Now! One out of twelve failed! What rating shall we give JEM?

Canada, May 30th 2008.

If I can speculate, I think one of the more critical impacts of this act is within the balance of power among the Darfurian armed resistance movements themselves and how they are perceived by the international community. JEM is now riding the higher wave and no longer Abdulwahid. If there is a negotiation process JEM is now the more critical counterpart….I also wonder within Darfurian society, how much has this attack increased the legitimacy of JEM beyond a Zaghawa-Kobe dominated movement - to a movement is fighting for broader Darfurian interests and has the audacity to follow through? Strategically and politically the blitzkreig attack on Khartoum might be one of the best things that have happened to JEM…….

Two questions to the experts in this post and others: What next? What now? What has to be done, by the international community (including the AU!), national partners (such as the Umma who are now partners of the NCP, SPLM) and most importantlyother Darfurian movements and Sudanese civil society?

I hope Salim and Eliasson will resign, this is their only honourable way out, after their spectacular debacles in Darfur. One however cannot blame the individuals the whole international community to date has failed dismally. Could this recent attack on Khartoum provide a watershed moment - for tactical and strategic change in approach by all partners and parties? Towards a more startegic and coordinated political strategy? One can only hope!!

Abdullahi quotes me as saying “the Americans had just hired de Waal as their advisor to the AU and that would put an end to their confusion about how to address Darfur crisis”. Personal jibes do not merit a response. But these words, attributed to me, are not mine and will not pass. To say “the Americans hired Alex” to advise the AU is not only daft; it is insulting to the AU. The AU is perfectly capable of choosing its own advisors and would, I think, be more than a little resistant to having anyone foisted on it. And great as my admiration for Alex is, I would never have imagined that he alone could end the “confusion” of international policy.

On a different, although still JEM-related, subject, I have just received another tribute to Jamali Hassan Jalal al Din, a JEM delegate to the Abuja talks, like Abdullahi, who died in the attack on Omdurman—according to some sources, as a result of torture after capture by government forces. It comes from Mohamed el Ansari, who says:

“Jamali was one of those whom the Sudan could depend upon as an honest person. With his loss, Darfur will lose one of its important leaders. However, Jamali has many who have known him and who have been touched by his spirit, so we cannot say he is lost to us. His memory will continue to live.”

The circumstances of Jamali’s death are still not clear. Photos of his corpse, grotesquely paraded by the government, suggest he may indeed have been beaten to death. If it is true that he was captured, let us hope that JEM can find the evidence that will enable us to push for an investigation. This would be time well-spent.

It has been my observation, along with many others I am quite sure, that the rebel leaders, including Khalil, have of late failed to demonstrate through action that their concerns and motivations sincerely center around the citizens of Darfur who maintain themselves in IDP/refugee camps. While Abdullahi criticizes de Waal of an extremist and western biased perspective of Khalil, it appears that his response is equally biased on the opposite end of the Manichean continuum.

De Waal’s assertion must be considered: Khalil has been quoted as suggesting that this conflict will not end until the NIF/NCP is no longer in Khartoum. Can it be concluded that goal is aligned with justice for those Darfuri Khalil claims to represent? When this conflict began, it should be emphasized, what the JEM claimed was economic and political marginalization. Currently, neither of these grievances can be addressed and it is very difficult to determine how a coup attempt will successfully address them, either. Security is the first required step and one would presume that, if these motivations were at the center of the rebellion, then it would be in the best interest of the civilians and the rebel leaders to stop fighting, rather than extend the fighting out to a larger geographic area, and extend it temporally, too.

Abdullahi, please consider de Waal’s article more carefully. He does not assert that the JEM is jihadist; rather he asserts, “…JEM is not a recongnizably jihadist movement….” And, I challenge you to distinguish at what point de Waal actually demonstrates his profound Islam ‘phobia’. I am unable to decipher that tone in his text.

While the argument here dwells upon the recent coup attempt by Khalil and JEM, I would like to insert a broader viewpoint, if I may. The ruling parties in Khartoum, the janjaweed, the SAF and others aligned with the government against the rebels in Darfur are undoubtedly and unquestionably guilty of massive human rights abuses. The argument here does not - and cannot - excuse government actions in any way. On the other hand, I must encourage Prof. de Waal and others to begin the same scrutiny on the rebel leaders overall. I must cite Mr. Alan Kuperman’s New York Times Op-Ed of May 31, 2006, where he asserts that the rebels are provoking attacks by the government and balking at peace negotiations. The conflict is continuuing - and this is a fact - because TWO (at least) parties are fighting each other, meanwhile the Darfur population is suffering in the balance. I applaud your efforts to include them in the negotiations, a massive task to say the least. The rebel leaders who are claiming legitimate representation of Darfur ought to be placed under the same scrutiny applied to the government. After all, they are claiming the same right as Khartoum. Along with that right comes the responsibility. It seems to me that their actions, the ones of which I am aware anyway, indicate a not-quite-serious engagement of that responsibility.

Respectfully, and with hope,

Suzie Wagner

For a long time I had been wanting to congratulate you with the most vibrant and informed forum for qualified discussions about Sudan, a country loved by many. And this last exchange adds only to the quality.

Thanks!

Many thanks for your contribution to this debate. I am glad the Sudanese tradition of not letting political differences get in the way of good exchange of views has not deserted you. But, you surely flatter me with crediting me with drafting the DPA! I only wish I had enjoyed the authority you imply–the DPA would have been a very different document, not least because it would have taken months longer to negotiate including a consultations with Darfurians in Darfur to gain their input. (A suggestion that was repeatedly turned down because of the pressure for a quick result.) You will recall our vigorous discussions in the bar of the Chida International Hotel in which I pressed you hard on your opposition to the ceasefire. I see your spirit of argument has lost none of its fire! Here’s looking forward to continuing to debate these and other issues,

best

Alex