By IPS Correspondents
NAIROBI, Jun 14 2006 (IPS)

The Sudanese government appears to be taking a hard line on the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to help protect civilians in the war-torn western region of Darfur.

The Sudanese government appears to be taking a hard line on the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to help protect civilians in the war-torn region of Darfur, in western Sudan.

Government had previously said it would allow an assessment mission into the area to plan for U.N. deployment; this came after Khartoum signed a peace accord last month with the main faction of the largest rebel group in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Army. Another rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement, declined to endorse the deal.

“Our position is against any foreign interference in Darfur. The U.N. troops will complicate rather than solve things,” Elsamani Elwasila, Sudan’s minister of state for foreign affairs, told journalists in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, Wednesday.

“We do not want some people to tell us what we need. We know what we need,” he added.

Instead, government favours expanding the African Union (AU) force which is already on the ground in Darfur, saying this mission has enough experience to manage the situation there – but that it lacks funding and logistical support.

Elwasila also said that a U.N. force would take several months to deploy – the estimate is from eight to nine months – while civilians in Darfur needed protection immediately. The U.N. should rather focus on addressing basic human needs in the impoverished region, he noted.

“There are no basic human resources. People drink from the same sources where animals drink; there is lack of roads, schools and medical facilities. That is why we are saying we need the U.N. in its full capacity: the World Health Organisation, UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) and others, to address problems in Darfur.”

However, David Mozersky, an authority on Sudan with the International Crisis Group – a think-tank based in Brussels – believes there are other reasons behind Khartoum’s reluctance to allow U.N. forces to deploy.

“The government is fearful that a strong U.N. force in Darfur will lead to the arrest of people in government who have been mentioned by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to have been involved in war crimes in the area,” he told IPS.

Last year, the ICC announced that it would begin investigating events in Darfur, where government is accused of backing Arab militias said to have perpetrated widespread human rights abuses against a number of ethnic groups in the area.

Sudan’s government later set up the Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur (SCCED), insisting that this tribunal would deal with claims of abuse. A year later, however, rights organisations say little has been done to bring the alleged perpetrators of injustices to book.

“The information Human Rights Watch has been able to gather on the Court’s first year of operations indicates there is no genuine willingness on the part of Sudanese authorities to ensure that the perpetrators of the atrocities in Darfur are brought before the SCCED for prosecution,” says a report issued last week by the New York-based rights group.

According to the report, only 13 cases have been brought before the SCCED to date. In addition, these only involve “ordinary crimes, such as theft, possession of stolen goods or individual murders unrelated to larger attacks.”

The Darfur conflict, which began in early 2003, has claimed tens of thousands of lives and uprooted more than two million people from their homes, according to U.N. figures.

The violence began when the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement took up arms to protest against government’s alleged neglect of the area. Officials responded by targeting the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, (seen as supporting the rebels), in part through the activities of the Arab militants, known as “janjaweed” – or “men on horseback”. Nomadic Arabs and settled ethnic groups in Darfur have also been at odds over control of land.

U.S. officials have termed attacks on the groups genocide.

Abuses in Darfur are said to include widespread rape, and the destruction of villages.

“No official has been charged on the basis of command responsibility for these crimes, even though both the crimes and many perpetrators have been named and are well-known within Sudan and to the international community,” notes Human Rights Watch.

However, Elwasila says there is no such thing as the janjaweed.

“It is a jargon used only by some people…We opened the country for people to see if there was any janjaweed and nobody opened their mouths to talk of janjaweed, apart from a few NGOs (non-governmental organisations),” he indicated in Nairobi.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
NAIROBI, Jun 14 2006 (IPS)

The Sudanese government appears to be taking a hard line on the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to help protect civilians in the war-torn region of Darfur, in western Sudan.

Government had previously said it would allow an assessment mission into the area to plan for U.N. deployment; this came after Khartoum signed a peace accord last month with the main faction of the largest rebel group in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Army. Another rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement, declined to endorse the deal.

“Our position is against any foreign interference in Darfur. The U.N. troops will complicate rather than solve things,” Elsamani Elwasila, Sudan’s minister of state for foreign affairs, told journalists in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, Wednesday.

“We do not want some people to tell us what we need. We know what we need,” he added.

Instead, government favours expanding the African Union (AU) force which is already on the ground in Darfur, saying this mission has enough experience to manage the situation there – but that it lacks funding and logistical support.

At present, there are some 7,200 AU troops in Darfur. Plans are underway to increase the force to 10,000 to enable it monitor the region, which is about the size of France.

Elwasila also said that a U.N. force would take several months to deploy – the estimate is from eight to nine months – while civilians in Darfur needed protection immediately. The U.N. should rather focus on addressing basic human needs in the impoverished region, he noted.

“There are no basic human resources. People drink from the same sources where animals drink; there is lack of roads, schools and medical facilities. That is why we are saying we need the U.N. in its full capacity: the World Health Organisation, UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) and others, to address problems in Darfur.”

However, David Mozersky, an authority on Sudan with the International Crisis Group – a think-tank based in Brussels – believes there are other reasons behind Khartoum’s reluctance to allow U.N. forces to deploy.

“The government is fearful that a strong U.N. force in Darfur will lead to the arrest of people in government who have been mentioned by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to have been involved in war crimes in the area,” he told IPS.

Last year, the ICC announced that it would begin investigating events in Darfur, where government is accused of backing Arab militias said to have perpetrated widespread human rights abuses against a number of ethnic groups in the area.

Sudan’s government later set up the Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur (SCCED), insisting that this tribunal would deal with claims of abuse. A year later, however, rights organisations say little has been done to bring the alleged perpetrators of injustices to book.

“The information Human Rights Watch has been able to gather on the Court’s first year of operations indicates there is no genuine willingness on the part of Sudanese authorities to ensure that the perpetrators of the atrocities in Darfur are brought before the SCCED for prosecution,” says a report issued last week by the New York-based rights group.

According to the report, only 13 cases have been brought before the SCCED to date. In addition, these only involve “ordinary crimes, such as theft, possession of stolen goods or individual murders unrelated to larger attacks.”

The Darfur conflict, which began in early 2003, has claimed tens of thousands of lives and uprooted more than two million people from their homes, according to U.N. figures.

The violence began when the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement took up arms to protest against government’s alleged neglect of the area. Officials responded by targeting the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, (seen as supporting the rebels), in part through the activities of the Arab militants, known as “janjaweed” – or “men on horseback”. Nomadic Arabs and settled ethnic groups in Darfur have also been at odds over control of land.

U.S. officials have termed attacks on the groups genocide.

Abuses in Darfur are said to include widespread rape, and the destruction of villages.

“No official has been charged on the basis of command responsibility for these crimes, even though both the crimes and many perpetrators have been named and are well-known within Sudan and to the international community,” notes Human Rights Watch.

However, Elwasila says there is no such thing as the janjaweed.

“It is a jargon used only by some people…We opened the country for people to see if there was any janjaweed and nobody opened their mouths to talk of janjaweed, apart from a few NGOs (non-governmental organisations),” he indicated in Nairobi.

Excerpt: