Weblog nr 30
August 1, 2006
This weekend the Government of Kassala State organized a farewell party for UNMIS in Kassala. Starting on 1 August we will gradually withdraw our personnel from this region, both the military and the civilian staff. Our objective is to close the office and the military camp end September.
The farewell party took place in a very friendly atmosphere. We enjoyed music and dance groups from the Beja, the Rashaida and the Hausa tribes. The Beja are the most autochthonous tribe in the region. The Rashaida came from Saudi Arabia, more than hundred fifty years ago. They are nomads, with large camel herds. Gradually they are trying to settle down. The Hausa came from West Africa. Kassala is multicultural, with self-respecting people, who try to keep some distance from the ruling class in Khartoum. The area is beautiful, with well shaped mountains prominently rising in the desert. The soil is fertile, with a lot of green along the river and a relatively thriving agriculture. I came here for the first time about thirty years ago in a different situation, before the region became affected by the war. At the time already Kassala showed a certain economic differentiation, with small scale manufacturing next to a horticulture (fruits in particular), large herds and much trade.
The war between North and South brought the SPLA troops also to the East. Many stayed here for a long time. This year they left. UN military observers, supported by a Nepalese contingent, have monitored the withdrawal. When that was completed our task ended.
Peace in this region is not only dependent on the implementation of the agreement to end the North-South conflict, but also on the solution of the conflict between the Eastern rebel movements and the Government of Sudan. I wrote about this earlier (see in particular my weblogs nr 8 and nr 28). The latest information about the talks in Asmara concerning a possible Eastern Peace Agreement is rather promising. Parties have agreed on a number of principles and have committed themselves to end hostilities and to exchange prisoners. Last month I wrote that if parties think that they can reach a solution without the assistance of the international community, they deserve a chance to do so. Facilitation of peace talks by the UN is not the only way. Mediation by a whole group of countries, each of them guided by its own national interest, is certainly not the best way. Mediation by one country is another option. In the case of the East this is Eritrea, a country with very specific national interests which might jeopardize its pretense to act as a neutral mediator. However, so far the Eritrean mediation seems to have functioned rather evenly.
So, the UN should not promote itself as the only option, neither in peace keeping nor in peace mediation. And after having finished the job in peace keeping, the United Nations should leave the scene. Only when and as long as the parties concerned fully agree, there is a role for the UN.
In quite a few situations distrusts in the UN prevails. Will the UN after having come ever leave or always stay? Is the UN neutral and independent, or is the organization an instrument in the hand of the big powers? Such distrust is dominating the debate in Sudan. About two years ago, in the same hall in Kassala where we enjoyed our farewell ceremony this weekend, hundreds of angry political, tribal and civilian leaders urged the UN not to come to Kassala: “Don't harm our culture. Stay away from our women. Respect our traditions. Stay away!” My response that the UN had been invited by the Government and the SPLM met a deaf ear: “You may have an agreement with Khartoum, but not with us!” I promised that the UN would be a good guest and that we would respect the culture. Nobody would have to be afraid that the UN troops, once having come, would not leave anymore. At the farewell party the Wali and other representatives of the people in Kassala admitted: we had kept our promise. There had not been any incident. On the contrary, the relations between the Nepalese military UN contingent and the local population had been quite good.
After the farewell ceremony we went to the mountain of Kassala and drank water from the spring. Drinking water from the mountain spring signifies a promise to return to Kassala. We certainly will, but in a personal capacity, not as peace keepers.
Not only for the people in Kassala, but also for many others in Khartoum, in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan is it important that the UN kept this promise. The fear of the Sudanese, often openly expressed, is that the UN has a second agenda. Many opinion leaders, admitting that the UN, as an organization of many different countries, cannot have a hidden agenda of its own, fear that this organization will pave the way for the US. Many suspect that the objective of the West is to re-colonize Sudan. They simply cannot understand that the aim is to protect people against violence and that the Security Council is motivated by an international outrage about the massacre of tens of thousands of people. They disregard the fact that nearly all victims and all refugees and displaced persons, waiting protection, are Muslims. In their view Western countries use peace keeping as a pretext: their real objective is to wage a war against Islam. They close their eyes for the fact that most victims are Africans, pursued and killed by Arab militia and Arab Janjaweed and are enraged about what they perceive as a conspiracy against Arabs.
