|
|
 Re: الخرطوم تستدعي السفيرة البريطانية احتجاجاً على تصريحات براون حول دارفور!!! (Re: Muhammad Elamin)
|
Interview transcript
The following is a transcript of Jonathan Steele's interview with the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir. It is based on a translation by the president's interpreter
Wednesday October 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The Libyan talks on Darfur have now started, and it hasn't been very successful. Are you disappointed by what's going on in Libya?
I'm not actually disappointed because what happened is not a surprise to me.
The problem of Darfur is not a political issue. As everybody knows, the problem in Darfur is basically a result of the environmental changes that took place in the region. This has led to conflict over diminishing natural resources. It all started with frictions between nomads and farmers. And also there is human mobility, a shift of those who have been struck by this desertification and lack of rain and found it necessary to move from their areas into areas of other people.
However, natural as the whole thing is, the external interventions which are purposeful have drawn an image which is not expressive of the reality of the situation. This is very well demonstrated by the fact that these armed groups took to arms for very, very different reasons, purposes and objectives. Some took up arms because of tribal conflicts, and problems with other groups.
Some of these armed groups also were in actual fact bandits and they practised banditry throughout Darfur so they found this environment of conflict and they got into it and started to talk about political issues. Also, the external interventions into the conflict actually sharpened the appetite of some of the commanders and leaders to look for positions and get part of this cake.
Of course these external interventions actually encouraged these armed groups to continue fighting against the government, even at a time when the government showed cooperation and the government is co-operating with the international community and when the government is actually expressing willingness to resolve the problem.
The talks in Sirte, Libya are an example. The government is represented over there with a huge delegation, very high-ranking delegation, and the other side, the armed groups, the movements, some of them refuse to come over and even those who decided to come, they declared that they only came to be present at the opening session and not for talk.
In this situation all of a sudden Prime Minister Brown came out to say that if these talks failed we are preparing to impose penalties against the government of Sudan. To us we read it as encouraging these people, the movements, 'Make these talks fail so that we will be able to punish the government of Sudan'. So we consider that if these talks fail in Sirte I think it will be the responsibility of the external interventions, particularly from Britain, France and the United states.
I think the British government has said that there was a misunderstanding. Do you accept there was a misunderstanding?
[The president shakes his head] We very well read and understand English. There was no misunderstanding at all. The statement was very clear.
But I think they've changed the statement now?
No, unless there is an announced apology ...
You feel you want an apology?
Yes, because we didn't have it. We are looking for peace. We go there for peace and these statements come out. To us of course Britain, the United States and France, throughout, they adopted all the resolutions to punish the government of Sudan in the international arena and institutions.
What we suffer here and in Darfur in particular and the problems in Sudan in general are caused by these three powers, Britain, France and the United States.
Some of the rebel leaders have said they think Libya is not a neutral country and that Colonel Gadafy is not an honest broker and the talks should be moved to another country. Would you be willing to accept moving the talks to some other place if that would help bring peace?
These are all subterfuges. They believe that if these talks are moved to another country that is anti-Sudan, they will be in a better position. Some of them even say 'We don't want the mediation of the African Union itself', because the situation is a result of the encouragement by some European powers that, if the AU is excluded and Europe came in as mediators, their position would be improved.
Once the talks start, if they start, what sort of adjustments to the Darfur peace agreement [signed in Abuja last May, but rejected by most rebel movements] would you accept? For example, they say Darfur should be one region instead of three states, as it is now. Are you prepared to accept that?
It is our conviction that the majority of people in Darfur do not want that. They refuse to go as one single region. Even before this problem in Darfur erupted there was a government conference here in Khartoum to evaluate the federal system in Sudan. It was my proposal to go back to the ancient administrative arrangements where we have nine states instead of the current 26. This proposal was firmly and furiously opposed. All the new states refused to go back to the capitals of the old Sudan.
When did you make that proposal?
We will find out exactly for you. During this conference there was particular opposition from people in South Darfur who represent about half the population of Darfur. They absolutely rejected it. Added to that, the people of West Darfur also refused to accept this proposal. In the DPA this option was given to the people of Darfur. According to this agreement the people of Darfur will have the opportunity to go to a referendum to see whether to go back to a one-region system or maintain the three states. It is only fair enough that we go back to the people to decide their fate and future, and not to the movements.
In two months on January 1 this new hybrid force, Unamid, will start operating. Thailand has offered 800 troops and some other countries in Asia, like Nepal and Bangladesh have offered troops. Your government seems to be rejecting, or delaying taking, these non-African troops. What is the reason for the delay?
Our agreements and notes of understanding with the UN are that priority for troop contributions would be given to African countries. We do not go outside Africa. Only if we fail to find the required elements in Africa, then at that time we will consider bringing in elements from outside. What is required in Darfur now is eight battalions. The contribution submitted so far by African countries is sixteen battalions whereas we only need eight. So Africa is producing 200% of our requirements. They ignore this offer of sixteen battalions and they want to start with the battalion from Thailand.
We will never accept any forces from outside Africa until we are convinced that Africa has failed to contribute the required forces. We have already accepted elements from outside the continent and they represent between sixteen and twenty per cent of the required forces.
The next issue will be the logistics of this force, and helicopters will be one of the big problems. African countries have small air forces etc. Some European countries are offering to arrange for some helicopters. Will you accept advanced helicopters for this mission?
We have a contribution now from Jordan for tactical helicopters and we accepted that. Of course these forces will also need administrative helicopters. There is no problem with that.
Can I ask about the problems in the government of national unity? Can this be resolved fairly quickly, with a return to the full participation of the SPLM in the government?
In fact, the whole issue is not justified. There is no justification whatsoever for this issue to come up. Before this came up, they had three presidency meetings. They reviewed all these issues. The conclusion of those meetings was full agreement. There were no differences at all at that time. During those meetings they reviewed the implementation of the CPA [the comprehensive peace agreement and signed in 2005 to settle the North-South conflict] and listed all the outstanding issues. They wanted to make a plan how to resolve and implement those issues. And those outstanding issues were listed as the programme of the presidency up to the end of this year. If we carefully reviewed the list of the outstanding issues, those issues which were not completed by the SPLA far exceed what the government has to do.
I will cite one example, the deployment of forces. The government forces, SAF, redeployed its forces at the rate of 87%, while the SPLA redeployed its forces at the rate of 7% only. This is very clearly stated in the UN reports.
We expect the evaluation and assessment commission will release its report today. It will reveal everything, how much iis implemented, the outstanding issues, and the responsibility of each party for the outstanding issues. It will show the government has exceeded all the limits set out for them. It is now the responsibility of the SPLA to calm down.
Of course you know this commission is neutral. It is chaired by Tom Vraalsen [a Norwegian diplomat] and it includes members from IGAD and the Europeans.
So do you expect there will be a reconciliation in the next few days?
We expect that very soon.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Muhammad Elamin
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست