Horn of Africa countries struggle to end war and initiate political stability, writes Gamal Nkrumah Sovereignty and Sudan With Washington and Khartoum battling it out at the UN, blue-helmeted peace-keepers remain distant from Darfur for the time being Darfur has become a byword for horrifying bloodshed with the westernmost war-torn Sudanese province the main subject of discussion at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly this week. Brutal low-level intensity warfare between Sudanese government forces and their local allies, on the one hand, and armed opposition groups on the other, has created a humanitarian catastrophe of frightful proportions. The Sudanese government, meanwhile, is playing down ramifications of the Darfur crisis. Sudanese officials claim that Western powers and humanitarian relief groups are conjuring up grossly exaggerated images of death and destruction in Darfur as pretext for military intervention. The Sudanese government, supported by a considerable segment of Sudanese and Arab public opinion, is loath to contemplate the idea of another Muslim nation policed by Western troops. On Tuesday, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Beshir addressed the General Assembly and reiterated the Sudanese government position that it was strongly opposed to the deployment of foreign peace-keeping troops in Darfur. "The fact is that the majority of the peace-keeping troops should be African; they should be African under the African Union's command," Al-Beshir told assembled world leaders. Al-Beshir criticised the international media for "serving ulterior motives". He warned that international media "gives the false impression that the whole of Darfur is in chaos". He added: "our position is that the force of the African Union (AU) should continue in Darfur." The mandate of the AU peace-keeping mission in Darfur ends 30 September. "To the people of Darfur, you have suffered unspeakable violence, and my nation has called these atrocities what they are: genocide," United States President George W Bush said. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is slated to meet President Al-Beshir Friday. Meanwhile, the AU Peace and Security Council met to discuss the Darfur crisis Wednesday, on the sidelines of the General Assembly session. Darfur, indeed, dominated discussion in several forums of the UN this week. In most discussions it was clear that the gap is difficult to bridge between Western nations and the Sudanese authorities. If anything, the gulf seems to be widening. "We want him to cooperate," yelled an angry US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. He was referring to the Sudanese president. "We categorically reject the transformation of the African force in Darfur into a UN force," retorted Al-Beshir. However, the US president was equally adamant that his view should prevail at the UN. "The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this [UN] peace-keeping force quickly, then the UN must act," Bush stressed. "The credibility of the UN is at stake." It was a tug of war with the protagonists adamantly refusing to give up the battle of wills. A few voices remained optimistic. Britain's Minister for African Affairs Lord Triesman was one: "I believe we are coming to a key moment in these [Darfur] discussions." The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706 on 31 August that urged the deployment of up to 22,500 blue-helmeted troops and police officers. In response, the Sudanese government rejected 1706 and instead vowed to dispatch more than 10,500 Sudanese government forces to Darfur. UN Resolution 1706 spells out that the deployment of foreign troops in Darfur is contingent upon the consent of the Sudanese government. With low-intensity wars on its periphery for generations, Sudan risks having to endure even more ostracism from Western nations if the Darfur crisis is not resolved.