In that political climate about two months ago a high level delegation, sent jointly by the African Union and the United Nations, came to Sudan to consult the Government about a transition from the present AU peace keeping force towards a UN force. As I wrote in one of my earlier weblogs (see nr 26) President Bashir's response could not be misunderstood: “We are against such a transition. This is our final answer”. Several weeks later, at the Summit meeting of the African Union in Banjul, Gambia, he did not change his position. He promised the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, that the Sudanese Government would submit its ideas on a possible role for the United Nations in the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Whether such a role would imply more than humanitarian assistance and support for reconstruction and development remained unclear.
The uncertainty necessitated the UN and the AU to hold an international meeting in order to request donor countries to pledge finance for a continuation of the African Union peace force in Darfur. The meeting took place in Brussels, mid July. The AU had informed the UN that it could finance the troops in Darfur only until the end of the month and that for that reason the mandate of the AU, which lasted until October, could not be extended. Donors pledged enough financial resources to enable the AU to continue until the end of the year. The idea was that the UN could take over on 1 January 2007. The delegations left Brussels with the idea that such a transition was indeed possible, because the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lam Akol, had declared that Khartoum had not yet taken a decision. This was understood as a tiny opening: as against what had been said by President Bashir, it seemed that the Government of Sudan had not yet decided against a transition. That the Government had not yet decided in favor of the transition was taken for granted: a few months time had been gained.
The optimism does not seem to be justified. First: close scrutiny of the financial commitments by the donors reveals that less money has been pledged than had been assumed. So-called 'new money' had been mixed with reconfirmation of pledges which had already been made earlier and had already been taken into account. Whether the African Union is indeed capable to continue after September is not yet certain.
Second, it seems that the tiny opening indicated by Lam Akol does not exist. Soon after the Brussels conference Sudanese politicians, addressing domestic audiences, declared that a transition towards a UN force is out of the question. There was no sign whatsoever the government was considering a u-turn or that an effort was made to prepare the population for a 'yes' instead of the repeatedly declared 'no' to the UN. On the contrary: President Bashir himself was quoted today as telling a rally in north Kordofan: “We shall never hand Darfur over to international forces which will never enjoy being in the region that will become their graveyard'. And he cited Iraq, where despite the presence of international forces there is “destruction, damage and sedition between the Sunnis and Shiites instigated by Western intelligence, in addition to torture and killing of inmates in Abu Ghirab and other prisons”.
It is a preposterous statement, but all over Sudan the audiences swallow such tirades. The opposition, including both the parties led by such different ideologues as Turabi and El Mahdi, has declared to be in favor of a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. But the NCP assumes that they s only say so because they are against the Government. Minnie Minawi has said to welcome the UN. However, since he has signed the DPA he does not carry much weight anymore in the eyes of the hard core NCP. Vice President Kiir and other SPLM politicians have publicly taken distance from the NCP: “Why is the UN welcome in Southern Sudan but not in Darfur. What makes Darfur so different from us in the South?” However, they know that in the eyes of the Northern politicians the South may be a protectorate which they may let go, Darfur is theirs. It is their un-alienable property; it is part of their history, part of the very existence of Sudan. That Darfurians think differently is for them another reason to reject a role for the UN: the international community might eventually take sides against the regime in Khartoum. The NCP politicians have not forgotten that only two years ago Western countries were considering 'regime change' in Sudan.
No wonder that in this situation President, instead of mellowing his stance, has taken a hard line. In doing so he does not risk his domestic political position. His regime is based on a number of groups with different interests, but united in their aspiration to cling to the power in the country. He has skillfully carried out several balancing acts to stay at the top. His strong stance against foreign intervention has reaffirmed his position. Since a couple of months the President himself has taken the lead in the debate. He was the first to link the situation in Lebanon with the one in Darfur: “If they (i.e. the UN) really want to protect the people of Darfur, what are they doing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Palestine and the killing of women, children and innocents there?” This statement is no less preposterous as the one quoted above. After all, the killing of innocent citizens in Darfur was done by Sudanese themselves. The Sudanese Government bears a heavy responsibility for those atrocities. However, nobody can deny that the Israeli attacks in response to the provocation by Hezbollah, the fate of the women and children in South Lebanon, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Beirut and the US rejection of an immediate cease fire has reaffirmed the belief of many in the Arab and Muslim world that the Western countries see them as dispensable. In their view the UN is part of a Western conspiracy. They are wrong. However, they believe that they are right and they can point at many facts which reinforce their opinion. The fact that the UN kept its promise in Kassala and withdrew when the job was finished, does not carry much weight in comparison with its inability to halt attacks and to protect the people in Lebanon.
