Where I completely agree with El Talib is that the urgency today is for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

I do not, however, share the view that Britain’s ASA passed a judgement that accused Save Darfur of “gross lies”, still less that it passed verdict on Colin Powell’s genocide determination. Some of the issues surrounding the exact finding have been discussed in the exchanges on this blog under the “Deaths in Darfur” posting.

On the question of genocide, I don’t think it is sufficient to dismiss the charge as simply motivated by hostility to Sudan. There are differences of opinion on this issue that need to explored with reference to the Genocide Convention and the facts on the ground. I hope this blog can be an opportunity for discussing these differences.

I am also sceptical about the objectivity of the published findings of the commission chaired by al Haj Yusuf Dafallah. Many Sudanese believe that this commission was not permitted to publish its true views, which may have been much closer to those of the International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur, which reported in early 2005. I think it would be hard to find a Darfurian, Arab or non-Arab, who subscribes to the figure of 9,000 deaths.

What El Talib’s contribution illustrates most starkly is the dramatic differences between the way the war in Darfur is represented in Khartoum and in western countries, especially the U.S. We all need to be concerned about this divergence.

Urgency for Peace in Darfur

I think mention of the infamous "genocide" that Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state coined to describe the situation in Darfur, is reminiscent of his other false statement before the UN Security Council in 2003 in which he presented faulty satellite charts and maps to convince the international community that the late president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had amassed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including nuclear armament, in his arsenal. It is unfortunate that Mr. Powell has gone into history as a person of no integrity with whatever he says, and so goes his statement on Darfur. Fortunately, this statement has now been reviewed by the British Advertising Standards Authority, a body that judges based on the professional ethics of media, on the judgment made against exaggerations of gross lies to delude the international opinion about the volume of killings in Darfur. These false statements were not for the benefit of the victims and the displaced, but to serve the agenda of the self-proclaimed impostors in the field of human rights and humanitarian aid.

It is unethical and unfair for certain legislative personalities in the US to treat the ordeal of the Darfur people of western Sudan as a matter of show-off to brag about their humanitarian sense. The show-off scenario was not substantiated by insisting on bringing the war lords and other rebel movements leaders, opposing to Darfur Peace Agreement, to the table of negotiations as it should have done, but through increasing and intensifying the economic sanctions on the people of the Sudan, as seen in the campaign for divestment in Sudan and the economic sanctions adopted by the US House of Representative under the so-called Darfur Accountability Act, sponsored and authored by Rep. Barbara Lee.

Regarding the so-called "genocide" (which in fact only the US administration and certain elements known for their track record of hostility to the government of Sudan due to difference on political opinion and particularly their instilled loathing of the government’s Islamic intentions, believe the killings in Darfur conflict amounted to), no field investigation has ever been conducted, nor any authority on statistics of genocide nor experts’ views solicited to sustain the allegation thereof. Criticizing such a notion does not intend to minimize the volume of the crime of killing innocent people. It is a call to reason and resistance against sensational demagogy in matters of life and death that entail serious consequences as seen in Iraq today.

After one year of the escalation of conflicts in Darfur in 2003, the government of Sudan formed a non-partisan and independent Fact-finding Commission, chaired by former justice Hon. Dafallah Al Haj Yusuf, a former Supreme Court judge who, with other members of his Commission, spent many months on the ground in the three states of west, south and north Darfur. A few months later, the Commission produced its report published in 2004. The report’s data was based on officially registered data and complaints gathered by police Criminal Investigation Units in the three states of the Darfur region, local media, community leaders, tribal chiefs and records of individual complaints by relatives of victims. The allegations provided ranged from mass killings, rapes, and armed robberies to bombardment by government forces, as well as attacks by the notorious and outlawed Janjaweed groups. The total figure that has been noted due to the findings of the Commission at that time was 9 000 killings. That was the number president Al Bashir and his government has officially obliged to give to the media. If somebody has any different opinion as to the credibility of the count, he or she must contest the figure by providing solid evidence to sustain his or her views. Sensational media is not called for at this juncture. What is important today is that the government of Sudan has officially accepted the UN Security Council’s resolution for deployment of the African Union- UN (UNAMID) hybrid force in Darfur. More evidence about the real volume of killings will be apparent eventually as violence and tensions have subsided.

The priority today is for the advancement of a comprehensive peaceful resolution to the conflict. Justice will be brought sooner or later following the historical precedents. Nobody in the official line of the Sudan government called for impunity. President Al Bashir referred to the issue of justice and fair trials in his statement before the people of Al Fasher, the capital city of the state of North Darfur, earlier in August 2007, as the federal cabinet convened a special council of ministers’ session there. He reiterated the official position of the government toward the crimes in Darfur. Al Bashir stated the intention of his government to bring to justice all violators of human rights, highway armed robbers and killers in Darfur. What may be truly encouraging is the announcement of the government last week to wave immunity from some security personnel and police in Darfur accused of killings, to stand trial.

It is no secret that the government of the Sudan, after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) of the late Dr. John Garang, has transformed into a multi-party government of national unity (GONU) where more than 14 political parties participate. No single party in the GONU is explicitly against a deal with the rebels in Darfur or any part of the country to reach a comprehensive and lasting peace. The arrival of Musa Mohamed Ahmed, president of the East Sudan Front to Khartoum on 27 August 2007, after the signing of the East Sudan Peace Agreement and his appointment as Assistant to President Al Bashir, adds significant momentum and solidarity to the edifice of peace in Sudan.

The international community is hoped to help the Sudanese parties to the conflict reach a lasting, peaceful resolution. Bringing the perpetrators of killings to justice is a matter of accountability and good governance to which President Omar Al Bahsir expressed his personal obligation through his membership to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the body voluntarily adhered to by AU member states’ head of state and government in January 2006. The urgency today is for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur.

H. El Talib,
Research Fellow,
Center for Strategic Studies (CSS)
Khartoum, Sudan