Sudan seeks to stop UN taking over AU force in Darfur
Mar 1, 2006 (UNITED NATIONS) — The Sudanese government has launched a campaign to stop a U.N. force from taking over peacekeeping duties from African Union troops, the top U.N. envoy in Sudan said Tuesday.
At the same time, Jan Pronk said an anti-United Nations climate is heating up strongly in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, with threats and warnings, and fear that handing over to a U.N. force would put Sudan “in the same situation as Iraq a couple of years ago.”
On Jan. 12, ambassadors on the African Union’s Peace and Security Council agreed in principle to hand over peacekeeping to the U.N. but left a final decision to a ministerial meeting on Friday. In the meantime, the U.N. Security Council authorized the start of planning for a takeover, and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton tried unsuccessfully to get the council to authorize the new U.N. force.
Pronk told a news conference the African Union may be reconsidering the decision to relinquish peacekeeping responsibilities. He said Friday’s scheduled ministerial meeting has been postponed for a week at Sudan’s request until March 10.
“Sudan has sent delegations to many countries in the world in order to plead for its case, namely, let the African Union stay and let the U.N. not come _ no transition,” he said.
“We do not know whether the African Union next Friday will reconfirm its own decision. That is not certain any more,” Pronk said.
If the African Union decides against handing over, he said, the Security Council cannot then say it is taking over peacekeeping.
An estimated 180,000 people have died, mainly of hunger and disease, and some 2 million have been displaced since rebels from Darfur’s ethnic African population revolted three years ago, accusing the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum of discrimination and decades of neglect. The Sudanese government is widely alleged to have unleashed Arab militias who carried out sweeping atrocities against ethnic African villagers. Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir denies his government supports the militia, known as Janjaweed.
Pronk told reporters the situation in Darfur remains difficult with groups of 3,000 militia on camel and horseback attacking villages with army cars behind them.
That means a robust force is still needed to prevent attacks as well as a peace agreement to end the conflict.
Pronk said there is a possibility that peace talks in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, could produce an agreement in March, but “the most important question is not whether there will be an agreement but what will be in the agreement.”
A peace agreement must have teeth and ensure that the parties do not return to fighting and that violators are punished, he said.
In the next few weeks, Pronk said, “there are many uncertain variables” including the future of the African Union force, a possible peace agreement, and an international meeting which had been scheduled for February in Europe, where donors had been expected to pledge enough resources for the African Union force to stay through the transition to a U.N. force.
If the African Union decides against a handover, Pronk said, there will also be a question of whether it can stay in Darfur “because there are no resources.”
Earlier this month, U.S. President George W. Bush made his strongest statement of support yet for an expanded international role in Darfur, backing a larger force for Darfur and NATO invovlement.
Pronk said a NATO-led force in Darfur would be “a recipe for disaster.”
“As soon as you make clear to them that there will be decisions without consultation and just come in, then they speak of recolonization, invasion, imperialism and they speak about Iraq and Afghanistan, that is the fear,” Pronk said, recalling meetings with traditional leaders in Darfur.
“You need either an AU force which is effective, and the present one is too small, not strong, big, etc., enough, or you need the U.N.,” he said. “There is, in my view, no alternative.”
(ST/AP)