Soon the Security Council will have to take a decision about a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. Will the resolution containing that decision have a better fate than its resolutions concerning Lebanon and the Palestinians? Or is there a Plan B?
The farewell party took place in a very friendly atmosphere. We enjoyed music and dance groups from the Beja, the Rashaida and the Hausa tribes. The Beja are the most autochthonous tribe in the region. The Rashaida came from Saudi Arabia, more than hundred fifty years ago. They are nomads, with large camel herds. Gradually they are trying to settle down. The Hausa came from West Africa. Kassala is multicultural, with self-respecting people, who try to keep some distance from the ruling class in Khartoum. The area is beautiful, with well shaped mountains prominently rising in the desert. The soil is fertile, with a lot of green along the river and a relatively thriving agriculture. I came here for the first time about thirty years ago in a different situation, before the region became affected by the war. At the time already Kassala showed a certain economic differentiation, with small scale manufacturing next to a horticulture (fruits in particular), large herds and much trade.
The war between North and South brought the SPLA troops also to the East. Many stayed here for a long time. This year they left. UN military observers, supported by a Nepalese contingent, have monitored the withdrawal. When that was completed our task ended.
Peace in this region is not only dependent on the implementation of the agreement to end the North-South conflict, but also on the solution of the conflict between the Eastern rebel movements and the Government of Sudan. I wrote about this earlier (see in particular my weblogs nr 8 and nr 28). The latest information about the talks in Asmara concerning a possible Eastern Peace Agreement is rather promising. Parties have agreed on a number of principles and have committed themselves to end hostilities and to exchange prisoners. Last month I wrote that if parties think that they can reach a solution without the assistance of the international community, they deserve a chance to do so. Facilitation of peace talks by the UN is not the only way. Mediation by a whole group of countries, each of them guided by its own national interest, is certainly not the best way. Mediation by one country is another option. In the case of the East this is Eritrea, a country with very specific national interests which might jeopardize its pretense to act as a neutral mediator. However, so far the Eritrean mediation seems to have functioned rather evenly.
So, the UN should not promote itself as the only option, neither in peace keeping nor in peace mediation. And after having finished the job in peace keeping, the United Nations should leave the scene. Only when and as long as the parties concerned fully agree, there is a role for the UN.
In quite a few situations distrusts in the UN prevails. Will the UN after having come ever leave or always stay? Is the UN neutral and independent, or is the organization an instrument in the hand of the big powers? Such distrust is dominating the debate in Sudan. About two years ago, in the same hall in Kassala where we enjoyed our farewell ceremony this weekend, hundreds of angry political, tribal and civilian leaders urged the UN not to come to Kassala: “Don't harm our culture. Stay away from our women. Respect our traditions. Stay away!” My response that the UN had been invited by the Government and the SPLM met a deaf ear: “You may have an agreement with Khartoum, but not with us!” I promised that the UN would be a good guest and that we would respect the culture. Nobody would have to be afraid that the UN troops, once having come, would not leave anymore. At the farewell party the Wali and other representatives of the people in Kassala admitted: we had kept our promise. There had not been any incident. On the contrary, the relations between the Nepalese military UN contingent and the local population had been quite good.
After the farewell ceremony we went to the mountain of Kassala and drank water from the spring. Drinking water from the mountain spring signifies a promise to return to Kassala. We certainly will, but in a personal capacity, not as peace keepers.
Not only for the people in Kassala, but also for many others in Khartoum, in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan is it important that the UN kept this promise. The fear of the Sudanese, often openly expressed, is that the UN has a second agenda. Many opinion leaders, admitting that the UN, as an organization of many different countries, cannot have a hidden agenda of its own, fear that this organization will pave the way for the US. Many suspect that the objective of the West is to re-colonize Sudan. They simply cannot understand that the aim is to protect people against violence and that the Security Council is motivated by an international outrage about the massacre of tens of thousands of people. They disregard the fact that nearly all victims and all refugees and displaced persons, waiting protection, are Muslims. In their view Western countries use peace keeping as a pretext: their real objective is to wage a war against Islam. They close their eyes for the fact that most victims are Africans, pursued and killed by Arab militia and Arab Janjaweed and are enraged about what they perceive as a conspiracy against Arabs.
In that political climate about two months ago a high level delegation, sent jointly by the African Union and the United Nations, came to Sudan to consult the Government about a transition from the present AU peace keeping force towards a UN force. As I wrote in one of my earlier weblogs (see nr 26) President Bashir's response could not be misunderstood: “We are against such a transition. This is our final answer”. Several weeks later, at the Summit meeting of the African Union in Banjul, Gambia, he did not change his position. He promised the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, that the Sudanese Government would submit its ideas on a possible role for the United Nations in the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Whether such a role would imply more than humanitarian assistance and support for reconstruction and development remained unclear.
