Humanitarian Aid and the World’s Darfurs
Gabriela Balbín writes:
After decades of drought and abandonment, rebellion broke out in Sudan’s Western Darfur region in 2002. Chaos spread, as rebel groups made up of Darfur’s farming population fought against the nomadic Arab tribes supported by the Sudanese military. These militias under the response of Sudan’s government started what the world would later categorize as ‘ethnic cleansing’, or genocide against Africans in Darfur. Twice in 2004, the government tried to demobilize the Janjaweed militias, but genocide and human rights violations continued. Over the past eight to ten years, we have seen how this ambiguous conflict has played out.
In 2004, President Bush labeled the crisis in Darfur as genocide. As a result of civil activism and widespread media attention, ‘Save Darfur’ became an international phenomenon, as advocates around the world called for justice and pressured their nation’s leaders to take action. However, many argue that the international community has ‘failed to unite behind a collective response’. Although the signing of the Doha Peace Agreement occurred in 2011, it has left no clear distinction as to who should be blamed for allowing these mass atrocities to continue for so long. Despite international efforts coordinated through humanitarian assistance, we see that the situation in Darfur has not improved substantially. In 2012, the Peace and Conflict Executive Summary released by the University of Maryland stated that Darfur is no. 4 on the list of countries at risk for genocide and politicide. 40% of post-conflict regions are said to experience disorder and violence again within ten years.
In Giles Bolton’s book, Africa Doesn’t Matter, he addresses the question that many of us ask ourselves: “If billions are being thrown into countries plagued by crisis, poverty, and underdevelopment, where is this money going? Why aren’t the results more significant?” Among the ‘big spender’ international institutions in 2005, the World Bank spent $3,511 million, the European Commission $3,144 million, and the United Nations $1,278 million in African aid alone in 2005. In 2005, $9 billion was also funneled to Africa through international institutions in Western taxpayer’s dollars.
Now we ask, how has this aid played out? Are there significant poverty reductions, and are countries with histories of violence more stable? As an international community, have we been able to stabilize Darfur and the greater Sudan region? Here’s a look at some of the results:
The critical actors and institutions responsible for this international policy include the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, the African Development Bank, and the United Nations. Within the United Nations, there are a slew of agencies that are mostly autonomous in nature with overlapping agendas. These include the UNDP, UNAID, UNHCR, UNICEF, OCHA, FAO, WFP, WHO, UNFPA, UNIDO, UNESCO, UNECA, UNIFEM, and ILO – all of which provide regional assistance in Africa. It is estimated that only about 30% of Africa’s aid is channeled through these international institutions, despite the amount of attention these organizations receive worldwide for providing assistance during times of crisis.
It is important to analyze what has affected the ability of international institutions to raise funds for humanitarian assistance and stability in Darfur. Global leaders are known to show reluctance in channeling large amounts of aid through agencies of the UN, due to its inability to directly control without being checked by a democratic and equally representative body. However, the U.S. controls much of the World Bank, as it is one of its major creditors. China has been reluctant to coordinate aid towards the Darfur crisis, as it relies heavily on Sudanese oil exports. The Arab League has sent mixed messages, as it has backed the Sudanese government in blocking humanitarian assistance in Darfur, but has also condemned the government for allowing training camps for Arab mujahedeen (including Osama bin Laden himself) to operate in the region.
In an age where globalization, multilateral cooperation, and the ability to stabilize tumultuous countries is of concern to all international global actors, I am interested in analyzing the effects of aid expenditure by international organizations, and the result they have on regions of conflict and crisis.
To frame this as a question, as regional violence escalates, how effective are international aid institutions in providing humanitarian assistance to stabilize regions in crisis?
Starting with Darfur, I intend to use this case study to answer my question. My next goal is to look for two or three distinct regions plagued by crisis, in order to further assess the importance of international aid worldwide.
Useful Links:
1. Council on Foreign Relation’s Interactive Darfur Crisis Guide: http://www.cfr.org/sudan/crisis-guide-darfur/p13129
2. Council on Foreign Relation’s Armed Conflict Issue Brief: http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/global-regime-armed-conflict/p24180
3. Africa Doesn’t Matter by Giles Bolton: http://books.google.com/books?id=PgyB_LId8JYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
4. The Doha Document for Peace in Darfur: http://unamid.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMID/DDPD%20English.pdf
5. Peace and Conflict Executive Summary:
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/executive_summary/exec_sum_2012.pdf
6. World Bank Data:
http://data.worldbank.org/country/sudan
Recent Comments: