Weblog nr 9
January 9, 2006
Shortly after New Year I went to Abuja to attend the Darfur peace talks again. I had hoped that this would not be necessary, because we had set a deadline. The objective was to end the talks with a peace agreement ultimately 31 December 2005. The parties had explicitly committed themselves to work towards this end in their opening speeches at the beginning of the seventh round of the negotiations. However, they failed.
In Abuja it seemed as if the parties did not really care. It was as if nobody had noticed that the deadline had been passed. The atmosphere was good, but there was no sense of urgency. The parties talk and stay in one hotel, not very big, on a 24/7 basis. There are many informal contacts in the corridors and between the official talks. The language has become civilized, without the harsh personal accusations which had characterized the confrontations during earlier rounds. The parties had quickly learned negotiating techniques and apply these diligently, bracketing texts, asking for internal consultations, questioning the agenda, mixing procedures and substance, rephrasing terms without changing positions, and so on. The negotiators talk, but don’t make progress. “If we pursue in this pace, we can continue another year or two”, one of the observers said.
The chair of the negotiations, Salim Salim, the former Secretary General of the African Union, has been able to bring order and discipline into the talks. The Darfur rebel movements, while opposing each other in the ground in Darfur, have agreed to work together in Abuja. They present common positions, but these turn out to be more or less non-negotiable. Salim has not been able to prevent that negotiators come and go, taking long breaks for Christmas and for Eid as well as for visits to Libya and Chad. The talks on the most important chapter, the security arrangements, so far only focused on the formulation of the agenda. It can hardly be expected that the other chapters, power and wealth sharing, can be closed without agreement on security. Such an agreement would also imply consensus about the future of the movements themselves. Can their army stay or will it be integrated into the Government army? Will they disarm without previous or at least parallel disarmament of the Arab militia and the Janjaweed? Will they accept cantonment? For them such questions are of an existential character. The Government has insisted on the full implementation of the D’Jamena cease fire agreement of May 2005. Indeed, but the Government army has also violated the cease fire. A full implementation of the D’Jamena cease fire agreement would be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for peace. The militia were not a party to the cease fire and have continued to attack villages. Did they do so with support from the army? The government denies this, but African Union monitors have reported otherwise. The cease fire has to be kept. However, lasting stability and sustained security require a better agreement, with obligations for all armed parties, with strong and pro-active international monitoring and with sanctions in case of non-compliance.
I left Abuja quite disappointed. The least the parties could do is to commit themselves to stop the clock. The deadline of 31 December has not been met, but the other objective, to reach an agreement before the end of the seventh round, is still within reach. It was envisaged that the seventh round would ultimately end on New Year’s eve. The parties would gain credibility if they would announce to continue talking relentlessly, without adjourning for another round later this year. Stop the clock, imagine that it is still 31 December 2005. If not, parties would show that they do not really care for the people they claim to represent.
In my view the international community should not accept that there is still no peace agreement on Darfur. It is high time to draw the conclusion that the strategy which has been followed so far has failed. It should be reviewed and changed. The fate of about three million war affected people, of which more than two million live in camps, requires more than lip service and muddling through.
In Abuja it seemed as if the parties did not really care. It was as if nobody had noticed that the deadline had been passed. The atmosphere was good, but there was no sense of urgency. The parties talk and stay in one hotel, not very big, on a 24/7 basis. There are many informal contacts in the corridors and between the official talks. The language has become civilized, without the harsh personal accusations which had characterized the confrontations during earlier rounds. The parties had quickly learned negotiating techniques and apply these diligently, bracketing texts, asking for internal consultations, questioning the agenda, mixing procedures and substance, rephrasing terms without changing positions, and so on. The negotiators talk, but don’t make progress. “If we pursue in this pace, we can continue another year or two”, one of the observers said.
The chair of the negotiations, Salim Salim, the former Secretary General of the African Union, has been able to bring order and discipline into the talks. The Darfur rebel movements, while opposing each other in the ground in Darfur, have agreed to work together in Abuja. They present common positions, but these turn out to be more or less non-negotiable. Salim has not been able to prevent that negotiators come and go, taking long breaks for Christmas and for Eid as well as for visits to Libya and Chad. The talks on the most important chapter, the security arrangements, so far only focused on the formulation of the agenda. It can hardly be expected that the other chapters, power and wealth sharing, can be closed without agreement on security. Such an agreement would also imply consensus about the future of the movements themselves. Can their army stay or will it be integrated into the Government army? Will they disarm without previous or at least parallel disarmament of the Arab militia and the Janjaweed? Will they accept cantonment? For them such questions are of an existential character. The Government has insisted on the full implementation of the D’Jamena cease fire agreement of May 2005. Indeed, but the Government army has also violated the cease fire. A full implementation of the D’Jamena cease fire agreement would be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for peace. The militia were not a party to the cease fire and have continued to attack villages. Did they do so with support from the army? The government denies this, but African Union monitors have reported otherwise. The cease fire has to be kept. However, lasting stability and sustained security require a better agreement, with obligations for all armed parties, with strong and pro-active international monitoring and with sanctions in case of non-compliance.
I left Abuja quite disappointed. The least the parties could do is to commit themselves to stop the clock. The deadline of 31 December has not been met, but the other objective, to reach an agreement before the end of the seventh round, is still within reach. It was envisaged that the seventh round would ultimately end on New Year’s eve. The parties would gain credibility if they would announce to continue talking relentlessly, without adjourning for another round later this year. Stop the clock, imagine that it is still 31 December 2005. If not, parties would show that they do not really care for the people they claim to represent.
In my view the international community should not accept that there is still no peace agreement on Darfur. It is high time to draw the conclusion that the strategy which has been followed so far has failed. It should be reviewed and changed. The fate of about three million war affected people, of which more than two million live in camps, requires more than lip service and muddling through.