06 Sep 2006: ISS Today: Sudan Says AU Can Stay in Darfur but not Under UN

06 September 2006: Sudan Says AU Can Stay in Darfur but not Under UN
Opheera McDoom, Reuters

 

Sudan said on Monday it would allow African troops to remain in Darfur only under African Union control and accused Washington of attempting "regime change" in Khartoum by trying to bring in a U.N. force.

 

The head of the African Union mission monitoring a shaky truce in Darfur reaffirmed that the AU presence would end on Sept. 30.

 

Sudan raised fears its turbulent west could descend into full-blown war by saying on Sunday AU troops must leave when their mandate expired at the end of the month.

 

Commentary

 

When a Professor of Political Science at the University of Khartoum responded to my questions on the future of Sudan with “my dear, don’t you know Sudan is a bit of amusement for the man up there - it is the place where God laughed”, I thought his comment somewhat pessimistic. This was at a time when the implementation of the North-South peace agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), was the main concern of the international community who were beginning to focus their attention on the promise of a post-conflict scenario in Sudan. Some may argue that the enthusiasm that greeted the signing of the CPA was pure naiveté, but as the dark days in Darfur continue, it is becoming increasingly evident that the process of peacemaking cannot be done on a piecemeal basis.  Indeed, the parallel process of war and peace in the Sudan cannot be sustained, and ironically, the same peace that was so heartily received on 5 January 2005 may be paralysed by the non-implementation of the 5 May 2006 Darfur Peace agreement. 

 

Aside from questions of the capacity of the African Union Mission in Darfur, which has been described by its Commander, Major General Collins Ihekire, as “undermanned, under funded, under-equipped, and undermined”, is the question of credibility. No matter how many peace agreements, they will not compensate for the populations lack of trust in both the government and those who purport to represent them in the rebel movements.

 

Of all the places on the continent, Sudan is most intimately acquainted with the impact of abrogated peace deals. Yes, it is clear that the AU lacks the capacity to deal with the level of violence currently at play in the region, and it is also clear that the rebel groupings lack of cohesion has increased the challenge of making any agreement stick to the detriment of civilian populations. But what has not been interrogated is the process of peace-making itself and the way in which legitimacy was conferred to signatories despite widespread opposition. What I am suggesting, is that the decision to go ahead with the DPA in spite of the fact that it was only agreed to by one other party aside from the Government, was a fundamental mistake.

 

The price of deadline diplomacy is being felt in the ongoing saga of whether or not to extend the AU’s mission to a UN one. And all the while some 50,000 or more people have been displaced by new fighting, and the World Food Programme reports that an estimated 470,000 people are unable to access their allocated food rations. Added to this is news of the deaths of yet more international humanitarian workers. Shuttle-diplomacy and the ‘CNN effect’ are a poor substitute for a country in need of responsive government.

 

Mariam Bibi Jooma, African Security Analysis Programme, ISS Pretoria