Sudan is committed to deploy UN forces in Darfur – FM
May 9, 2006 (VIENNA) — Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol has stated that his government is committed to its promises to deploy UN forces in Darfur as part of the peace agreement that was signed in Abuja last week, but added that this would happen at the right time and with Khartoum’s agreement.
He said in an interview with the London based Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the security arrangements in the documents talked about a UN role according to which it would play the peacekeeping role, precisely as had happened in south Sudan.
He added: “The UN has not contacted the Sudanese government so far and Sudan has not asked it to do so. All the present talk about this matter is carried out unofficially.”
Akol launched a vitriolic attack on the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) that refused to sign the peace agreement and said it is known for its lack of seriousness. He also pointed out that Abdelwahed Mohamed al-Nur, leader of one faction in the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), was the only one who refused to sign, while all members of his delegation signed it. He pointed out that his country does not fear those rejecting the peace because they are a minority.
The interview with Akol was conducted during a short visit he made to the Austrian capital Vienna, the current EU president, where he is attending a coordinating conference between the current and next presidencies in Africa and Europe.
Text of the interview is as follows:
Peace agreement
– Does not the failure of some parties in the Darfur conflict to sign weaken the peace agreement that was signed in Abuja?
Akol: The agreement was signed with two parts in the SLM, the wing of Minni Menawi who signed it in person and the wing of Abd-al-Wahid who hesitated while his negotiating team signed it. Therefore, the agreement was between two of the three rebel groups. The stands of the JEM, which did not sign, are known and it was in many cases not serious in the dialogue and negotiations process. But this does not threaten what was done because we know the size of its forces on the ground. Of course, we are still interested in including any person who is carrying arms and seek to persuade him of the need for peace. We hope they will review their position and sign at any moment since the agreement is open until 15 May for anyone who wants to sign.
Rebel movement
– Some believe that Ibrahim Khalil, leader of the JEM, did not sign under the influence of Dr Al-Turabi whose party rejects the agreement. What is your comment?
Akol: What I know is that they have unclear stands towards peace and I can say that they are not willing to sign it.
– Does the possibility of the parties fighting each other worry you as this would weaken the fragile peace opportunities?
Akol: We know the size of the forces on the ground. More than 90 per cent are from both wings of the SLM, but our main concern remains to persuade those carrying weapons to lay them down.
– The rebels are demanding the vice president’s post and the agreement gave them the president’s assistant post. Does the difference justify the anger?
Akol: Why do you not ask them? They are the ones sticking to this.
Pressure to sign peace deal
– What is your comment on Al-Sadiq al-Mahdi’s description of the agreement as just an ornament that will not provide a solution to the Darfur problem? Other oppositionists also talked about pressures that led to this agreement?
Akol: This is not true. Al-Sadiq al-Mahdi opposes everything that the government does. He rejected in the past the peace agreement in the south and here he is now rejecting the Darfur peace. The talk about pressures is baseless. There was nothing of the sort. The negotiations went on for more than two years after which the AU listened to all the parties and then presented a conciliatory document that was suitable as a draft peace agreement. It asked all the parties to accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole and a timetable was set for the talk since 10 March with the signing to be made before the end of April.
The draft was presented on 25 April and the two sides were given 48 hours to reply. The government had reservations, but agreed to sign and it was the same with the other parties’ rejectionist stance. Here other parties intervened in an attempt to persuade them. Is this considered pressure? The Americans were from the start in touch with the AU and played the role of facilitators and not ones exerting pressures.
Compensation to Darfur war victims
– There is talk about paying compensation to those who suffered damages from what happened in Darfur. How will it be done on an individual case?
Akol: There are no individual compensations. How can this be? The war in the south raged for more than 50 years and no individual compensations were given. Who do we compensate individually? Those affected by the government’s actions or those affected by the rebels’ actions? It is known and the custom after any peace process that programs are prepared for quick resettlement, rehabilitation and development in the areas affected by the war and that is in itself compensation.
– This does not appear to be enough. A Darfur person told Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the northern palm trees were apparently of more value for the government than the Darfur person. He was referring to the compensations paid to those who were displaced in the northern province after the building of the Marwa Dam?
Akol: This is just emotional talk. There was no compensation for the palm trees in the north. Those talking should be more interested in the peace and not making comments only.
Darfur Reconstruction Fund
– What about the Darfur Reconstruction Fund? Is the government capable of paying or will it be dependent on international aid?
Akol: The government has budgets that enable it to pay its share. Foreign aid will arrive. It was stopped only when some countries linked it to the need to reach a solution for the Darfur problem. We are now expecting the aid to both the south and Darfur to start flowing.
Freezing rebel leaders’ assets
– Some in Sudan ridiculed the UN Security Council’s resolution that froze the assets of Musa Hilal — according to the US, he is leader of the Janjawids — and banned him from travelling?
Akol: Musa Hilal might own some camels and I do not know where he travels to warrant banning him. Such resolutions will have no effect. Let them search for those who have assets. Even if the intention is to threaten the Sudanese presidency, these have sovereignty laws that protect them and no one can touch them. More importantly, all this is now in the past after the peace agreement was reached and changed all the equations. Imposing sanctions threatens only the parties that refused and refuse to sign the peace agreement.
Disarming the Janjawid
– Does the agreement include a timetable and a mechanism for disarming the Janjawids?
Akol: Not one timetable, but several. Disarmament is usually carried out simultaneously with the disarming of the gunmen.
– From the perspective of the southern war experience, do you believe absorping the militias who rebelled against a successful experiment?
Akol: This depends on the conditions of training and the period of time that the integration requires not as units but as individuals.
– What about the foreigners who fought with the militias and how can their identities be verified, especially in view of the inter-tribal links and the open borders between Darfur and neighbouring countries?
Akol: The absorption will be done according to criteria that screen and verify. There is a joint committee from the armed forces and the movements to carry out these tasks and it has better knowledge of their methods of action and what they do.
African, UN troops
– Can we have a more precise picture of what will happen now? Will you ask for an increase in the number of African troops until the UN forces arrive?
Akol: I answered you before that part of the agreement stipulates the security arrangements and these will be implemented to the letter.
“Genocide” in Darfur
– Many continue to ask whether what happened in Darfur was genocide?
Akol: Can a government annihilate its people? This claim is not true. Forget I am a southerner, the majority of the northerners have ties with Darfur, starting with President Umar al-Bashir and his government’s members. There is a large number of Darfur’s sons in the state’s executive and other departments. Would have they remained silent if there was genocide? The southern war continued for about 50 years. Why did we not hear it called genocide? The US fought in Vietnam. Why was it not called genocide? Moreover, genocide requires international intervention. So why did they not intervene?
(ST)