INTERVIEW: Rebel JEM downplays east Darfur fighting
By Daniel Van Oudenaren
January 25, 2009 (WASHINGTON) – The spokesman of the Darfur rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Ahmed Hussein Adam, emphasized in an interview with Sudan Tribune earlier this week that the current fighting around the embattled eastern Darfur town of Muhageriya is not a reflection of JEM’s wider goals, saying that under the right conditions the movement would now be ready to participate in negotiations.
But the JEM spokesman stressed Wednesday that the operation to take the town was not aimed against Minnawi, saying, “As JEM, we are focused on the big picture. Minni is not our enemy. As a matter of fact, Minni is our brother and he is one of us.”
Speaking again on Saturday after Sudanese government aircraft bombed the town, Adam said that JEM is looking for “a common framework between us and Minni, working to contain our differences.” He added, “We don’t want to fight anyone within Darfur. This is not our strategy.”
Though emphasizing commitment to a political solution, Adam expressed skepticism that the ruling party of Sudan has actually come to view this as the best course forward, despite new pressures on the regime: “my feeling is that National Congress still now, I mean the influential people of the National Congress–they didn’t take a strategic decision to resolve the conflict in Darfur through political means.”
The Sudanese-British lawyer was part of a JEM delegation to visit Washington this month, meeting with State Department officials, President Bush’s Special Envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson and Former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer—though apparently no members of the new Obama team have agreed to meet with him.
During the interview, Adam described the political composition of JEM, its goals, and its attitude toward peace negotiations in light of past failed efforts.
His views, though perhaps not an exact reflection of those of the field commanders, represent some outward political attitudes of the rebels as they bid for international allies in their war against the Sudan government.
The full text of the interview is below.
ST: What is your position on the recent fighting in Muhageriya?
Adam: As JEM, we are focused on the big picture. Minni is not our enemy. As a matter of fact, Minni is our brother and he is one of us. And it’s not the intention of JEM to exclude Minni from any kind of process or something like that, this is for sure. But we need from Minni also, is to fix his position and statements together very clearly.
What happened in Muhageryia is very unfortunate. It wasn’t the intention of JEM. But Minni is the one who attacked us. Because we have a lot of people in southern Darfur–we have some bases actually in southern Darfur–and our people they went through Thabit and many areas in southern Darfur as an administrative kind of convoy, reaching out to people, providing them with logistical support and so on. And also we met Minni people and had many brotherly discussions with them, and our people when they went to Muhageriya, they held a big rally last Wednesday, alone as JEM.
After that, our people they went and met with Minni. The next day, very early on the morning on Thursday, they attacked us—some people they were even sleeping. That attack was orchestrated with the government. But our people now they captured the town, there is no question about it. It was very unfortunate because in as JEM, that is not our aim and is not our strategy. Actually we are focused on the big picture, because we don’t want to fight each other. It is not against Minni by any means; but the government is attacking people every day.
JEM is seeking to establish new alliances, which include the marginalized people around the Sudan, in eastern Sudan, Darfur, Blue Nile, and all these places, and actually I am not excluding the other areas as well, such as people who believe in a democratic and free Sudan in different parts whether they are in Khartoum or whether they are in the north. Because for us the political system and the direction of the country since independence in 1956 have failed because it has brought us to this stage of conflicts and war everywhere in the country.
ST: So how does JEM envision the state if you were to achieve your political goals? How would the state in Sudan be different?
Of course our vision is clear, that any political system should include and not only recognize the base but the diversity of the country—the religious diversity, the ethnic diversity, the cultural diversity. So we don’t want a country that would be just an Arab or an Islamic alone, but the political system should embrace the diversity of the country itself, and the direction of the country also should be toward a democratic and free Sudan. That is very important. And the political system itself is not to be based on any religion or any ethnicity or something like that; it is to be Sudanese-oriented and a Sudanese-based political system which includes the diverse situation.
ST: At this point there is both a military operation going on in South Darfur and you have sent a delegation to Doha for negotiations—which is the real prospect that is going to move JEM forward?
Over the course of the conflict, JEM has been for a political solution and for a just and peaceful settlement to the Sudanese conflict in Darfur. But the government people, the National Congress, have been denying the right of the people of Darfur—denying actually the political nature of the problem of Darfur. That is why they have been all the time imposing a security and military solution. Even during the Abuja talks, they were in Abuja using Abuja as a PR kind of platform, but at the same time they never departed from their approach of security and military approach to the solution of the problem. So the previous round, that took place in Sirte, Libya, we didn’t participate, not because we don’t want to participate, but because the ground was ill-prepared, because they brought everybody.
