Peace deal and new speech in Darfur
In its statement of Aug 16th, 2006 on the suspension of the DPA non signatories from Joint Commission and Ceasefire Commission, the first reason of AU mission is the allegation emanating from “media statements” and “media reports” of the group’s hostility against AMIS personnel and installations.
AU mission does not bother itself to investigate the accuracy of the allegations as long as the accusations are not directed to its allies: the government of Sudan, its janjaweed militias and the new ally Minni.
In the second paragraph, AU’s reason on its decision was “the paralysis of the two Mechanisms and their failure to address the recent deterioration in the security and humanitarian situation in Darfur.” There must have been other parties involved in DPA than non signatories. Ceasefire Commission without being able to change the status of the ceasefire agreements prior to May 5th, 2006, has been the inspiration for repetitive ceasefire violations by those who AU considers as friends in the incomprehensive Abuja deal. Government of Sudan, after realizing that the use of armored vehicles bearing AU logos was not enough and inefficient to target maximum civilians, turned to even more heavy machinery. A helicopter with white color and AU emblem was used to attack the civilians on July 8th, 2006 in Birmaza and the surroundings. Does government of Sudan use AU umbrella without the knowledge of AU mission or AU mission has given the government of Sudan a license to operate under AU logo?
The 3rd reason of AU mission was the fact that “the government of Sudan declared National Redemption Front the terrorist organization…” The same government practiced scorched earth policy, committing grave crimes against humanity and war crimes. Nothing is new. The same government declared all non arab Darfuris as terrorists when it indiscriminately slaughtered about 500 000 children, women and men.
AU mission statement goes on to the point of threatening non signatory movements for reason or no reason at all while it “wishes to remind all concerned that AU is in Darfur, as neutral body..” AU “will hold the leaders of these groups personally responsible for any attempt..” It can not be clear than this. Government of Sudan and Minni faction used AU logo to attack civilians and may or did provoke AU personnel. Whatever violations or attempts by whomever, only non signatory movement parties will be held accountable under AU neutrality-double-think definition.
Emphasizing its neutrality, AU, consciously or misleadingly, declares that it is there to “help prevent further loss of life and the prolongation of the suffering of the people.” In fact the situation managed to go “..from real bad to catastrophic in Darfur” admitted Jan Egeland at the U.N.'s European headquarters in Geneva. Since AU is unable or does not like to advise the government of Sudan and Minni to abate attacking civilians, it would at least prevent AU soldiers sexually abusing fragile civilians as reported.
AU mission’s approach of being biased, from the very outset of its arrival in Darfur, to the government of Sudan has not escaped the observation of the people of Darfur. That favoritism has been reinforced after Minni faction joined the club. That observation does not need reading many books to discern. Now AU mission declaring war against whoever disagrees with the Abuja deal, be a common civilian in a camp or leader in the non signatory parties for a reason or no reason at all, it has argued no convincing reasons of ordering representatives of the people of Darfur to leave.
Without the deployment of a robust UN force and implementation of UNSC resolutions, particularly resolution 1593, the peace and security will remain as elusive, in Darfur, as it has been before and after deployment of AU force.
Ahmed M. Mohamedain
Darfur Daily News