Slavery in Sudan

 

The problem of slavery in Sudan still persists and tends to continue in the future. We have discussed that part of the tragedy stems from the Sudanese government itself that takes no responsibility about it. The Sudanese president, Omar el-Bashir, argued that "human rights conditions in Sudan now better than in many countries." In fact, he was upset with international criticism, which accuses the government of human rights abuse in many aspects. Little pressure from the international community seems to draw the Sudanese government further away from addressing the problem to just save its face. The denial of the government about the problem shows its irresponsibility and indifference. We now have to question the pressure of the international actors if it is an effective way to disrupt the cycle of human rights abuse in Sudan. There are many relieves provided non-governmental organizations. However, their solutions do not really correct the problem at its root.

The Role of the United Nations:

In January, the United Nations Human Rights Commission organized a seminar that lasted for 6 days. The meeting also invited high-ranking Sudanese security officers. "The seminar for 35 security and police officers, which ended Saturday, was the first joint activity between an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) recently established in Sudan to promote expertise in rights protection and promotion, and the Sudanese government", the statement said. The discussion includes the issues like democracy and Islamic and international law. The seminar was held due to a concern of the Sudanese government regime that has been criticized on human rights record and ignoring the slavery problem.

The UN has made an effort to bring an understanding and raise an awareness to the Sudanese government about the on-going problem. However, until now the government seems unresponsive to this awareness. The further step that the UN take is involved with the humanitarian issue.

The UN has also called for humanitarian access upon the continuing civil war that has killed innumerable lives and destroyed civilian properties. In Febuary, UN Food agency protested the Sudanese government for bombing a village in southern Sudan shortly after they delivered food to the civilians. They condemned this inhuman action that led to deaths and casualties. A UN human rights invetigator pointed out that the protection of oilfield of foreign companies has also exacerbated the human rights abuse and the bombing campaign of the government. The southern people had to run away from the oilfields, where bombing kept continuing. They tried urging the government to stop bombing on civilian targets.

According to the most recent reports provided by World Food Programme (WFP), posted on April 5, 2002 on ReliefWeb: The UN World Food Programme today strongly condemned the decision by the Governement of Sudan to deny access of WFP flights to 43 locations in southern Sudan, which will prevent about 1.7 million people from receiving humanitarian assistance. Most of the 43 locations to where flights have been denied are located in areas where the populations are extremely vulnerable due to insecurity and drought. These people rely heavily on relief assistance, and the latest flight denial will result in further displacement of thousands of people. Populations in need will be forced to move towards a dwindling number of areas where they can be assisted. Of the 1.7 million people affected by the flight denial imposed by the Sudanese Government, 470,000 depend on food assistance provided by the WFP. Due to insecurity, WFP teams are deployed in villages for short periods of time to coordinate and monitor the distribution of food, in what are know as “hit and run” operations. The imposition of the flight bans makes such operations impossible leaving some of the most vulnerable people in southern Sudan without food assistance, and compromising their very survival.

This interference with humanitarian relief follows an aerial bombing on the civilian village of Bieh, Western Upper Nile, on February 20, 2002 by a GOS military helicopter which killed 24 civilians, and wounded many others as they stood in line to receive emergency food. This attack followed other similar bombings just five and ten days earlier at other distribution stations in Nimne, western Upper Nile, and Akuem, Bahr el Ghazal. Importantly, it should be noted that Humanitarian missions in Sudan also include medical and disease control relief. Recent workers have been denied access to deliver badly needed polio vaccinations and guinea worm treatment. Polio is becoming widespread, but with aid could be controlled and eradicated within a few years. Guinea worm is also currently a widespread medical affliction, but is treatable with medication.

Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), the umbrella operation for UN and nongovernmental agencies operating in Sudan, each month submits a request to the Sudanese government for humanitarian access to a number of locations in war-torn southern Sudan. "There were currently a total of 44 locations, including the 19 locations under discussion, in southern Sudan which the government of Sudan had placed off-limits to aid agencies", Melo (a spokeswoman of the World Food Programme) said. Further more, the senior of the United Nations Humanitarian officers called for full humaniatarian access that can grant food and non-food items to the civilians. Approximately over a million people are dependent upon relief assitance for survival.