They brought a lot of factions, some of them they belong to the government of Sudan, and even they didn’t consult us during the process of that round at all. They only consulted the government of Sudan, the National Congress. So we told them, that as a mediation you have to be impartial. If you want us to own the process, you have to consult us at all stages and levels of the process itself, in the format, in the preparation kind of level, and during the process itself. That’s why we didn’t participate in Sirte, because we knew that Sirte was going to be a failure, because it was ill-prepared by the mediation at that time.
Now when these people of Qatar said that they want to play a role, actually we had lot of questions and a lot of suspicions, about the role of Qatar, because Qatar just came out of the blue to assume that kind of role. Why now, and why Qatar? They are very far away from Sudan and they didn’t assume any kind of responsibility or role throughout the conflict since 2003, and why now? Is this just because of the issue of ICC [International Criminal Court, which is seeking to arrest Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir on ten counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity], is it just because they want to save Al-Bashir? A lot of questions like that. That’s why we said instead of asking these questions from afar, we decided to go to Doha to meet them, to engage with them directly and to ask our questions directly.
So we went there, being very clear with them about the role of the international community–because we told them straight away that the international community has to have a very important role. Key on that one is the United States of America, European union, as well as Britain and France and Norway and all these countries—the real international community who have been helping our country throughout the conflict, with humanitarian assistance.
ST: You would like to see them take a role in mediating?
Yes, I mean in the process itself. That’s what we told the Qataris, because our position is that we need the international community to have a role.
ST: Like Naivasha (the peace negotiations that brought an end to the north-south war)?
Yes exactly. One of the questions also we asked them very straight away, is what is the role of the AU-UN joint mediation of Djibril Bassole? Because from our perspective we need Djibril Bassole to take that role, since he is mandated by the Security Council to play this kind of role. They said that he is going to be in the driving seat in this process, and as a matter of fact we discovered that they have a very good work relationship and coordination with Djibril Bassole.
And also we asked them, does your role have anything to do with the issue of ICC? Because our position is very clear: that this has not to be linked to the issue of the ICC. We told them straightaway, this is not about saving Omer Al-Bashir, this is about political process. So they assured us that this has nothing to do with the ICC. Also it came actually to the issue of how they understand the problem of Darfur, how they understand the magnitude of the problem, the background of the problem, the root cause of the problem.
So we found actually that they are in good position on that one, because they visited our people, JEM on the ground and they visited some IDP camps and that kind of thing. So these kinds of questions we engaged with them to find answers, and we are still in consultation with them through Djibril Bassole and even directly. And even though we didn’t say to them that now we accepted your role, we told them that we are going to run some sort of consultation and we will get back to you. And as a matter of fact now we don’t have a problem to participate in any kind of political process at Doha, if actually they prepare it in a good way.
ST: There is a widespread perception in the West, at least, that JEM grew out of the Islamist movement—and so how do you reconcile that, if that’s true, with tolerating religious diversity, as you mentioned?
Adam: Well of course this is just a conception for some circles. As a matter of fact this kind of propaganda is spread by the government people, the National Congress people are very afraid of JEM. They are afraid of JEM because it represents a real political challenge for them, afraid of JEM because it presents a real challenge for them militarily and politically, because JEM is a well organized movement, JEM is a disciplined movement and JEM has real vision. For them they want to isolate JEM from the international community, from the Western countries, as well as from the Sudanese–that is why they are spreading this kind of propaganda saying that it is Islamic.
JEM has nothing to do with political Islam, at all. Yes, we have some people who were in the Islamic movement in the past, but not now. They don’t have any affiliation whatsoever. And we have some people who belong to the communist party, some who belong to the Umma party, and different political parties in Sudan.
And the majority of JEM people, whether they are at the political level or military level, they don’t have any kind of previous political affiliation. But all these groups, all these component groups, they believe in a manifesto and they believe in a political kind of chapter and that political chapter has nothing to do with political Islam , has nothing to do with the Sharia state, has nothing to do actually with the previous state whatsoever.
Our people, the people of Darfur, they joined a lot of political parties in the country, so-called traditional parties including the Islamic movement and Umma party. But they came to one conclusion that all these parties they have are not sufficient to address the aspirations of the people of Darfur. That’s why we established JEM, that’s why we founded JEM. We are looking forward actually in a peaceful situation and a peaceful era in Sudan, we are going to transform our movement to a political party and to break within the political game, the democratic game.
