It's as agonizing as it is tragic. On the verge of what may be genuine peace between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), the Sudanese people are now facing what some claim meet the definition of genocide in Darfur, to the west.

We have written often, in the past decade, about the Sudanese civil war, and Presbyterians — with historic ties to the country — have been engaged in advocacy for a just peace for as long as there has been war. Reconstruction carries with it a big agenda, but we were beginning to envision more hopeful reporting on a country where over two million have died and where hundreds of thousands are either refugees or internally-displaced.

Not yet.

It's not that the situation in Darfur is new. Conflict between Arab and African communities in the region has been around for many years, with clashes often focused over limited resources or over land. As the situation flared up again early in 2003, it became clear that much more was going on than simply a localized conflict about resources. It is the classic situation of Sudan: political marginalization, a mono-cultural approach to a multi-cultural reality, insecurity, severe underdevelopment, religious persecution, and human rights abuses.

This time, the Sudanese Liberation Movement (not to be confused with the SPLM in the South) and the Justice and Equality Movement may rightly be seen as "rebel" movements with military action as part of their tactics, but they have also advanced a set of political demands about underdevelopment and have indicated that they are prepared to negotiate. The response from the Khartoum government has been to bomb targets in Darfur and unleash local Arab militias, known as "janjaweed." Human Rights Watch calls it a "scorched-earth campaign." The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs described "a campaign of systematic torture and rape by militia groups," and a senior UN official recently linked it to "ethnic cleansing."

Several thousand African citizens of Darfur have been killed; there has been widespread looting, especially of cattle; and hundreds of villages have been burned and water sources destroyed. Amnesty International reports that hundreds of women have been raped by the government-backed militias. For the some three million people living in Darfur, and with some 750,000 people displaced persons, food insecurity dominates. There are reports of outbreaks of communicable diseases. In addition, now there are an estimated 110,000 Sudanese who have sought refuge across the border in Chad, a poverty-stricken country with its own political complexities, not the least of which is that the government of Chad has supplied troops to the Sudanese military, and some ethnic groups in Chad may be doing the same with the rebels.

The government of Sudan closed the region to humanitarian relief early in the year. Human Rights Watch reports that "between October 2003 and January 2004, the Sudanese government almost entirely obstructed international assistance to displaced civilians in Darfur — and provided virtually no aid" itself. Even now, Khartoum seems to be continuing its long-standing practice of manipulation of humanitarian aid access.

Finally, Darfur is securing international attention.

Early in April, Chad-mediated peace negotiations were to begin in N'djamena. They did not begin well, the parties declining to speak to one another directly. "The are under the same roof, but not at the same table," one diplomat commented. Chadian officials have now announced that political negotiations will begin in late April.

Simultaneously, a UN human rights fact-finding mission began work in Chad, but the Khartoum government delayed access by the delegation to Darfur.

Another UN investigative team was to undertake an humanitarian assessment mission in mid-April, but the Sudanese government delayed its arrival in Darfur as well, saying they "needed more time."

Dissatisfied with what it considered a watered-down resolution at the recent UN Human Rights Commission, the US has now asked for a special session on Sudan by the Commission.

Nevertheless, there was one April breakthrough when all parties to the conflict agreed to a renewable 45-day ceasefire. That may well be on the verge of collapse, however. The State Department declared that Sudan dropped bombs in Darfur on the first day, though Chadian mediators say the ceasefire is holding. The African Union is now sending monitors to Darfur, their task to see that the ceasefire is honored.

Meanwhile, the Khartoum government and the SPLM have been moving haltingly but encouragingly toward a negotiated peace of the 21-year civil war. While significant hurdles remain, there has been real hope that we are getting close to a comprehensive agreement. Darfur, though not included in the main Sudanese peace negotiations, becomes not only a tragedy in itself, but it marks a serious threat to the overall peace process in Sudan.

President George Bush recently indicated that he had told Sudanese President Omar al Bashir directly that the Sudanese government should "immediately stop local militias from committing atrocities against the local population." His administration, however, has declined to use the word "genocide."

There is, however, no international unanimity on the relation between the SPLM/Khartoum negotiations and the situation in Darfur. Some in Europe especially feel that we are close enough to a settlement that Darfur should not be permitted to delay it. Moreover, some argue, a peace agreement places the SPLM as part of a new Sudanese government, where it can insist that the government cease its war against the African inhabitants of Darfur.

On April 20, 2004, President Bush made the determination that "the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement are negotiating in good faith and that negotiations should continue." This determination seemingly did not take Darfur into account.

Meanwhile, Rep Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) have introduced resolutions (H.Con.Res. 403 and S.Con.Res.99) in Congress condemning the government of Sudan for its "participation and complicity in the attacks against innocent civilians" in Darfur. Both have been referred to committee.

All of this comes at an ironic moment. With the reflections in recent weeks on the 10th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, the decimation of the African population in Darfur led UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to comment that "such reports leave me with a deep sense of foreboding*. Whatever terms it uses to describe the situation," he added, "the international community cannot stand idle."