Apparently, the UN has emphasized the issues of humanitarian access, which is caused by the civil war rather than taking a stronger action to end the cause of the problem. Despite, having the declaration of human rights, the UN can bring little pressure to the government that has a record of severe human rights abuse. Although providing food and other necessities are as important as freedom and security to people, they can do more than demanding for a halt to human rights violations because it doesn't actually bring an end to slavery and other kinds of inhuman practices. However, we still have to take the role of other countries into account. Without further international corporation, the goal may seem hard to achieve. We also want look at the role of others that may either lessen or strengthen the human rights abuse problem.

The Role of the United States and other Countries:

The United States - On January 19, 2002, the Government of the Republic of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement/ Nuba, signed a formal cease-fire agreeement. Special envoy to Sudan, John Danforth, an American senator, sent to Sudan in September, 2001, is largely creditted with brokering this first break in the shooting in 19 years. The two sides were required to accept four conditions for the United States to aid in the negotiations and support of the agreement. Three conditions were actually met: 1) two sides ceased fighting in the Nuba Mountains, 2) ceasefire long enough to innoculate children, and 3) investigations begun into the flourishing of slavery tied to the war. The fourth condition remains unmet, The agreement is an important step, but should not be misunderstood to be a peace treaty. Many groups and countries would like to see a viable peace treaty follow, but time is of the essence, and thus far a negotiable peace settlement for this worn-torn nation has yet to appear on the horizon. Both sides still signal more of a willingness to negotiate than has surfaced for many years though. Some have suggested that it would be beneficial for SPLA leaders, such as John Garang, to take earnest steps toward reconfiguring the SPLA’s presentation of itself as a serious capable governement for the south, rather than just as a militia. There could be no better time to prove their ability to support an autonomous government for south Sudan than now, within the peace negotiation process.

This is, in fact, expected to be a step forward peace, yet it is not promised to be an end to slavery practice. As a result, the two sides have stopped fighting in the Nuba mountains. Danforth proposed four conditions to maintain a nation-wide ceasefire. However, the forth condition, which demands for stopping bombing the south was denied because the Sudanese president made an excuse that the SPLA keeps blowing up the oil pipelines.

As I said earlier that the U.S. also proposed a formular that cannot never be taken seriously. "One country, two systems" will lead to multiple states. According to the formula, the one in the north will be exercised by an Islamic government, while a secular one will control the south. The reason that this formular will hardly happen is because Egypt, which is an American ally, does not want multiple states controlling the Nile.

Although we think that the formular (if achieved) will be the best way to guarantee the rights of southern blacks, the U.S. choose to pursue a way that is far less affecting its national interest. The U.S. formed an international team of experts investigating slavery and abductions in Sudan that includes fact-finding mission. Its conduct was also supported by human rights groups. The team met government officers, SPLA representatives, local leaders and international non-governmental organizations.

Further more, the U.S. sent a civillian demining team to Sudan to clear the disputed area. The U.S. has pretty much the same role as the UN that concerns about civilian casualties. The U.S. seems to have enough power in negotiating with the Sudanese government in many respects. One of the reasons is that the Sudanese government is also seeking removal from America's list of terrerist states. Especially after September 11th, the U.S. passes ban on visitors from state sponsors of terrorism. Although, the Sudanese government shows its willingness to listen to Mr. Danforth as his 3 proposals were met, the U.S. does not show a strong effort to end the cause of slavery problem through the formula it came up. It is because it may threaten the U.S. interest in Sudan.

Like Sudan that control large natural resources, Libya has a lot of oil in control, while the Egypt is one of the most powerful Arab countries. The U.S. and the three countries are interdependent.

The economic interest is the serious issue that has involved in many foreign countries' interest. This is why it is much harder to find any foreign government to take a strong action against the Sudanese government. Economic sanction might not be a wise alternative for them. Apparently, there are more and more multinational companies coming into Sudan to tap its mineral wealth, especially oil and gas.

Economic interest of foreign investors has played an important role in maintaining the stability of the Islamic government that largely earns revenues through oil exports and continuing the slave trade. Russia and China seem to be the least active actor in promoting human rights in Sudan. In January, Sudan and a leading Russian oil company signed an agreement for oil and gas exploration deal, which is worth around 200 million dollars. The oil company called Slavneft is largely owned by the Russian government. "We are proud and happy to sign this agreement and hope that this first joint work will not be the last. ... There are vast oil reserves in this country," Gutseriyev ( the president of Slavneft) said.

