Efforts to beef up AU forces in Darfur wisest of all decisions
By Ohiyok D. Oduho*
September 21, 2006 — The hot issue of deploying international forces in Darfur, Western Sudan, has taken yet another different dimension. The UN Security Council (UNSC) issued resolution 1706 early September in which it authorized the deployment of the international forces in Sudan with or without the consent of the Sudan Government. The UNSC resolution was received with mixed reactions in the Sudan.
Minni Minawi Arcoi, the Senior Assistant to the President of the Republic and head of the Darfur Transitional Regional Authority, head of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) supports the deployment of the international forces in his region. “We welcome the resolution and support it as a guarantee to the protection of our civilian people in Darfur,” (SLM spokesman, Mahjub Hussein: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17670).
Meanwhile, The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the National Congress Party (NCP) partner in the Government of the National Unity (GoNU), has differed with the NCP – it supports the deployment of the international forces. It argued that “It won’t make a difference since international forces are found in Sudan: West, South Blue Nile, South Sudan, East and Khartoum”, said Dr Riek Machar, Vice-President of Government of South Sudan (GoSS), in a BBC interview. “We urge the (dominant) National Congress Party and other partners in the government of national unity to consent to the deployment of United Nations troops in Darfur. We want to avoid confrontations between Sudan and the international community, and we want to protect the civilians in Darfur”, (Yasir Arman, head of SPLM’s Parliamentary Block in the Interim National Assembly: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17658).
NCP, on the other hand, has categorically rejected the deployment of the international forces, reasoning that if allowed, the deployment would be an invasion and a direct intervention on a UN member-State. President Al-Bashir reacted on the resolution on September 4th, 2006. “The resolution came at a time when the government was exerting efforts to implement the DPA and to provide the necessary support for the African forces in Darfur. He added that the resolution would lead to the flagrant interference in Sudan’s internal affairs and the violation of its sovereignty and dignity as well as the re-colonization of the country”, (President Omar Al-Bashir: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/05/content_5048471.htm).
In a press conference held at the Council of Ministers on Monday, September 18th, 2006, Vice-President, Ali Osman Muhammad Taha, agrees no less. He said, “If the African Union (AU) is to form the core of a UN force, why insist on placing it under UN command instead of providing it with financial and technical assistance?” (Ali Osman Muhammad Taha: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17672).
New developments have revealed that there are efforts aimed at not only renewing the AU Mission in Sudan’s mandate to another nine months but there is a possibility that any international forces deployed in Darfur would fall under the AU Mission. Jan Pronk, the U.N. envoy for Sudan, told the Security Council and reporters afterwards that rather than only continue confrontations with Khartoum leaders, who have firmly rejected a U.N. force, the focus should be on the AU’s force of 7,000. “”I think the government of Khartoum is quite willing to accept an AU force, being led by the AU with a lot of support from others. I think that would also imply boots on the ground. Try it. It is possible. But you have to talk. You have to negotiate”, (Jan Pronk: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17686).
One would hope that the latest efforts of trying to beef up the AU Mission in Sudan to help end the crisis of deploying or not deploying international forces succeed. This would be one of the wisest decisions ever thought of by the international community on the Sudan since the Darfur crisis started. It makes no sense for the international forces to come without the consent of the Sudan. “The deployment of international troops in Sudan without its permission runs counter to the UN Charter approving rights of the countries to maintain their sovereignty,” (Ashaal: http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/gen_intern_geogr/sudan_resolution_1706_divides_sudananalysts).
Perhaps Sudan government’s rejection of the deployment of international forces could be blamed on the mistake made by parties to the Abuja talks while drafting the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA). The DPA does not include an article or a clause that authorizes the deployment of international forces in Darfur as it were the case with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
The leadership of this country should be seen united in matters of national interest and sovereignty. It is very sad to hear statements and counter statements from members of the same government in regards to the deployment of international forces in Darfur. It is true that the situation in Darfur is bad, and that the suffering people of Darfur must rescued from this suffering. The government of Sudan should not be held accountable in exclusion of the Darfur rebels who refused to endorse the DPA.
Matters pertaining to the sovereignty of a country are non-negotiable. There can be no leader in the world, however small or insignificant his/her country could be – if there is any such thing – who will accept to surrender part of his country to an international force. Unless it is invaded and its government seized like that of Panama, whose President, Manuel Noriega, is languishing in a US jail. Noriega might have been a criminal, involved in drugs, but the US had no right to invade his country.
Those leaders who encourage the deployment of international forces in the Sudan should be made to understand that one of them may become the President of the Sudan in future. If he/she did become the President of the Sudan would he/she authorize a deployment of international forces in the Sudan, especially when he believes that he/she is in controlled of his government? The answer is no, because the Ugandan forces who were allowed into the Sudan through an agreement are now making the Sudanese people as well as the authorities uncomfortable. This is not because they have done anything wrong, no, but as a foreign force, it feels like an occupation force. Could any ordinary person accept his/her house to be seized by any other ordinary person and him/her, together with members of the family, ordered around? It is unacceptable, and this is the feeling, which anyone who would become the President of Sudan in future will have.
SPLM for example, should be feeling uncomfortable with the presence of the Ugandan forces in South Sudan. SPKM might have supported the entry of the Ugandan forces before the CPA but this may not be the case presently; because it is now in charge of the whole South Sudan. SPLM is now working very hard to see in to it that the current peace talks between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan government succeed so that the Ugandan troops leave the Sudanese territories. This is not a declared SPLM position on the Ugandan troops in the South. However, seeing the CPA’s seriousness to see Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), a forces SPLM views as an occupation force, move northwards, it is certainly not possible to believe that SPLM wholeheartedly approves the limitless stay of the Ugandan troops in South Sudan and hence the deployment of international forces in Darfur; unless SPLM has forfeited its second powerful role in the affairs of the Sudan as a country.
The parties to GoNU should really review their partnership and sincerely put some guidelines down on how, as a government, they could collectively decide on issues of the country’s sovereignty. In addition to that they should start laying down strategies on how collectively they could address the Darfur crisis, agree to replace the current SAF personnel by another force, possibly comprising of SAF, Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), Minni Arcoi faction, with a new mandate: to restore security and order in Darfur.
This column had, on March 4th, 2006 – before the DPA was signed – challenged the partnership and their junior partners to find a solution to the crisis in Darfur. “Thus the NCP, SPLM and their junior partners need to meet and agree to form an equal number of forces from SPLA, SAF and (now the Sudan Liberation Army) that are redundant – not part of Joint Integrated Units – to be deployed in Darfur. As a matter of urgency, a committee has to be formed to immediately workout modalities for the formation of such a force”, (Events Column: http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=11187).
* The author is a columnist at the Sudan Vision Newspaper. He is a former regional minister of Health in Eastern Equatoria. He can be reached at [email protected].