us government cuts aid to darfur

Sometimes, in their eagerness, those who are working for peace and stability make choices which, while usually good-intentioned, end up hurting those others who most need assistance. That, at least, is the generous version of what the United States government chose to do recently in the Sudan.

In its budget request for 2008, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reduced disaster assistance funding for Sudan by about 30%. Here is an excerpt of the US administration’s explanation to Congress:

The signing of three peace agreements in Sudan promises a gradual transition of the country from a state of crisis to reconstruction. Congruent with anticipated progress, $50.0 million of Sudan’s programs previously funded through the IDFA account are requested in the ESF account in FY 2008.

So what does this bit of bureaucratic jargon mean?

IDFA (International Disaster and Famine Assistance) funds are designated “for the management of humanitarian relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance to countries affected by natural and man-made disasters.” This is the money that NGOs and other actors are using to implement critical humanitarian programs for the people of Darfur. The US government is transferring $50 million (30% of last year’s Sudan IDFA funding) to programs focused “on providing economic support under special economic, political, or security conditions.” It will be channeled into very traditional economic development programs in areas where insecurity is not a problem and basic human needs are already met – i.e. not Darfur.

In making this decision, some persons in the US government have seen evidence of two things of which I, as a first-hand observer, was completely unaware and have used these as a justification for a massive shift in funding priorities.

1. “The signing of three peace agreements in Sudan…” I can only assume they are referring to the 2005 Naivasha Agreement to end the long-running war in the South, the May 2006 agreement in Darfur, and, maybe, an agreement in the East (?). While not privy to the US government’s definition of a “peace agreement”, only one of those, the 2005 agreement with the South, seems to be either viable or successful. That leaves two others, one completely failed and the other largely irrelevant, as markers of peace and stability. The first, the 2006 Darfur agreement, was signed by one rebel group (SLA-Mini Minawi) and has led to, if anything, an increase in violence and suffering.
2. “…gradual transition from a state of crisis to reconstruction.” Gradual indeed! While the 2005 agreement in the South has led to long-awaited peace in that region (long before this budget request and therefore not a significant factor), the Darfur crisis only shows signs of getting worse before it gets better. Further, most Sudanese that I have talked to are very confident that this country will still be at war in 20 years: “If not in the West, than in the East.”

Call it what you like – shrewd political maneuvering, foreign policy adjustment, heartless betrayal, or mistaken analysis – the reality is the same. Under the pretext of a mythical shift towards peace and stability, the US government is moving $50 million dollars towards “economic reconstruction” of a country it has placed under perhaps the most severe set of economic sanctions in the world.

I realize that this money is most likely aimed at reconstruction in South Sudan, in support of the CPA (or Naivasha Agreement). Yet, be that as it may, it does not change the fact that the administration has, in the process, moved money away from a dire humanitarian crisis at a time when hopes of a peaceful resolution appear dimmer than ever before. As a result, several NGOs are facing severe funding shortfalls. If the US were giving the funds to another, even-more-desperate region – say, Somalia – I could be placated. But, taking money from Darfur and moving it to economic reconstruction? Wow.

It is yet more evidence of the US government’s schizophrenic relationship with the Sudan – a relationship which sees the Americans severely criticizing and sanctioning the current government over its policies in Darfur while at the same time building ever closer ties between the CIA and Sudanese intelligence services in support of the so-called “War on Terror”.