The North in general, and Khartoum State in particular, are hell on earth to the internally displaced people of the South Sudan.  But though they face all sorts of human rights violations, all the NGOs [Non-governmental Organizations] and embassies there make abstraction of the whole situation.

The obligation of the UN agencies and bodies, including the United Nations Humanitarian Coordination Unit (UNHCU), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations International Children and Educational Fund (UNICEF), and the World Food Programme (WFP) is to promote and encourage respect for, and observance of, respect for human rights.  This obligation is unequivocally established in the Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1 and 55.  Article 55 makes the obligation of contributing to development and the promotion of human rights explicit for the United Nations.  It echoes the obligation already stated in Article 1 (3) of the Charter, stipulating that the organization has a specific obligation to achieve international cooperation—in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

Sudan is known to be a rogue regime mainly because of terrorism and violations of human rights.  It has received many “letters of concern,” normally addressed by special rapporteurs of human rights to a government against whom a serious violation of human rights has been alleged.  Unfortunately the Sudan has not received any communication concerning the human rights of IDPs.  What is more, the UN representatives in Khartoum do not dare criticize the government of the Sudan when there are serious and widespread violations of human rights. 

Some UN bodies have explicit mandates for dealing with the protection of IDPs.  For example, UNHCR was mandated by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly resolutions 1705 (L100) of 27^th July 1972 and 2958 (xxvii) of 12^th December 1972, respectively, to deal with the IDPs in the Sudan.  In addition, the Executive Committee of UNHCR in its conclusion #75 (1994) and a UNHCR Memorandum for the High Commission (for Refugees) to all of her staff on “UNHCR’s Role with Internally Displaced Persons,” dated 28^th April 1993, indicates that UNHCR has a role to play in this area.  This opinion is the view of the current Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the Sudan, Leonardo France, who was formerly Director of Legal Protection when the organization expressed the view that [t]he protection needs of the displaced population in Sudan are evident.  Also evident is the fact that Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) has not been well positioned to provide them the needed protection.  The Publication concludes that “[t]he need to avoid any possible negative reaction from the Sudanese Government was one of the major considerations in deciding against [an] active UN role in the Sudan.” 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has the potential mandate to contribute to providing protection to IDPs.  It presented proposals to help the government provide for the basic needs of the displaced.  But most of this assistance has been used to displace already displaced persons again.  For example, the government of Sudan requested funding for projects known as Area Rehabilitation Schemes.  When funding was received, however, it was used to provide less than a minimum of services to displaced persons who had been forcefully evicted and their houses demolished by the government. 

Another United Nations body that could contribute to the protection of the IDPs is the UNHCU.  The Secretary General’s Special Rapporteur for IDPs has urged the Resident Coordinator and UNHCU to be responsible for the protection of the IDPs in the Sudan.  UNHCU is under the responsibility of the Resident Coordinator in the Sudan and of the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Sergio Vicira De Mello, at the United Nations headquarters.  While he has accepted a degree of responsibility for the protection of the IDPs, his office in the Sudan has expressly disavowed such responsibility in repeated statements to relief workers, fellow UN employees and the diplomatic personnel in the Sudan.  Like UNHCR, it wishes to “avoid any possible negative reaction from the Sudanese Government.”

To date the record of the UN in protecting IDPs’ rights in the Sudan is not good.  The UN offices in Khartoum have failed to take effective action to prevent the forced displacements or relocations of already displaced persons in and around Khartoum.  Worse, several UN offices have contributed to government’s policies by obstructing the protection efforts of NGOs and governments to protest against these policies.  For example, information concerning human rights abuses is not always sent in good time from UN bodies in Sudan to their headquarters and other bodies dealing with human rights in the Sudan.  Sometimes false information is also circulated to mitigate the pressure that might be put on the government for violating the rights of the IDPs.  A case in point is the case of the UN staff working with UNHCU who told a human rights lawyer that a representative of the government of the Sudan, Minister of Housing and Engineering for Khartoum State, Dr. Sherif Eldin Bannaga, had signed an agreement to provide certain basic human rights to IDPs.  That turned out not to be true.

Among the diplomatic community, few governments have been willing to effectively speak out for the rights of IDPs in the Sudan.  The ambassadors of Germany, France and Italy had even gone far to circulate a “Report on Human Rights in Sudan by the European Union.”  The Report is confidential, but it was leaked to a human rights lawyer by a member of the Green Party in Germany.  The report extols “significant improvements made in the field of human rights by the Sudan”—contrary to all credible evidence.  The few governments, such as the Netherlands, that have had the courage and integrity to openly raise issues concerning the human rights of the IDPs, have been forced to devote their time fighting other governments’ attempts to sweep these problems away from publication.

Among the NGOs operating in Khartoum, there is an increasing hesitance to speak out for the rights of the displaced.   While CARE, SCF-UK and ADRA, among others, have been willing to tolerate the government actions with little questioning, others like MSF [“Medecins Sans Frontieres” or “Doctors Without Borders”]-NL and MSF-FR, who initially spoke out forcefully  against the government policies, are now only at best begrudging advocates of the rights of the displaced.   MSF, which previously employed an international lawyer versed in human rights law, consciously decided not to fill the position when the last post holder’s term ended in early 1999.

The resulting situation leaves IDPs in the Sudan in the vulnerable position already described, while existing avenues of legal action remain under-utilized.  The protection of IDPs in the Sudan thus remains one of the main human rights challenges for the country.  It is also a challenge to the international community, diplomats, NGOs, UN and the people of the Sudan.  More certainly, the only real assistance for the world’s largest population of IDPs will only come when the world’s longest continuously on-going and most deadly war is ended. 

©2000 James Yugu Yangkole