What factors cause Internally Displaced Person (IDP) camps to become militarised? This paper looks at the case of Darfur and finds that different contexts of its IDP and refugee gatherings determine the extent and nature of militaristic activity within them.
The paper draws on information from a wide range of sources including human rights reports, humanitarian overviews and political analyses. Interviews were also conducted with Darfurians and staff of national and international organizations working in Darfur, security and incident reports were also consulted.
Key findings:
- There are two main factors that determine civilian security in the context of violent conflict: first, the actions and motives of the parties involved in the conflict; and second, the steps that civilians take to protect themselves from its direct and indirect consequences. The actions of all local actors in Darfur—political, military, and civilian—are coloured by their expectations of, or reactions to, international actors. A significant amount of the current volatility of Darfur can be directly attributed to groups vying for position and prominence in the eyes of the international community. The emphasis of the international community on military responses to the Darfur conflict has exacerbated militarization in the region. Political consultation has given priority to military rather than civilian leaders, and support has focused primarily on physical protection.
- Darfur’s largest IDP camps, primarily in the relatively stable, government-controlled areas, are highly politicized but do not appear to be militarized. The activities of actors associated with government and armed factions in these camps seem aimed at political rather than military objectives. Intertribal conflict, however, is a serious concern, and self-defence strategies may be the greatest risk factor for militarization. Camps in areas controlled by armed factions are the most consistently militarized, with little or no distinction between military and civilian space. The nature of the relationship between the faction and the civilian population dictates whether the control is coercive or voluntary.
- Camps along the Chad–Sudan border are the most susceptible to use for military objectives, with the gatherings closest to the border serving as rear bases for cross-border incursions and recruitment. IDPs in rural areas are the most vulnerable to both random and targeted violence, far from the eye of the international community. They are preyed upon, along with the resident population, by a range of actors including armed factions, the Government of Sudan (GoS) military, and militias. In these areas there is a high risk of militarization for self-defence purposes.
- The international community has failed to provide adequate protection in Darfur’s IDP camps and gatherings. The focus on immediate physical protection and monitoring has left a gap in the development of strategies for prevention and for the follow-up of protection issues. The notion of ‘protection by presence’, a core part of the UN protection strategy, has a limited, but inadequate, effect. There are not enough protection officers with a clear mandate currently on the ground, and there is too much reliance on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to carry the burden of protection.
