Tables turn as Darfur rebels cripple international efforts, reports Gamal Nkrumah The international community's role in bolstering the intransigence of the armed opposition groups of Darfur came under fire from Sudanese authorities and the Libyan hosts of the Darfur peace conference that commenced on Saturday in the Libyan Mediterranean city of Sirte. A farrago of Sudanese and international delegates descended on the seaside hometown of the Libyan leader. After an inconsequential opening session, international delegates representing the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and the African Union, delegates stormed off to their respective capitals in exasperation at what is widely seen as the audacity of the armed opposition groups of Darfur. The most important of these groups have defiantly rejected international pressure to attend. The Sirte meeting has not worked out quite as hoped. Sneaking a peace deal through on the sly is a bad idea for all Sudanese. And its obfuscation will only come back to haunt Sudanese political reform. Khartoum has at last won some international sympathy for its cause. The Sudanese government's blooming prospects for peace, however, were once again thwarted because the Sirte meeting was boycotted by the main Darfur armed opposition groups. These include the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), headed by the veteran Abdul- Wahid Mohamed Al-Nour, one of the most popular of the war-torn region's public figures, and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The government delegation to Sirte was led by Nafie Ali Nafie, former intelligence and national security chief, and currently one of the most powerful and influential government figures. The choice of Nafie, deputy chairman of Sudan's ruling party, reflects the seriousness with which Khartoum takes the peace efforts. It has been clear for some time that many of the Darfur armed opposition groups have ceased to articulate realistic and achievable goals. Yet, the international community has failed to put pressure on the intransigent Darfur factions. The Sudanese government resents this apparent inability of the international community to persuade their foes to come to the negotiating table. The political future of Darfur hangs in the balance. The boycott of Sirte is enough to unsettle the Sudanese authorities who have nonetheless put on a brave face. The Sudanese government has rejected any Darfur armed opposition groups' preconditions for peace talks. Even more worrying as far as the Sudanese government is concerned is the attitude of its hitherto main partner in the coalition government, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). Promptly after announcing their withdrawal from government, they invited representatives of the Darfur armed opposition groups to meet in the southern Sudanese administrative capital of Juba to coordinate their strategy and to fine tune their demands. It is a mistake to read too much into the meeting of the Darfur opposition groups in Juba. However, the Juba meeting matters because it is being played out at an awkward time for the Sudanese government. Views vary as to whether the armed Darfur opposition groups are bluffing in their determination not to attend any peace talks with the government. They are driving a hard bargain, and it seems like the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir is obliged to take its adversaries more seriously. What went wrong? Outside interference is cited as one reason for the fiasco at Sirte. The widely publicised lecture of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to the students and faculty of Cambridge University in which he derided the war in Darfur as "a fight over a camel" did not go down well in Darfur. Worse, the Libyan leader claimed that the Darfur refugees are happy to remain in the camps because they receive free food handouts. His remarks prompted a barrage of criticism. That, as far as Abdel-Wahid Al-Nour and other Darfur leaders were concerned was adding insult to injury. "How can we go to Libya when the government of the host country treats us with such contempt? We are prepared to meet with government representatives elsewhere but only after our demands are met," Al-Nour told Al-Ahram Weekly. Al-Nour's comments underscore the differences of opinion and approach between Khartoum, which is pushing for the centralisation of power, and the outlying backwaters of Sudan that are focused on the devolution of power. There is great force in this argument. Western and southern Sudanese leaders are unanimous in their determination to see power devolve to the outlying regions of Sudan. They warn that they will fight to the bitter end. Is there an element of bluster in such threats? Raising the stakes has become an objective of the various Sudanese opposition groups. "The struggle for democracy in Sudan necessitates radical political reform, including the empowerment of marginalised groups," Sheikh Hassan Al-Turabi, Sudan's chief Islamist ideologue, told the Weekly. He stressed that a political, and not a military, solution is now needed. Sudan has witnessed a tremendous economic boom thanks to revenues from its newfound oil wealth, but a great many Sudanese are still poor and food shortages are an important factor in the resentment of the people of Darfur and their hostility to the central government in Khartoum. Sudanese government officials say that they are as keen as ever for a breakthrough towards a compromise. Sudan is at a crossroads. The fundamental problem is that Sudanese in outlying regions believe that their voices do not matter. Tinkering around the edges to avoid squarely facing the political problems of the country will not do. A democratic façade will no longer do.
