African role in Darfur do not deserve to be denigrated

By Dr Ibrahim Dagash

September 27, 2007 — Of recent, certain articles in the press depicted the AU as a total failure in Darfur, to the extent they called for the withdrawal of the AU from the Darfur conflict mediation. It is useful to look at the issues raised in the articles in a bid to assess their validity.

Regarding the composition of the troops for UNAMID, a writer raised suspicions about the AU’s position on the country origins of the troops to constitute UNAMID, while the official stand on this is clearly spelt out in UNSC Resolution 1769 which stipulates that “the Hybrid operation should have a predominantly African character and the troops should, as for as possible, be sourced from African countries.” Based on the foregoing one wonders why AU’s position on the matter should be seen outside that context.

Nevertheless a proposal does exist that UNAMID should have troops from non-African countries in order to bring in expertise. If African troops lack expertise, most particularly in the technical field, they should be beefed up by personnel who can fill that gap. At the same time expertise could be acquired from experience, which is the case with the African forces in Darfur. That should be combined with that others can bring to the operation. It is one of the reasons why the UNSC Resolution has a provision stating that the present AMIS personnel shall be incorporated into the larger UNAMID force. Obviously, the present African Union troops in Darfur is an asset to the expanded force.

Have the AU troops failed in their mission in Sudan, as is alleged by some writers who ignored the fact that the AU has shouldered the hardest task by coming into Darfur when no-one else wanted to come in? Although a lot of work remains to be carried out to restore normalcy in Darfur, the situation of the people of Darfur would have been much worse had it not been for the three-year presence of AU troops there.

The lack of peace is not so much a reflection of failure on the part of the AU but more of the complexity of the situation in Darfur and the issues involved. Whether we like it or not, violent conflicts tend to take on their own dynamics. One only needs to look at neighboring Congo (DRC). How long has the UN peacekeeping force been in place? Should one consider the peacekeeping mission there a failure?

The AU forces, who continued to risk their lives for the sake of the people of Darfur, should be encouraged, and the difficulties they face must be understood and explained by the information machinery. Certainly, they do not deserve to be denigrated by those of us who do not have to sleep in trenches and face bullets. History will keep in its records that when the people of Darfur were in need, it is African soldiers who hurried to their rescue.

The condemnation of the choice of Libya as the venue for the peace talks is based on lack of both vision and understanding. Libya is a member of the African Union and, as such, qualifies to host such an important event. Additionally, Libya has been an active player in efforts to move the peace forward, as exemplified by her hosting of the Second International Meeting on Darfur, an important building block in the current stage of the peace process.

What adds insult to injury is that the AU Special Envoy Salim Ahmed Salim is being accused of “playing a dangerous game of trying to provoke the field commanders to rebel against their leaders.” This is not only false but a regrettable allegation considering Dr. Salim’s endless appeals to rebel leaders at all levels to come together and speak for the people of Darfur with one voice, a core message to all the groups he has been meeting since he took up his current mission, which is one of a series of International and Regional assignments the man accomplished with honour and integrity. Partiality of people of Salim’s calibre should not be doubted or questioned by those who never knew his background.

The mediation role is an intricate one that involves reaching out to all sides in the conflict. But because of human nature some tend to resort to hue and cry if the process did not suit their purpose. Over the past few months, the mediation team has tried to reach as many of the groups concerned as possible. There is not doubt that Dr. Salim Ahmed Salim is carrying a heavy responsibility on his shoulders and to accuse him of being anyone’s puppet is not only unfair but also misses the point about how mediation operates: it is a back and forth process that involves talking, listening and persuading. It takes enormous patience. Considering the importance of the coming talks for the people of Darfur, this is not time to change the mediation team on grounds that hold no water. Instead, we should fully support the effort.

One feels really sad to read an 11-point Press release by a group of Darfurians in USA whereby the AU Commission’s Chairman, Alpha Konore and the AU Chief Mediator for Darfur, Salim Ahmed Salim are categorized as of Arab-origin. Detractors of Africa have long used linguistic, geographical and religious factors to divide Africans, but to see some Africans using racial factors to dispel Africans is beyond imagination!

* The author is the former spokesperon of the African Union. He can be reached at [email protected]