Darfur's challenge to international society.

The human tragedy of Darfur has now lasted for nearly six years. As David Black and Paul Williams argue in their analysis of this shocking record, the story is one of 'self-interest and risk aversion masked by ethical posturing' on the part of all the key international players who might have provided leadership in response to this crisis. Why is it that major countries as well as international organizations failed to craft more robust responses in spite of their own often good intentions and the almost unprecedented pressure from organizations within civil society? In the context of a discussion of theories of international society the authors conclude that the widespread use of "responsibility to protect" language should not obfuscate the fact that international society remains wedded to the traditional principle of national sovereignty. Change may be coming, but not in time for the people of Darfur.

La tragedie humaine perdure depuis deja bientot six ans au Darfour. Comme l'evoquent David Black et Paul Williams dans l'analyse qu'ils font de ce drame, ce recit est celui >, de la part de tousles principaux acteurs qui auraient pu faire preuve du leadership que cette situation exigeait pourtant. Comment expliquer que tant les pays les plus puissants au monde que les organisations internationales n'aient pu mettre au point des interventions plus energiques, et ce souvent malgre de bonnes intentions et une pression sans precedent de la part d'organisations de la societe civile ? Dans le contexte de cette reflexion sur les theories de la societe internationale, les auteurs en arrivent a la conclusion qu'en depit d'un discours imbu de la notion de la 'responsabilite de proteger', cela n'est pas suffisant pour faire abstraction au fait que la societe internationale choisit de demeurer assujettie au principe de la souverainete nationale. Cela pourrait bien changer, mais malheureusement trop tard pour la population du Darfour.

In April 2008, an international conference was convened in Halifax by the Halifax Branch of the Canadian International Council and the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies of Dalhousie University to assess the response of "international society" (the society of UN Member States and state-based international organizations) to this conscience-shocking crisis. Its participants focused on the time period up to the official start of the "hybrid" UN-African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID) on 1 January 2008. This conference was part of the process of preparing an edited volume entitled International Society and the Crisis in Darfur. Participants in the conference are listed in the Appendix. Their insights have inspired these reflections.

Introduction

It is now nearly six years since the current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan broke in early 2003. Few if any humanitarian crises have achieved greater notoriety in the interim. The calls to 'do something' about Darfur have been persistent and pervasive; the amount of time and energy expended on the issue in diplomatic forums impressive, at least compared to other African conflicts. But what has this activity amounted to, in terms of the nature of the international response to the crisis? And what does it teach us about the current condition and trajectory of international society?

It is easy to be cynical and dismissive about the activity of key actors in international society. Taken together, their actions and inactions add up to a tale of self-interest and risk aversion masked by ethical posturing; of prevarication and procrastination in the face of a supreme humanitarian emergency; of skirmishing over responsibility and accountability in the international response rather than leadership; and of a fundamental lack of commitment and will to respond with an appropriate degree of resources and resolve. Notwithstanding the fact that international efforts have provided significant humanitarian relief and have saved the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands more have experienced dislocation, extreme suffering, and death as international society has debated and delivered its various responses.

Yet it would be a mistake to overlook what is novel about this case and what it illuminates about both continuities and changes in international society. Compared with the international response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, for example, much has changed in the shape of the debate and the use of the very term genocide, despite the tragic inadequacy of international efforts in both cases. It is important to analyze what Darfur teaches us about international society, and to assess what lessons it offers concerning the fundamental question posed by Andrew Linklater: How far can world politics be changed for the better?