The uncertainty necessitated the UN and the AU to hold an international meeting in order to request donor countries to pledge finance for a continuation of the African Union peace force in Darfur. The meeting took place in Brussels, mid July. The AU had informed the UN that it could finance the troops in Darfur only until the end of the month and that for that reason the mandate of the AU, which lasted until October, could not be extended. Donors pledged enough financial resources to enable the AU to continue until the end of the year. The idea was that the UN could take over on 1 January 2007. The delegations left Brussels with the idea that such a transition was indeed possible, because the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lam Akol, had declared that Khartoum had not yet taken a decision. This was understood as a tiny opening: as against what had been said by President Bashir, it seemed that the Government of Sudan had not yet decided against a transition. That the Government had not yet decided in favor of the transition was taken for granted: a few months time had been gained.
The optimism does not seem to be justified. First: close scrutiny of the financial commitments by the donors reveals that less money has been pledged than had been assumed. So-called 'new money' had been mixed with reconfirmation of pledges which had already been made earlier and had already been taken into account. Whether the African Union is indeed capable to continue after September is not yet certain.
Second, it seems that the tiny opening indicated by Lam Akol does not exist. Soon after the Brussels conference Sudanese politicians, addressing domestic audiences, declared that a transition towards a UN force is out of the question. There was no sign whatsoever the government was considering a u-turn or that an effort was made to prepare the population for a 'yes' instead of the repeatedly declared 'no' to the UN. On the contrary: President Bashir himself was quoted today as telling a rally in north Kordofan: “We shall never hand Darfur over to international forces which will never enjoy being in the region that will become their graveyard'. And he cited Iraq, where despite the presence of international forces there is “destruction, damage and sedition between the Sunnis and Shiites instigated by Western intelligence, in addition to torture and killing of inmates in Abu Ghirab and other prisons”.
It is a preposterous statement, but all over Sudan the audiences swallow such tirades. The opposition, including both the parties led by such different ideologues as Turabi and El Mahdi, has declared to be in favor of a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. But the NCP assumes that they s only say so because they are against the Government. Minnie Minawi has said to welcome the UN. However, since he has signed the DPA he does not carry much weight anymore in the eyes of the hard core NCP. Vice President Kiir and other SPLM politicians have publicly taken distance from the NCP: “Why is the UN welcome in Southern Sudan but not in Darfur. What makes Darfur so different from us in the South?” However, they know that in the eyes of the Northern politicians the South may be a protectorate which they may let go, Darfur is theirs. It is their un-alienable property; it is part of their history, part of the very existence of Sudan. That Darfurians think differently is for them another reason to reject a role for the UN: the international community might eventually take sides against the regime in Khartoum. The NCP politicians have not forgotten that only two years ago Western countries were considering 'regime change' in Sudan.
No wonder that in this situation President, instead of mellowing his stance, has taken a hard line. In doing so he does not risk his domestic political position. His regime is based on a number of groups with different interests, but united in their aspiration to cling to the power in the country. He has skillfully carried out several balancing acts to stay at the top. His strong stance against foreign intervention has reaffirmed his position. Since a couple of months the President himself has taken the lead in the debate. He was the first to link the situation in Lebanon with the one in Darfur: “If they (i.e. the UN) really want to protect the people of Darfur, what are they doing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Palestine and the killing of women, children and innocents there?” This statement is no less preposterous as the one quoted above. After all, the killing of innocent citizens in Darfur was done by Sudanese themselves. The Sudanese Government bears a heavy responsibility for those atrocities. However, nobody can deny that the Israeli attacks in response to the provocation by Hezbollah, the fate of the women and children in South Lebanon, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Beirut and the US rejection of an immediate cease fire has reaffirmed the belief of many in the Arab and Muslim world that the Western countries see them as dispensable. In their view the UN is part of a Western conspiracy. They are wrong. However, they believe that they are right and they can point at many facts which reinforce their opinion. The fact that the UN kept its promise in Kassala and withdrew when the job was finished, does not carry much weight in comparison with its inability to halt attacks and to protect the people in Lebanon.
Soon the Security Council will have to take a decision about a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. Will the resolution containing that decision have a better fate than its resolutions concerning Lebanon and the Palestinians? Or is there a Plan B?