sanctions, however, without multilateralism the Obama policy will certainly fail.
Furthermore, Khartoum’s compliance must be monitored on the ground, and the international community must share the oversight role here, in addition to continuing current diplomatic efforts, spread between funding the humanitarian mission, the ICC case, and addressing the ongoing violence in Chad/Darfur.

What should students be doing?

The most direct, and most powerful, impact you can have is by supporting the Darfuris in the UK. Over 1,000 Darfuris live in the UK, many of whom live in fear of deportation to Khartoum where they face torture and possible murder. Please write to Jack Straw and the Home Office to stop this travesty of deportation. Contact the Darfur People’s Union of the UK, and find out what you should be doing and what you could achieve. For political impact, you need to write to Gordon Brown, David Miliband, and the new UK ambassador to the UN Mark Lyle Grant, to advocate for recommendations to improve the function of UN agencies, humanitarian services, and international NGOs. See darfuriwomen.org and Physicians for Human Rights’ report Nowhere to Turn: Failure to Protect, Support and Assure Justice for Darfuri Women for more information.

Jo Read is the Eric Reeves Fellow in Human Rights Studies at Harvard

There have been 402 British fatalities so far in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Just a fortnight ago, on Sunday 24th October at least 10, 000 Stop the War protesters descended upon central London to renew calls for troop withdrawals from these Middle Eastern war zones.
The man who was in charge of the British Army at the time of the Iraq invasion in 2001, General Sir Mike Jackson has his own opinions. ‘Those who protest – they’re perfectly entitled to do it, we’re a democracy. But that doesn’t worry the soldiers one iota.’ However, the General does acknowledge that the soldiers are not fully immune to opinions back home. ‘A sense of mums, dads and girlfriends saying ‘I’m not sure about this’ – that can have an effect.’

Nonetheless, General Sir Jackson, for one, remains utterly convinced by the need for British presence in Afghanistan. Though protesters argue that western presence heightens antagonisms and plays into al-Qaeda’s rhetoric, the General sees it differently. ‘My understanding of where the Afghan people are in their approach to their new era – a resurgent Taliban, foreign forces present – they probably regard it as the lesser of two evils. They do not want to go back to that ghastly authoritarian regime.’

The General’s army career began straight out of university in the Intelligence Corps. A Russian speaker, he combined intelligence and strong leadership, through distinguished efforts in campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, to reach the position as Chief of the General Staff in 2001. The General’s forthright views have ensured that, in his retirement, he has been kept busy by appearances on news and discussion programmes and as a speaker. His reputation for the brutal truth has meant that he has directly criticised the Ministry of Defence’s handling of these wars.

‘Not everything in the garden is rosy. There is no panacea.’

But circumstances have changed. ‘There were problems with equipment at the beginning of the Iraq war… But huge strides have been made and soldiers’ equipment is now quite excellent. That’s not to say that everything in the garden is rosy… but there is no panacea. There’s no magic wand, and some people think that there is.’

That’s not to say that the General’s fire has abated. He still rails against modern government, and in doing so betrays his dedication to the interests of the army. Like any leader, he fights tirelessly for his troops, ever demanding more of others to help them.
‘The difficulty we have in the politics of right now is that governments listen to focus groups, as opposed to really getting strong political leadership. We’ve got to make this thing work.’ He hones his attack. ‘The soldiers, without doubt, think they’re at war. Whether the government is putting the right amount of political effort and concentration into the Afghan campaign, I remain unconvinced.’

Not only this, but he believes that our political debate is also heading in the wrong direction.
‘We need to look at big strategic questions’ explains Sir Mike, labelling the debates on ‘what to cut’ as a ‘puerile approach’.
However, the man who consistently and unashamedly pursues the army’s interests, the man who indeed earned the nickname ‘Darth Vader’ throughout his army career, sees the need for diplomacy also. He lists ‘economists, diplomats, engineers’ as crucial to any war.

As I talk to Sir Mike, his patriotism shines through. ‘Armies reflect their nations – they’re bound to, they’re drawn from them. And they come with the values and the culture of that nation… Our shared values are those of democracy, that’s the bedrock.’ Is this problematic, given greater European integration and the presence of coalition forces? He does not believe so. ‘Brits don’t see the world through quite the same prism as the French… if it’s a problem, it’s a problem you work with. Because it’s a problem you can’t solve.’ Equally, any European force is, by nature, ‘ultimately under their national governments’, which means that these developments trouble Sir Mike little.

