China revises Iran advances the escalated crisis of Sudan
By Mahgoub El-Tigani
March 2, 2007 — The First Vice-President Salva Kiir announced today (March 2, 2007) at the Jazeera Channel that the Government of National Unity “failed to secure the safety of citizens and their properties in Darfur, or to stop fighting among civilians, or to insure humanitarian relief to the needy ones.” To resolve the crisis, affirmed the FVP, “there must be external support.”
Speaking for the ruling National Congress Party against the FVI stand, Rabbi’ ‘Abd al-‘Atti wondered why the First Vice President said what he announced “since the President has been opposed to the existence of international forces in Darfur, as well as the ruling party and the other GONU parties in the National Council. The FVP statement looked like a stand by opposition rather than a government partner.”
The ruling party’s spokesperson asserted further that “the SPLM has been swinging opinions between unity and separation before and after the CPA in Naivasha; so within the same politics, the FVP said his statement.” Rabbi’ then advised “the SPLM should differentiate between the Naivasha CPA, being a partner of government, and an opposition preparation for upcoming elections.”
For many Sudanese watching the dialogue, however, FVP Kiir was exactly telling the truth about the GONU that failed completely to resolve the crisis of Darfur among other similar failures with respect to the major agenda of the CPA.
Before the ongoing escalation of military action and aerial bombing in Darfur by the President and his defense minister’s direct orders following the rejection of the Abuja Peace Agreement on Darfur by SLA groups and other rebels, the opposition parties (including the DUP and the NDA representatives in the National Council) had been opposed to the idea of inviting international forces in Darfur.
The continuous escalation of the aerial bombing and the steeping deterioration in the toil of war among the victimized population of Darfur, in addition to worsening conditions in the living standards and reckless hostilities of the GONU with the International Community, however, changed the position of many civil society groups and opposition parties.
The only most demanding agenda for Sudan today is for a responsible Authority that will immediately: 1) return the Darfur victims to their homes and lands with full compensations for all lost properties; 2) firm arrests and trials of all State managers, regular soldiers, PDF or Janjaweed elements accused of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court; and 3) efficient international support, including UN forces, in full collaboration with the African Union and a responsible command of the Sudanese Armed Forces and all rebel groups to implement the Abjua Agreement (November 2006) and the obligations of Sudan to the United Nations agreement as affirmed by the former UN Secretary General Mr. Kudi Annan (December 06) and his successor Mr. Ki-Moon.
The ruling party’s confusing position on the issue of securing UN humanitarian, security, and technical support to end the crisis in Darfur is not surprising. The GONU the NIF-NCP leads (according to the ruling party’s upper-hand wrongful formula of the Naivasha CPA) has been “swinging between support and opposition stands” vis-à-vis the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Darfur.
There is no doubt that the President, for instance, confirmed the Abuja Agreement on November 2006, pledged to work honestly with the UN and AU forces, and endorsed with the UN Secretary General the commitment of his government to the entry of AU/UN joint forces to Darfur. There is equally no doubt that the same president and his senior aides insist in confusing the country and the whole world with mixed-up pledges and commitments towards the international resolutions.
The President’s and his NIF-NCP escalation of aerial bombings, besides reckless confrontations versus the International Community, has been a real embarrassment to the GONU partners as clearly articulated by the mounting conflict between South Sudan Government, the major partner of the Naivasha CPA/GONU, and recurring spokespersons of the NIF-NCP ruling party.
The most recent visit by the Iranian President Mr. Ahmadinejad and his direct adoption of Sudan as a territory for “Iran’s support of the Sudanese government and people in confronting international pressures aimed at distorting Sudan’s unity and sovereignty… liberalizing Iraq and stand by the Palestinian issue … in order to remove the obstacles and threats devastating the Islamic nation…” posits a real threat to the conditions of the country, its peace situation, and relations with the country’s strategic neighbors (especially Egypt and the Saudi Kingdom), all Western powers, the United Nations, and the International Community.
Furthermore, a follow-up statement by the Sudanese Minister of Defense Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein in the course of the Iranian president’s pledge to treat Sudan an Iranian Protectorate overshadowed the emphasis of the Iranian-Sudanese diplomats on peaceful agreements of cooperation between the two governments in civilian activities. The Minister of Defense emphasis on “systems of defense between Iran and Sudan” unmasked a deep military commitment by Iran to the offensive policies and practices of the Islamist rule in Sudan against the people of Sudan and neighboring nations (including Chad and Central Africa).
The defense minister Hussein appreciated “the excellent cooperation in the defense systems” of the two governments based on “mutual ideology and stand against mutual enemies” he named without reservation as “western nations aiming to restructure the region and all Muslim nations.” This irresponsible escalation has been so untimely relayed at the time the US Government and the EU exert unrelenting efforts with the AU, China, and other influential entities to sooth out a consensual agreement between the Darfur rebels and GONU.
The overlapping positions of the Iranian president, his Sudanese counterpart and the latter’s minister of defense, in particular, bring to the fore the dangerous game Iran plays in Sudan as an “Iranian protectorate.” The rashness of both state managers to escalate hostilities with the International Community, the United Nations, and Western powers is not in the real interest of Iran or Sudan.
The two nations have been facing unresolved difficulties under their fundamentalist leaderships that failed to democratize state performance towards key internal issues to 1) maintain constitutional rights for all citizens indiscriminately; 2) realize the freedom of the press and expression and respect the right of all citizens, regardless of stands with or against the ruling group, to enjoy full human rights and civil freedoms; and 3) normalize relations with the International Community in accordance with the UN treaties on peace, good neighborly relations, and energy (including the Iranian non-transparent nuclear activities).
China, on its turn, has shown a better political stand towards Sudan, most recently. The President of China advised his counterpart the Sudanese president to come in good terms with the people of Darfur. Also, recent news carried a slight retreat from China preferential list of investments in Sudan.
This is a correct step from the part of China to support the national and the international ongoing efforts to move the pariah regime of Sudan to live up to state responsibilities towards its own citizens, stop all warring activities and other persecution of citizens, cooperate with Western powers (especially those concerned with the humanitarian situation in Darfur and the development and democracy of the country – chief of whom are the United States and the European Union), and comply with the African Union peace and security decisions.
Still, much more pressure from China upon the warring government of Sudan is extremely needed at the same time same pressures are urgently required from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League with the African Union, Western powers, and the United Nations to support the Sudanese national consensus to convene a national constitutional conference to straighten out the march of the country towards peace in the spirit of the Naivasha CPA and to strengthen the optional unity and sharing of all Sudanese opposition groups in the pre-election transitional rule.
* The author is a member of the Sudanese Writers’ Union. He can be reached at [email protected].