Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Darfur's turn for the worse

The African Union votes Friday on whether to let the UN take command of its military forces in Darfur.

(Page 3 of 3)



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

It all points to a government intent on keeping oil-rich regions of its country, like Darfur, under its control, she says - and is thus "very resistant to any attempts to infringe on its sovereignty," even if "the civilian population is bearing the brunt of that."

Abraham McLaughlin contributed reporting from Johannesburg, South Africa.

At long last, Canadian equipment arrives in Darfur

ZAM ZAM, SUDAN - The "Grizzlies" have come to Darfur. Dozens of white Canadian armored personnel carriers, pulled from mothballs last year for use by African Union (AU) forces, sit inert like abandoned moon rovers in the desert sun for want of fuel, ammunition, and training for their crews.

The good news is that the 105 Grizzlies are in Darfur at all. Scheduled to arrive last fall for the African Union's beleaguered mission here, the Sudanese government stalled customs clearance for more than three months, even as AU soldiers died in firefights with bandits and shied away from confrontations with armed groups.

"We've been waiting for these vehicles since last year," says Nigerian Army Sgt. Hossana Obadiah. "The bandits have been getting advantages, hitting the protection forces in their jeeps. These ones are well armored, and they are armed."

The talk in Khartoum used to be of a UN takeover of the African Union forces in Sudan. Fierce opposition by Khartoum, however, could stop a blue helmet force from taking over in Darfur.

That leaves the shredded peace in Darfur, and the security of 3 million people displaced or threatened by two years of ethnic cleansing, in the hands of the undermanned and outgunned AU forces. The forces are short of helicopters, diesel fuel, satellite phones, and radio equipment.

A cornerstone of what AU policymakers call the organization's "new principle of non-indifference," the African Mission in Sudan has been saddled with a watery mandate, a recalcitrant host government, and outsized expectations - primarily the expectation that they could somehow stop the killing in Darfur.

"It's classic for people in a conflict to have high expectations for a major international intervention," says Pierre-Antoine Braud, a military analyst at the European Union-funded Institute for Security Studies in Paris. "They think there will be no more killings and no more rapes."

AU forces are in Darfur as military observers. Their mandate includes an instruction "to protect civilians encountered who are under imminent threat and in the immediate vicinity, within the limits of mission capability, it being understood that civilian protection is the [Sudan] government's responsibility."

Aid workers say AU forces have secured food convoys and increased security at several displaced-person camps. But their numbers - fewer than 7,000 in an area the size of Texas, tell the real story.

"Militarily, you can't cover each and every inch of land,'' says Nigerian Army Col. Ladan Yusuf, commander of the AU forces in Geniena, West Darfur. A graduate of US Army Ranger school and a veteran of peacekeeping missions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Yusuf sees his role in Darfur as that of a diplomat. "I use conversations with [rebel] leaders, diplomacy... It is difficult, because they are as strong as I am.''

Page: Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions