Darfur is a region the size of France and is located 1,000 kilometres from Sudan’s capital city, Khartoum. The current conflict in Darfur has its roots in a history of internal tension between different ethnic groups, often as a result of competition for dwindling resources.

Since the 1990s, Arab herders in the region have used arms as a means of control and to gain access to land for their livestock. This has led to increasing clashes between these nomadic Arab communities and the non-Arab villagers, members of the Fur, Masalit, Zaghawa and numerous other ethnic groups.

The ‘Arab’ or ‘non-Arab’ labels have been applied in Darfur as a means of characterising the two dominant parties to conflict; or at times, the labels have also been used to manipulate tensions in the region and in the international community.

The Arab or non-Arab description is not, however, always accurate. It has led to frequent oversimplifications and misunderstandings of the conflict. Arabs and non-Arab ethnic groups have lived peacefully in the past and have intermingled. The current problems must be viewed in light of strain on resources and imbalances of political power in various regions of Sudan.

In early 2003, two Darfurian rebel groups – the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) – launched an insurgency with the aim of gaining greater economic and political representation for Darfur.

In response, a counter-insurgency campaign was carried out by the janjaweed – a government-armed militia made up largely of Arab herders. The janjaweed militia targeted civilian communities from the same ethnic groups as SLA and JEM members – largely Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

Wide spread killing, looting,destruction of crops and homes led to the displacement of nearly two million people. In turn, the SLA and JEM rebel groups attacked civilians and government institutions, and raided livestock and commercial goods.

In April 2004, a ceasefire was negotiated for Darfur with the help of neighbouring Chad, the African Union (AU), the European Union and the United States. However all parties to the conflict continually broke the agreement, and violence continued with impunity.

Two UN resolutions were passed on Darfur – Resolution 1556 (30 July 2004) and Resolution 1564 (18 September 2004). The first required the government of Sudan to disarm the janjaweed. The second called for an expansion of the AU monitoring force and declared that the UN Security Council would consider imposing sanctions on Sudan.

The Darfur Peace Agreement signed on 5 May, 2006 by some but not all parties to the conflict has not resulted in a cessation of violence.

Despite international efforts, the situation in Darfur remains extremely unstable and violent. A tangible and lasting peace in the region appears a very distant prospect. Clashes between various armed parties to the conflict continue, with further fragmentation of rebel groups; armed men carry out attacks with impunity in and around Internally Displaced Person (IDP) camps, terrorising an already frightened population.

In mid-2006, estimates of the number of civilians living in IDP camps ranged from 1.65 million to 2 million, while several hundred thousand Darfurian refugees are living in neighbouring Chad. The humanitarian community has poured resources into providing assistance to the camps, but both the terrain and the high level of insecurity often prevent relief from reaching affected populations.

Attacks on International NGO and UN vehicles have been on the rise in 2006, according to the UN, with a marked increase in violence and intent to harm. In West Darfur, where HelpAge International has its base, humanitarian relief delivery has been severely limited due to insecurity.

In this deteriorating context, humanitarian agencies and some international donors have started to recognise the displacement in Darfur as a ‘care and maintenance’ situation – one that does not show immediate signs of improvement or, even in the longer-term, promise of large-scale returns of displaced people to their original homes.

Nearly four years of conflict and the conditions in IDP camps have resulted in major shifts in ways of life and livelihoods. And after experiencing so much violence, IDPs are now reticent about trusting talk of peace.