The relationship between the Sudanese government and the Russian government goes even deeper as they began to draft an intergovernmental agreement on military-technical cooperation. The agreement is aimed to develope the political and military cooperation between both nations. Russia has provided cheap armaments and military materials to the Sudanese national army since 1970's. Russian business has been really active in this country for a long time. It tends to continue inthe future. Beyond economic incentive, a political motivation plays a big role in pursuing the strong relationship, despite its record of human rights violation. The Russian defence minister said, "Sudan is not under any sanctions, and we have the right to develop neighbourly relations with it"

The Role of Non-governmental Organizations:

As slavery continues still into the year 2002 in Sudan, a controversy surrounds its practice, which questions the integrity of the efforts to eradicate the heinous human trade. Several organizations began several years ago to raise large sums of money donated by Westerners, individuals and organizations, to fund the “buy back” of slaves in Sudan in order to set them free. This continuing practice known as “slave redemption” has stoked heated debates, firstly as a matter of principle pertaining to the inherent morality of participating in the “buying” of human slaves, and financially compensating their captors. Secondly, and even more controversial is the contention that this practice not only does not curtail the practice of slavetrading, but actually fuels it, boosting its desirability by way of its lucrative financial reward. Many organizations have ceased their participation in slave redemption, but some organizations, the most well-known being Christian Solidarity International (CSI), continue to defend this practice as humanitartian, measuring its value by their success in the arranged release into freedom of thousands of victims of slavery in Sudan. However, reliable eye-witness sources from aid-workers, to human rights monitors, to missionary priests, to leaders of rebel movements claim that slave redemption has more to do with corruption and deception by rebel leaders and militia commanders. They have created a lucrative business that has less to do with freeing slaves, than lining the pockets of the leaders and funding their money-deprived militias for such goods as arms, vehicles, and sustenance. One such account representative of the cons being carried out on Western emissaries follows:

A Western visitor meets in a remote village with a man whose face is obscured by a turban -- the middleman, an Arab trader who has smuggled the slaves from captivity in the north. Between them are stacks of local currency. Under a nearby tree, scores -- and lately, hundreds -- of children and women wait to be told they are now free. But in come cases, according to witnesses and rebel officials, the slaves weren’t slaves at all, but people gathered locally and instructed to pretend they were returning from bondage. An aid worker told of recognizing several children in such a group in the village of Tualei in lated 1998. Two of them were still wearing plastic wrist bands that entitled them to meals from the local feeding center, the worker said. One of the criticisms of the slave redemption practice is that there is no real account of the number of people taken in raids and being held in slavery. One of the biggest criticisms is that “no one knows how many people have been taken in raids. The more thant 60,000 slaves that CSI says it has paid for is four times the number of slaves compiled by name by one group of tribal chiefs -- and eight times the number of active cases estimated by the British branch of the group Save the Children.” CSI continues to believe in its slave redemption missions, dismissing the many allegations that slave-redemption is a widespread, lucrative, corrupt business. John Eibner, a senior official of CSI claimed, “Sure, wherever there is money there is the possibility of fraud...What I find most odd is that the journalists and independent reserchers that came with us did not find the same.” Presently, CSI maintains its position of legitimacy and continues its fund-raising campaigns and slave-redemption missions to Sudan.

Although Human Rights Watch and other participating NGOs have persistently called on the government to take steps to end slavery and slave-trading by prosecuting offenders, little has been done to stop the practice. For some time the government has denied the existence of slave-trading in the Sudan, minimizing the extent of the activity, and identifying any admitted activity as hostage-taking by rival tribes. The United Nations, involved human rights organizations and NGOs refused to accept this aberration, and Sudan's denials of it. The Sudan government has laws on its books protecting against kidnapping, assault, and forced labor, but law enforcement officials have persistently failed to assist families in finding abducted family members, or prosecuting the abductors. No prohibitions against slavery exist "in the Sudan Criminal Code of 1991, though Sudan ratified the Slavery Convention, the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, and is a party to the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as other international treaties oulawing slavery."