Terrorism & Security
posted October 25, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.

Sudan would allow vast increase of African Union forces in Darfur

Meanwhile, UN diplomat expelled by Sudan will remain in charge of mission.

By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

According to a British newspaper, Sudan is willing to allow almost triple the number of African Union forces operating in Darfur in order to protect civilians there.

In an interview with the Guardian, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said that a larger African Union (AU) force could receive logistical support from European and Arab countries, but UN forces would not be allowed in the country for fear of "such troops becoming a target of attacks and part of the conflict, not the solution."

Denying reports that the Arab League had suggested he accept troops from Arab or Muslim countries outside Africa, [Mr. Bashir] insisted any non-African help for the AU be confined to equipment and logistics.

Asked if the AU could [increase] its troop strength to 20,000, the president said: "We have no objection to the AU increasing its troops, strengthening its mandate, or receiving logistical support from the EU, the UN, or the Arab League for that matter, but this must of course be done in consultation with the government of national unity."



Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more. Subscribe via RSS Feed: What is this?

Currently, there are 7,000 AU soldiers in Darfur. The UN passed a Security Council resolution in September to replace the AU troops with some 20,000 UN peacekeepers, but Khartoum has refused to allow them into the country. The Christian Science Monitor reports that it is believed about 22,000 government and government-allied troops are currently in Darfur, an area the size of Texas.

The Associated Press reports that Mr. Bashir also recently declared the government was working to expel foreign media and relief groups in Darfur. Bashir told the Sudan News Agency that the government was trying to "rid [refugee] camps of those exploiting the suffering of the people, those suspicious organizations who are part of a series of conspiracies.... We have promised before God not to let Darfurians' suffering be a pretext for foreign intervention or a subject for hostile media."

Khartoum's efforts to halt "foreign intervention" began Sunday, when Jan Pronk, the UN's special envoy to Sudan, was expelled from the country for displaying "enmity to the Sudanese government and armed forces." Mr. Pronk, the UN's most senior official in Sudan, had been keeping a personal blog about the crisis in Darfur, and cited several defeats of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in a recent entry.

...The SAF has lost two major battles, last month in Umm Sidir and this week in Karakaya. The losses seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles with many wounded and many taken as prisoner. The morale in the Government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused to fight. The Government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia. This is a dangerous development. Security Council Resolutions which forbid armed mobilization are being violated. The use of militia with ties with the Janjaweed recalls the events in 2003 and 2004. During that period of the conflict systematic militia attacks, supported or at least allowed by the SAF, led to atrocious crimes.

The Independent of London reports that "Some senior UN officials are privately unhappy with Mr Pronk for his comments," and a UN spokeswoman said the blog expressed "only his personal views."

The BBC reports that Pronk defended his words on Dutch radio, calling what he had written "an open secret."

"The main thing is that a peace accord was signed in Darfur but the military are trampling all over it and are still trying to gain a military victory," he said. "I have been trying constantly over the last months to expose this and this doesn't suit them."

The BBC also reports that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Pronk would remain the head of the UN mission in Sudan.

Although the Sudanese military denounced Pronk's reports as "psychological warfare," other reports in the Western media boost his claims. The New York Times reports that fighting has broken out again in Darfur and that the peace agreement signed in May is "in disarray."

For the first time in more than two years, rebels fighting the government for more autonomy are making brazen, direct and successful attacks on soldiers, and are declaring that all previous cease-fires are no longer in effect. ...

The Darfur rebels are flush with weapons taken from the Sudanese military in raids and bought through allies in Chad and Eritrea. They say that because Sudan has blocked a United Nations force from entering Darfur to protect the 2.5 million people forced from their homes there and in eastern Chad, they have a duty to stop attacks on non-Arab tribes.

"The international community will not do it," said Gen. Khatir Toor Khala, a rebel field commander based on the border. "So it is for us to protect the innocent civilians of Darfur."

Opinions vary on how to resolve the resurging violence and genocide in Darfur. In a commentary for The Washington Times, Khidir Haroun Ahmed, the former head of the Sudanese embassy in the US, argues that sanctions "will only derail this peaceful track of change and raise suspicion among the peace partners and cause polarization," and that instead the world should focus on reining in rebel forces and their allies.

Reports coming from the region suggest most of the attacks against aid workers, aid convoys and African Union troops are made by the nonsignatories rebels. U.S. and U.N. confirm that countries in the region help those rebels in their inhumane and destructive campaign.

The first priority is to deal with those rebels and countries providing them safe havens, munitions and arms as well as new Land Cruisers to attack and cut off the route to bring aid to the needy population. That would help the government and the signatories of the deal to execute their stipulated responsibilities. This will be achieved by protecting civilians through disarmament of militias to enable those civilians to return to their villages and resume their normal lives. This is what humane and sound sentiments dictate although politics and ulterior motives may dictate something totally different.

Saudi Arabia's Arab News commends Pronk's reports from Darfur and calls for the Sudanese government to listen to the rebels and insurgents in Darfur.

Darfur's rebellion and tragedy spring from historic rivalries and feudal arrangements. Unlike the rebellions in the south and east, Darfur's insurgents have no powerful support from a neighboring state. The insurgency began with an unheard appeal to Khartoum. Khartoum seems still not to be listening. Even to a UN official who reported objectively. Its deafness can only make matters worse.

An editorial in The Telegraph of Macon, Georgia, searches for answers to the violence in Darfur, and concludes that "Darfur rebel forces may be the deciding factor in this sorry affair. A full-fledged war with Sudanese Arabs may provide the only answer for the solution to this long suffering tragedy, determining whether the genocide will come to an end."

The Boston Globe argues in an editorial that, with the risk of ongoing genocide, the UN must be willing to send in peacekeepers even without Sudan's consent. "To avoid an unprecedented confrontation, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should ask the Arab League to prevail on Sudan to accept the UN mission. But if the League refuses or Sudan refuses the League's entreaties, the Security Council should act to save the lives of Darfur's 2 million internal refugees. The choice is stark: to end a genocide, or let it continue."

Also...