Sunday, March 8th

I have just arrived in Iraq with two colleagues to study ways in which the U.S., The United Nations and the government of Iraq can work better together to help millions of displaced Iraqis return home. Everybody--Iraqis, U.S. and international officials--agrees that security in Iraq has improved dramatically in the last few months, although there are still acts of violence and other security challenges.

Am Nabak is a fine place for camels. It is rocky and dry, and getting drier. The water table can't support the current population of a few camels and around 17,000 refugees from the war in Darfur, so water is brought in overland by truck. The camp is situated scant 25 kilometers from the Darfur border.  This is too close to the war zone by United Nations standards; it was only supposed to be a transit camp through which refugees passed on their way to more permanent and secure camps. But the refugees have settled in at Am Nabak and, despite the urging of the UN Refugee Agency, prefer to remain close to the border. 

Three years ago the bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque, a Shi’ah holy site in Samarra, triggered a wave of sectarian violence in Iraq that led to massive displacement. At one point five million Iraqis - 20% of the population - was displaced by violence between Sunni and Shi’ah Muslims.

Recently, the displacement has slowed, and in some cases it is reversing.  "Some Iraqis are returning, but their conditions in places of return are extremely difficult," The International Organization for Migration reported in its most recent Emergency Needs Assessment.  "Many returnees are coming back to find destroyed homes and infrastructure in disrepair. Buildings, pipe and electrical networks, and basic public services such as health care centers are all in need of rehabilitation to meet the needs of returning IDP (internally displaced persons) and refugee families."

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has provided Pakistan with $11 billion in military aid, a staggering sum in both absolute terms and when compared with non-military assistance. Not surprisingly, Pakistan wants this financial and logistical support to its armed forces to continue. President Asif Ali Zardari, in a recent Washington Post op-ed, urged the U.S. to “give [Pakistan] the necessary resources – upgrading [their] equipment and providing the newest technology – to fight terrorists…”

The decision to issue an arrest warrant for President Al-Bashir of Sudan by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been the source of many intense discussions here in Sudan at the moment. This will be the first ICC arrest warrant ever issued for a sitting president. Since I arrived in Sudan a couple of weeks ago I have talked with many Sudanese people who are members of civil society and human rights organizations, most of whom are no fans of their president, but who have varying views on the  indictment.

Vice President Joe Biden visited Afghanistan just one week before the inauguration, indicating the new administration’s foreign policy priorities. It is clear that America’s “to do” list in Afghanistan is a long one. But the first order of business should be regaining the trust of Afghans.

After seven years of international presence, the country is still facing tremendous challenges: a weak government, a fledging economy, a serious humanitarian situation and a growing insurgency. As the Vice President himself said on his return, "The truth is that things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they're going to get better.” 

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, knows first hand that peacemaking can be dangerous and difficult.  He dedicated To End A War, his book on the negotiations that ended the war in the Balkans 15 years ago, to three colleagues who died in the early stages of that effort.

In announcing the appointment last week, President Obama said:  “There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al Qaida and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the end of Sudan’s civil war between the north and the south. For two decades armed actors manifested a capacity for calculated brutality and imposition of human suffering on a level that defies description or reasonable comprehension.

Four years after the parties agreed to lay down their weapons there are two important lessons to keep in mind.

The first is that ‘peace’ is not just an absence of war, and that peace-building takes more than just the handshakes and photo-ops that exemplify the signing of accords.  The second is that peace is always possible, even when it is impossible to conceive of how to get there.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was the result of a massive diplomatic push by Sudanese leaders and by the international community, led in large part by the United States. The agreement itself is strong, but far reaching and ambitious.  

This year, however, Sudan stands on the brink of a potentially volatile period in the implementation of that agreement.  We have just entered into the year designated for the first countrywide democratic election, and elections always have the potential to cause controversy and instability.

Barack Obama may not know it, but soon he will have refugees on his mind.

In a recent interview with TIME Magazine, the president-elect talked about the foreign policy priorities that will occupy him and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

"There’s no doubt that managing the transition in Iraq is going to be a top priority," he said.  "Managing a more effective strategy in Afghanistan will be a top priority.  Recognizing that it is not simply an Afghanistan problem but it’s an Afghanistan-Pakistan-India-Kashmir-Iran problem is going to be a priority."  He also said that “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be a priority."

All of these crises are characterized by displacement problems.  Here is a rundown:

President-elect Barack Obama believes that displacement poses both humanitarian and security problems.  A recent article in The New York Times illustrates this point by describing problems caused by angry youths in Sudanese refugee camps.

Some 2.7 million people in the Darfur region of Sudan have been displaced by five years of civil war, and many of them live in vast camps.  “Increasingly angry and outspoken about their uncertain fate, the generation that came of age in the camps is challenging the traditional sheiks, upending the age-old authority structure of their tribal society and complicating efforts to achieve peace,” The Times reported over the weekend.

The story caught my eye because it highlights a serious problem:  long stays in camps—either as refugees out of their countries or displaced within their own countries—can radicalize youth.  We have seen this over the years with Palestinians and with Afghan refugees, and we could well see it with displaced Iraqi youths who are living in increasingly desperate conditions.