His passionate defence of the British Army and his unapologetic support for British presence in Afghanistan, not to mention the ‘Darth Vader’ nickname, might conjure the image of a bloodthirsty warmonger. However, General Sir Mike Jackson doesn’t strike you this way. ‘Armies’ roles arguably are more complex and broader than the traditional view of unconditional victory and all of that’, he muses. Does that mean that with terrorism changing the method of modern warfare, that we’re at a stage where armies are becoming antiquated or redundant? An unequivocal answer. ‘No. Would that we were, Heaven on Earth would’ve arrived. But we’re not there.’

For the future then, Sir Mike has different views for Iraq and Afghanistan. ‘On Iraq, my glass is half full.’ He points to the resources and education of the Iraqi people, and their liberation from Saddam Hussein, ‘It is an extraordinary country and could have a splendid future.’ However, Afghanistan has fewer resources and less education. Therefore, he sees it as ‘much more problematic.’ This is cruelly ironic, as ‘the outcome is far more important as well. The consequences of failure in Afghanistan I find to be chilling.’

Whatever our troops are bound to face, they are sure to have a dedicated champion for their causes in their former leader. Independent, forthright and fair, General Sir Mike Jackson lives and breathes the British Army, and indeed exudes its best qualities and idiosyncrasies, such as a penchant for euphemisms.
Finally, a wry smile to my provocative question: Are the British Army the best in the world? ‘How could I say anything but yes?’

So, you’re an only slightly tarnished young thing, not yet world-weary and about to graduate? You were thinking of some sort of career in public service, perhaps with a view to elected office one day? Who wants to be a banker any more, eh? Child molesting seems only marginally less attractive.

Actually no. When I was at the other place -on the Cam-last month the dons said their students are still gagging to become greedy bankers. For heaven’s sake, concentrate. Where do you think MPs got their misplaced sense of entitlement to their little expenses fiddles, but from businessmen, TV execs, senior civil servants-the people they mingle with every day-all sucked into the City’s bogus, bonus culture?

Let’s start again. I was at the Oxford Union the other evening and my audience seemed admirably high-minded. So let’s assume you’ve been only mildly put off by politicians’ shabby behaviour lately and by the new series of The Thick of It. You glimpsed it through a Halloween hangover and thought that Peter Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker/Alastair Campbell figure was even more cynical and offensive than before?

Don’t give up. Politics is not that bad, it rarely is. I don’t deny that Cambridge graduate Alastair bullied and swore a bit, but deep down he remains idealistic, even vulnerable. Honest, why else would he drink the way he used to do?
As for the expenses row, squalid and demeaning though it was for many MPs (how many? We still don’t really know), it can be seen in a faintly positive light. Rather like the nuclear waste industry we’re better off for knowing the murky stuff than by remaining in ignorance.

By global standards (are there any others nowadays?) there is also something comically modest about the size of British MPs rascally ambitions. Moats? Duck ponds? Did no one think of stealing UK Plc’s pension fund? After all, Robert Maxwell was once an MP. Why do our EU neighbours do their trousering with such finesse?

Besides, there will be an election soon, probably on May 6th. Gordon Brown’s government is all but certain to be ejected, though few detect much positive enthusiasm for whatever it is (it varies from week to week) that Bullingdon Club’s Dave ‘n’ George are offering the voters. This is no 1997 moment, no mass misplaced infatuation with a new leader, one doomed to sour as it did.

But democracy’s removal van is always a cathartic moment, cleansing the body politic and offering the prospect of a new beginning. The present parliament has made mistakes and will pay the price. Be gone! The new government will end in tears too, eventually, though not before it’s done some good things and a few really STUPID ones.

Politics isn’t a morality play, all the good or bad on one side. It’s a bunch of egotistical, but mostly well-intentioned chaps (usually chaps, it’s contact sport) struggling to master the relentless torrent of events and impose fragments of their vision of the good society. All this in an age of heartless, value-free 24/7 news channels which would transmit their own granny’s murder if the pics were any good.
Yes, I know all sorts of people have all sorts of ideas about using the crisis to create a ‘new politics.’ But that’s like wanting to create a ‘new football.’ You can amend the rules, stamp out bad practice, seek to make management of the game fairer. But at 3 o’clock on a Saturday it’s still 22 blokes on a muddy field slogging it out for the ball.

Just so politics, a noble calling. After all, who is probably the most admired person on the planet today? Nelson Mandela, I suspect, a very wily old politician who succeeded in reallocating society’s goods on an heroic scale with minimal bloodshed. That’s what great politics is about.

So an elected House of Lords, an STV voting system for the Commons, select committees with more teeth or MPs paid the average manual wage, may all contribute to a better politics – or may not. Beware of panaceas, they usually do more harm than good.

But do get involved. And by the way, it would be helpful if you first got elected as a local councillor. They need your talents badly.