Since 2003, militia forces have been backed by the Sudanese government to systematically commit crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur, the westernmost region of Sudan. Rebels known as the Sudanese Liberation Movement and Justice and Equality Movement charged the government with giving special treatment to Arab over non-Arab Africans. In response, government-backed Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, and later the Rapid Support Forces, waged war on civilians in Darfur.
What does this war look like? Civilians suffered state-sanctioned scorched- earth tactics that include direct attack from land and air, executions, rape, torture, and the pillaging of property, all of which collectively constitute genocide and ethnic cleansing. Instead of disarming the responsible militias and acknowledging state responsibility for the severity of these crimes, the recently ousted President Omar-al Bashir and other senior government officials incorporated the Janjaweed into state security, police, and military forces and hid or denied evidence of their culpability for the genocide in Darfur.
This historical crisis committee will take place from roughly 2004 to 2009 and will focus primarily on ending the genocide and therefore ending the War in Darfur. Unfortunately, almost twenty years later, the War in Darfur and crimes against humanity continue to take place in Darfur; the goal of delegates will be to end the conflict by 2010 and bring into fruition a reality in Darfur where peace, autonomy, and ethnic tolerance are respected. Delegates will be assigned characters belonging to various factions and interests such as the Sudanese Liberation Movement, the Janjaweed, the government in Khartoum, the United Nations and African Union, and diplomats from abroad.
To understand the Darfur genocide is to understand its roots in Sudan’s history of colonialism as well as the evolution of ethnic identities in the region. Following colonialism, the rich and complex histories of identity formation in Darfur were increasingly oversimplified, resulting in a polarized Arab-African dichotomy that is radically inadequate for capturing the diverse ethnic identities of Darfur. This oversimplification has been exacerbated in recent decades, certainly contributing to the beginning of the War in Darfur in 2003. In this committee, delegates should
BERKELEY MODEL UNITED NATIONS expect to research the rich history of Darfur and the ways in which racism, ethnic intolerance, and xenophobia develop into genocide.
For example, what are some of the early warning signs of genocide that are often ignored, hidden, or downplayed? What goals, said or unsaid, does the government of Sudan have in sanctioning war and ethnic cleansing? How did bureaucratic incompetence and vested interests from foreign actors like the United States, Russia, and China delay intervention in the Darfur genocide? How legitimate is the delineation between Arabs and non-Arabs, and what are the dangers of grouping diverse tribes and ethnic groups under one monolithic umbrella of identity? What are the difficulties with or obstacles to labeling events as acts of genocide? Moreover, how do we find balance between using a catch-all definition of genocide and using a definition of genocide that is too narrow?
As you do your research, consider comparing the events in Darfur to other acts of genocide and war. What is especially insidious about Darfur is that it doesn’t look very much like any genocide that history has known before. There are no extermination lists or mobs. Rather, acts of genocide are carried out informally; it’s hard to distinguish governmental incompetence from conspiracy. Whether this is by mistake or by design, it is up to delegates to think critically about the ways to bring an end to it.
BERKELEY MODEL UNITED NATIONS