ST: What about the recommendations of the Sudan People’s Forum, do you endorse the conclusions that they came to or do you have objections to it?
Yes I heard about that one, but the thing is, the All-Sudan Initiative, if there is one thing positive about it, it is that that initiative discussed the issues, which it denied for a long time, because they discussed the same issues that we have been stating time and time again. So finally they recognized this. But as a matter of fact their intention wasn’t good because for them they want actually to buy time. But for us that’s something that just concerns the National Congress, because for us, the real test, for all these kinds of initiatives, is the negotiating table. But my feeling is that National Congress still now, I mean the influential people of the National Congress–they didn’t take a strategic decision to resolve the conflict in Darfur through political means.
ST: Let’s talk about the camps for internally displaced persons: At what point are those people going to get to go home, and what is it going to take? Is it going to take a military solution for that or what is the political mechanism that is going to allow them to return to their homes?
We don’t think that there is a military solution to the conflict in Darfur. We believe in this, and even as we took arms pursuing this armed struggle, this has been imposed on us. The government doesn’t believe in a political solution, the government doesn’t believe in democratic process, the government says, in front of the people “I don’t want even wounded, I don’t want sick (to survive),” and all this kind of rhetoric of Omer Al-Bashir. For the IDPs to go home, that’s our main objective, because ourselves we don’t want our people to stay in these kind of circumstances for a long time, because that is going to achieve the aims and the objectives of the National Congress, because the National Congress’s real intention is to change the demography of Darfur. But even we don’t want our people to remain in these kinds of security and economic circumstances. What we need is a real kind of political solution; our people the can retain their original places in a political solution that addresses the root causes itself. So we cannot say to the people go back home while the source of the insecurity, the source of terrorism is till there—whether it is janjaweed or the other militias backed by the government, or even the regular army or security of the National Congress.
ST: Do you envision that a peace agreement can be reached without re-negotiating the north-south peace deal (CPA)?
As a matter of fact as JEM we endorse fully the CPA and the rights and benefits provided by the CPA to our people of Southern Sudan. They deserve it and they deserve more than that. There is no question about that. But even according to the CPA, according to the Machakos protocol, the country is divided south and north. So they said, Darfur, you are part of the north. What we want is to have our share, power-sharing and wealth-sharing, from our portion of the north, which is given to the National Congress. I don’t think that the National Congress deserves this, because this share is for the entire north. The population of Darfur is 20% of the population, according even to the government figures, so power- and wealth-sharing should be distributed accordingly.
But of course there are some things on which we need to consult with SPLM. That is why we are engaged with SPLM, that is why right now we want SPLM to be involved in any kind of negotiations, in any kind of political process. That is why JEM is engaging all the time with SPLM. But we don’t want to change the CPA or something like that.
ST: It’s often said that there are dozens of rebel groups in Darfur, how do you explain that perception?
During previous mediations, a lot of people, they failed to act, and they failed to put pressure on the government side. So they tried to find justification for their laziness. So that is why they say there are a lot of rebel groups, which has been exaggerated by the way. That shouldn’t prevent the international community from acting to push for a political solution, and I don’t believe that there are a lot of rebel groups. Right now the situation on the ground is moving toward having a mainstream kind of movement. And JEM is a political and military and popular kind of movement which represents different ethnic and political groups, not even just in Darfur but in different regions.
ST: What is your position as a movement, on the idea that the American military can help people in Darfur?
Actually, the course of action has to be changed. I’m sure, not like the previous one. We need some bold and creative kind of response. Maybe military, at some stage, would be an option. There is no question about that. But we have got to have a comprehensive kind of approach: security, political and all these kind of things have to combine to have a holistic approach to address the problem. Of course we need to depart from inaction to action.
As Darfurians, we have to do our homework. Yes, we need the Obama people to help us, there is not question about it. But also we our ready to play our role, we our ready to do our own homework. This is very important. But one of the main things for the Obama people to understand is that the definition of the problem itself has got to have a genuine definition. Previous mediators, including with the so-called Darfur experts, they said that the problem is just humanitarian and security. Humanitarian is one of the top priorities, there is no question. We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation, we are very concerned about the security situation, but the problem is beyond that, the problem is deeper on the political marginalization and the economic marginalization.
And the Darfur thing is just a symptom of the national crisis of governance in the whole country of Sudan. So we’ve got to have some sort of holistic approach. Also we need the international community to speak in one voice and to have some sort of collective policy toward the issues. And I believe that this Obama administration, they will depart actually from the rhetoric to the actions.
(ST)