Bec Hamilton, who is currently investigating the past 6 years of Darfur policy and citizen advocacy, just returned from Sudan and Darfur. She writes on four key issues facing Darfuris today.
Given the national elections scheduled for April 2010 are looming over all of Sudan, I asked her about the current conversations of Darfuris regarding the elections. Specifically, did what she hear on the ground generally match the concerns expressed in the UN Secretary General’s report from July, in which he wrote:
38. Darfur, opposition parties and civil society actors have called on the Government to ensure the freedom of movement, assembly, association and speech required to ensure a free and fair process. Leaders of the internally displaced have expressed the view that peace, security, compensation, and the return of internally displaced persons should come before the holding of elections. They have also expressed the fear that voter registration of internally displaced persons in camps would be tantamount to relinquishing their lands.
I also asked if she thought any of the Sudanese and international actors that she spoke to are moving forward on the Secretary General’s recommendations (below)?
7. The Government of National Unity and the Darfur movements must address the concerns of the internally displaced persons in Darfur. Concrete steps need to be taken towards a comprehensive peace agreement. These include a cessation of hostilities, and progress towards compensation, land rights and redressing marginalization issues. This would help to create an appropriate environment for the forthcoming elections. Should large segments of the population in Darfur be prevented from participating in elections by the refusal to agree to a cessation of hostilities, technical constraints related to registration, or voluntary or involuntary boycotts of the process, progress towards political stability would be impeded. Accordingly, I urge the Government of National Unity and the Darfur movements to openly discuss these issues and make concrete progress towards a comprehensive peace. The Darfur movements have an obligation to use the opportunity of national elections to pursue their political demands through the ballot box and lay down their arms.
Hamilton responded with a sobering assessment:
Yes – elections and the 2011 referendum are the big picture issues facing the whole of Sudan now. I’m developing a magazine feature on it, so will have my thoughts better organized as I work through that. But from the perspective of Darfuris who are living in Darfur, it is hard to get more than a dismissive wave of the hand from them on the elections. There are huge problems with the census results (and not just in Darfur). Not only are the camps not covered but the numbers don’t add up in areas outside the camps to a large extent either – especially in South Darfur. So with these problems, combined with the fact that for IDPs in Darfur there are much more immediate issues related to day to day survival, trying to even raise the elections with them is difficult. There is not one IDP I spoke with who thought the elections were anything other than a giant waste of time. This response however changes if you speak with Darfuris in Khartoum (they also are completely skeptical, but they have some attention to give to it). As to your specific question – What the UNSG wrote remains almost entirely aspirational.
As expected, the comments about war being over in Darfur from the outgoing UNAMID commander received considerable coverage on Thursday. I did an interview with Andrew Meldrum at Global Post who was looking to situate this statement from General Agwai into the broader political and humanitarian realities for the millions of war-affected Darfuris. Here is what I said (with two corrections):
The Washington-based Save Darfur Coalition also finds fault with Agwai’s statement. “The political and humanitarian crisis in Darfur is not over. Nor is the threat of full-scale fighting over, said Sean Brooks, policy associate of Save Darfur Coalition. “We find Gen. Agwai’s statement surprising, considering that just a few weeks ago he said that the U.N. forces are only at 70 percent deployment and need to be fully deployed to protect the people of Darfur. There are still no [not enough] U.N. helicopters to fully meet the protection mandate for refugees [actually IDPs] and aid workers. 2009 has been the most dangerous year for aid workers with kidnappings and hijackings.”
Concerted international pressure, “particularly from Egypt and other neighboring states, the Arab League and the African Union is needed to get the Khartoum government to be committed to the peace process,” said Brooks.
And if you can read Spanish, here is an interview that I did with BBC Mundo. Using Google Translate, I think the reporter accurately recorded my statement.
Check out my blog from today…some media and other blog links to follow. Here is the summary.
The outgoing commander of the joint UN-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force, Martin Luther Agwai, made news earlier today when he told reporters that, “As of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur.”
…With or without active warfare in Darfur, the situation remains dangerous and bleak for millions of Darfuris. Peace does not appear around the corner and, as we all know by now, over 2.7 million live in IDP camps and roughly 4.7 million are dependent in some way on humanitarian assistance….While the nature of the violence in Darfur has certainly changed, it remains a human rights and humanitarian crisis of the first order. Agwai’s comments may get headlines, but these reports reveal without doubt that Darfuri civilians lack even the most basic human rights. Despite their hopes and prayers for peace and protection, the nightmare that began over six years ago continues.
