We have confirmed that the LRA are there and they have clashed with the local population…The LRA is in Darfur for two purposes…They are travelling with their families, wives and children, and have taken them there for protection. They are also wanting ammunition and weapons from the [main] Sudan army.

Others were less sure.  Rob Crilly appropriately questioned the motivations behind SPLA accusations:

So the evidence comes from rebels who spent 20 years fighting against Khartoum, who are allied with the Darfuri rebels, and who themselves are no strangers to using child soldiers, stealing food aid and targeting civilians in their struggle. Lower down they resurrect their claims that Khartoum is resupplying the LRA.

Concern grew this week when the LRA raided a camp for displaced Darfuris in southern Sudan looking for supplies.  Major-General Diem is again the main source quoted in the western press about the raid, as well as a subsequent SPLA mission to free 46 abducted Darfuris. These stories followed a report of clashes with Sudan’s northern army on the South Darfur-Central African Republic border earlier this month.  As Skyle Wheeler and Opheera McDoom point out, “[a]ny LRA presence in Darfur would add to the chaotic mix of armed groups roaming the region, terrorising aid and commercial convoys and hundreds of thousands of Darfuris who fled to makeshift camps.”

So what are Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s National Congress Party (NCP) and others in Khartoum saying about these rumors and reports?  Yesterday, an article in Al-Ray Al-Aam (an Arabic-language, NCP-leaning newspaper) said that the Darfuri bloc in parliament reported that there was absolutely no LRA presence in Darfur.  This group, whose members all belong to the NCP and therefore would be expected to tow the government line, promised that they would seek more information from the government of South Darfur and then report back to parliament.

More interestingly, there were two op-eds published in Wednesday’s Al-Ray Al-Aam on the issue.   Ismail Adam chronicled the LRA’s history and noted that it would be “strange” for the LRA to now go to Darfur.  Nevertheless, he said that it was necessary that the SPLM and NCP fight together against this “pandemic.” On the other hand, Rashid Abdel-Raheem argued that the SPLM and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni are working hard to convince the international community of this “illusion.”  He blamed Museveni for wanting to distract attention from his failed handling of the LRA and to demonstrate his support for the International Criminal Court (LRA’s leader Joseph Kony has 33 outstanding charges against him).  Likewise, Abdel-Raheem blamed the SPLM for wanting to distract attention from its failed policies to protect civilians in the South – as well as its desire to exploit the issue of Darfur for its own political ends.  He concluded that the LRA crisis originated in the area between Uganda and south Sudan and the crisis remains there today – and therefore: “the Sudanese people will not be fooled” by the SPLM or Museveni’s claims.

These reactions do not tell us too much more about whether the LRA is or is not in Darfur, but they do tell us a lot about Sudanese politics.  As expected, some in the NCP (or connected to it) will find a way to use the disturbing presence of the LRA in south Sudan and rumors of their move to Darfur as a device against their political foes – and some within the SPLM may also be doing the same thing.  As with other issues, the simple paradigm is that Khartoum will blame Juba for not handling problems in the South, and Juba will blame Khartoum for being secretly behind these problems.  I will keep monitoring the reactions and commentary, as well as any third-party reporting on the issue, to give future updates.

With all that said, this analysis of the politics should not take away from the very real fact that the LRA is without doubt operating in south Sudan – regularly attacking villages and displacing tens of thousands of civilians in 2009 alone.

Five news items in the last week and today highlight the precarious security condition for Sudanese living in Darfur and South Sudan.

In the first, Frank Nyakairu at Reuters explores whether the resurgent Lord’s Resistance Army is now receiving financial or military support from elements in Khartoum.  Last week, the UN Deputy Special Representative and Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Ms. Ameerah Haq, expressed grave concern about the increasing number of deaths due to the escalating attacks by rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) against civilians – mostly women and children – in Southern Sudan’s Western and Central Equatoria States.

Suspicions abound that an old relationship has now been reborn.  A Ugandan intelligence official, for instance, notes: “They are estimated to be about 2,500 (strong) and operating in two languages, Acholi and Arabic.”  The use of Arabic points to possible renewed cooperation between the LRA and Sudanese intelligence (however, since the LRA recruits Sudanese – usually by abduction – this could also be a less troubling explanation).   With all this in mind, there is still no smoking gun and therefore an International Crisis Group expert concludes:

“We have heard the LRA appears to be better armed than it has been in the recent past…but we have no evidence to substantiate those allegations that Sudan is supporting the LRA.”

Another article this week explores the root causes for recent tribal violence in South Sudan. This year has been the bloodiest since the end of the civil war.  More than 1,200 people have been killed “in a wave of violence that has targeted villagers as often as cattle herders and women and children as often as men.”  Skye Wheeler at Reuters investigates the causes for the violent clashes, pointing out that many southerners see scary resemblances to the inter-ethnic violence of the early 1990s that was often encouraged and instigated by Khartoum.   He writes:

Senior officials from the south’s dominant Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) have openly accused northern politicians of once again arming tribes and militias to destabilise the south ahead of the referendum. Khartoum denies the accusations.

Again, these claims still remain only suspicious rumors as there is yet no hard evidence to connect Khartoum to the recent wave of violence. The situation certainly though cries out for greater vigilance and further investigation.

Similarly, the drivers of continuing conflict and even the existence of continuing conflict in Darfur have been hotly debated over the last month.   As I wrote in an early posting, with or without active war, Darfur remains a dangerous and unpredictable place.   And recent figures from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) confirm this .  In 2009 alone:

Seven national humanitarian staff and three UNAMID staff have been killed.

12 humanitarian staff and 10 UNAMID staff have been wounded or injured.

11 humanitarians (seven international) have been kidnapped.

26 humanitarians and three UNAMID staff have been physically or sexually assaulted and 10 UNAMID staff have been wounded or injured.

11 humanitarians (seven international) have been kidnapped.

26 humanitarians and three UNAMID staff have been physically or sexually assaulted.

18 humanitarians and 11 UNAMID staff have been abducted during carjackings.

44 humanitarians and 12 UNAMID staff have been arrested or temporarily detained by the Government of Sudan.

64 humanitarian vehicles and 31 UNAMID vehicles have been hijacked or stolen.

There have been 103 assaults or break-ins on humanitarian agency premises, and 22 on UNAMID premises.

Given these statistics, it comes as no surprise that UNAMID announced this morning that it will increase patrols. And finally this morning we are receiving fresh reports about a Darfuri rebel splinter group attacking three Sudanese policemen which then resulted in Sudanese police and army activity around and inside three IDP camps.

As we continue to state, a peace process in Darfur and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement are the only routes to long-term peace and security for conflict-weary Sudanese.  At the same time though, these stories and reports reveal that all of these negotiations are taking place in an environment of troubling violence and looming threats.   Since feelings of insecurity usually preclude comprise, the international community must ensure that investigating attacks and providing protection to civilians remains a constant priority.