Darfur peace; Does it meet legitimate aspiration of the people?
By Watts Roba Gibia Nyirigwa*
June 12, 2006 — When the comprehensive peace agreement was signed between SPLM/A and NCP in January 2005, almost the entire Sudanese and south Sudanese in particular filled with joy came out and celebrated the peace deal, and showed their solidarity and support to the peace. And since then, most people believed that SPLM/A-NCP accord will be the recipe for resolving Sudan’s problems. And when the Abuja peace talks started under the auspices of AU mediators, there was hope that all the parties would be able to reach a comprehensive and healthy agreement which will satisfy the legitimate aspiration of the people. But unfortunately, Abuja peace has failed to address the actual desire of the people on the ground, but rather imposed a frail agreement which was condemned and rejected by the Darfurians within and outside Sudan unlike Naivasha. And that was obvious in the various demonstrations staged by IDPs in various camps in Darfur as well as Darfurian students in Khartoum against what they termed unfair and incomplete agreement which doesn’t meet legitimate aspiration of the Darfur people, but rather has created profoundly division among the people on one hand and the movements or factions on the other hand.
If we have a comprehensive look at the Abuja peace talks, it was obvious that there were several factors which contributed negatively on the whole process, and consequently produced this controversial accord. The devastating human crisis and miserable scene of the starvation, and malnutrition among the children in Darfur hastened and forced mediators and world community to put swift end to the human tragedy by concluding an agreement at any cost, without taking into consideration the nature of the complexity and people’s aspiration on the ground. The Abuja talks were not granted enough time, but everything was hastened and pressurized, which doesn’t even allow negotiators to know each other better, bridge their gaps, build trust and confidence which hardly exist among them. The movements should have united their front under one leadership prior coming to Abuja, and should have come as one entity, with unified objective and clear negotiation strategy and mandate. But unfortunately for one reason or another or due to the inexperience in negotiation and lack of political leadership, they doomed to come to Abuja as factions, without a unified leadership who has to be responsible in taking crucial decisions on the entire negotiation course as SPLM does. And that was evidential during the negotiation, as the movements have divided opinions and incapable or hesitant in taking crucial decisions, just like a ship with several captains, either will reach its destination safely or it may capsize and victimize its entire passengers! And that was exactly what happened to Darfur movements, lack of strong leadership and unified front. The well experienced NCP took this advantage and exercised its capacity and smartly throw the ball at the movements’ playground, and exhibited its readiness and steadfast to the entire world in resolving Darfur crisis, but lacks potential partners. And that was apparent when she signed AU proposed peace deal despite its reservations on some points, and turned the entire world against the movements who are in absolute disarray. And due to the mounting pressure from the AU and world community, Minni Minnawi was forced to sign the agreement despite his discontent to the agreement! The role of mediators is normally and primarily to assist all the parties and guide the negotiation process, and absolute neutrality for the success of the negotiation, and consideration of all the views in order to reach to a durable agreement, but not to be adamant in imposing its views and ideas on the negotiators. Once that happens, the mediators have lost their credibility, mediation ethics and neutrality.
When one looks at the footage of DPA signing at Abuja, it was really a heart breaking which was supposed to be a happy and historic moment of joy, with smiles and contentment but not a moment of mourning unlike Naivasha. And this is a clear indication that the negotiators were not quite contented with the agreement, but rather it was rushed and imposed on them. And that was certain, when AU mediators warned and threatened the holdout movements by sanction if they failed to attach their signature! Now the agreement was reached, but does it change the situation on ground? No, instead the situation on ground has worsened due to the divided views on the partly peace. And I believe Kofi Annan was correct when he wrote at the Financial Times that “this is not a moment for anyone to bask in congratulations. Darfur is still far from being at peace”. Annan knows very well that this partially agreement does not meet the actual aspiration of the people on ground. As to have a sustainable and everlasting peace, it has to meet the desire of the people on ground or otherwise all the exerted efforts were in vain. As we have seen the angry demonstrations of the IDPs during Egeland’s visit to Darfur, it is clear indication that people had had enough and calling for the UN forces to come in to protect them, and termed Minni Arcua Minnawi who inked peace as a traitor. But also there are counter forces which are trying to barricade the entire process. And that was clear during the recent visit of Security Council delegation to Al-Fasher, and despite the worsening situation in camps and the region as whole for political reasons, and as far as there are calls for strong UN forces with clear mandate to protect civilians, yet there is also sentiment that if a UN forces is sent to Darfur, there will be a call for jihad unless it is hundred percent African! While there is mixed reactions, the situation on ground continuous to worsen, as there is fear and mistrust among the people on the capacity of AU peacekeepers to protect them. And there is also sentiment that AU forces are not neutral and some people or factions do not want them. And that was evident, as even there is frustration among the AU troops due to their inability to stop the violence. And according to the Colonel John Asabre that “to monitor the agreement with only the troops we have now will be a failure”. Thus, peace will never be imposed by force. And to have a durable peace in Darfur, and to put an end to the human tragedy in this ravaged region, AU mediators and world community has to consider the will and desire of the people, that is to re-consider and incorporate the requirement of the two holdout movements to make the peace inclusive, instead of sanction threats. And that was obvious, as according to one of peacekeeping officer’s plea that “we are scared, the situation is completely unpredictable here”. This is the actual situation on ground which the AU mediators and world community failed to acknowledge or dared to ignore! And it is worth mentioning here that “peace” is always not imposed, and any imposed peace, will never thrive and see a sun unless it is the will and desire of the people.
* Watts Roba Gibia Nyirigwa is a Sudan Tribune columnist, he can be reached at [email protected]