I guess SLA leader Abdel Wahid Nur is not yet a reader of my blogging. His comments to the Sudan Tribune today help drive home the points that I made on Save Darfur’s blog Friday. It seems like Abdel Wahid remains intent on making headlines rather than actually engaging in unity talks. He goes directly after U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Gration:
“Instead of playing a positive role in the resolution of [the] Darfur conflict in order to stop the ongoing violence against Darfur people, the special envoy of President Obama to Sudan abandoned his mission and has become a problem and an obstacle due to his non-neutral position.”
He continues to argue emphatically that his rejection of the Darfur Peace Agreement was the right decision, without even acknowledging the suffering of the Darfuri people over the last three years:
“Days vindicated the rightness of our position to not accept solutions that do not fulfill the demands of Darfur people.”
And finally he makes claims that bear no resemblance to reality:
“This is not something about Abdel Wahid versus Scott Gration; this is about rebels from all different factions unifying to help and ensure that the will of the people of Darfur is carried out in a process that can make a difference.”
Where is Abdel Wahid in the midst of all of these unity talks? Rather than making positive constributions, the article states that he sacked six commanders who dared show up in Addis Ababa and agreed to work with others factions on a common negotiating platform.
First published over at Save Darfur…
Darfuri rebel politics since the signing of the failed Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006 has been confusing and difficult for outsiders to monitor. Estimates over the last three years about the fragmentation of the two Sudan Liberation Army factions (SLA/Abdel Wahid and SLA/Minawi) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) have ranged from as little as five significant groups to as many as twenty-eight splinter factions. Tracking the constantly fluid relationships among these different Darfuri factions and their leaders has been next to impossible for analysts and advocates. All agree though that this fragmentation has made obtaining peace in Darfur more painfully elusive for the conflict-afflicted Darfuris and more challenging for regional and international mediators.
It is good news, therefore, to see U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Gration on his way to Addis Ababa to participate in unity talks among the rebels. He recognizes that they must have a common negotiating position if any negotiations with the Sudanese government are going to be successful. These are the correct lessons to draw from the peace talks in Abuja that secured the signature of only one major rebel faction led by Minni Minawi for the Darfur Peace Agreement – yet amplified the infighting and mistrust among the rebels which has contributed to the last three years of internal conflict and fragmentation.
It is also good news to hear Gration promoting the role of Darfuri civil society leaders in the peace talks. He told reports today, “Civil society must also speak up so that their voices are heard on issues related to land reform, elections and human rights.” Only three months ago, the Sudanese government scuttled the most promising initiative on this front – Mandate Darfur – by obstructing the safe passage of Darfuri delegates to a large-scale gathering in Addis Ababa. Save Darfur and our partners have urged the international community through their support of negotiations to make the participation of these community leaders a priority. These representatives of IDP camps, women’s and professional groups, and other community-based organizations can help ensure that the true concerns and demands of the Darfuri people are clearly articulated and addressed by all sides during the negotiations.
Despite these positive signs of U.S. leadership in the Darfur peace process, the statements and actions of some rebel leaders remain troubling. The Sudan Tribunetoday reports that Abdel Wahid al-Nur will not attend or send representatives to the unity talks in Ethiopia. This decision continues Nur’s irresponsible negotiating strategy since his refusal to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006. After leaving Abuja at the end of the talks, Nur has spent the majority of his time in Paris where he has refused to commit to new talks with the Sudanese government. Instead, he demands that a long-list of his demands must be fully met and implemented before any negotiations can begin, including the imposition of a no-fly zone in Darfur and the complete disarmament of the janjaweed.
While Nur has reportedly not visited Darfur since 2004 and lost the allegiance of many commanders on the ground, he retains key support in many of the IDP camps. Therefore, his dismissal of unity talks is significant. Can Special Envoy Gration and those Darfuris committed to re-launching peace talks ignore Abdel Wahid’s absence? For now, they have no choice. They must begin the tough work of building a common negotiating platform for the Darfuri people and tearing down the walls of enmity between rebel leaders that have helped prolong the conflict in Darfur. At the same time, Gration and others must continue to think of how to devise an appropriate way in for Abdel Wahid and other hardliners. If Nur shows signs of changing his intransigent negotiating stance, the international community should develop a face-saving path for him to climb down from his past rhetoric and enter into a new process of substantive negotiations with the Sudanese government to bring peace to Darfur.