|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talks on Darfur may collapse as rebels threaten to quit
AGAIN, world leaders may fail in their attempt to resolve the Darfur conflict in Sudan as the four-week-old Abuja talks convened to end the crisis heads for the brick wall.
Already, one of the rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) through its leader Ahmed Tugod, has announced its decision to quit the talks.
Also, the Sudan Liberation Movement Army (SLMA) was said to be marking its time to quit the peace parley which has since inception been characterised by intermittent withdrawals and walk-outs.
According to a report, members of SLMA are still waiting to have "a word or two" with the leader of the African Union (AU), President Olusegun Obasanjo.
But the Sudanese government's delegation led by its Agriculture Minister Mazzoup El-Khalifa is still interested in the talks and moves to resolve the crisis.
El-Khalifa, reported to be influential in Sudanese government circles, addressed a group of Nigerian officials and journalists where he battled to convince his audience that Sudan was not responsible for the collapse of the talks.
"I cannot tell you the talks have collapsed because I cannot tell you why they should collapse. We are ready to talk for peace in Sudan, but where are the rebels?" he asked rather rhetorically.
If the Abuja talks are deadlocked, it will be the third time world leaders had failed to resolve the Darfur conflict which the United Nations (UN) said had so far claimed more than 50,000 lives and displaced close to two million others.
Similar efforts in Geneva and Addis Ababa in Ethiopia ended in similar circumstances. United States Secretary of State Collin Powell described the Darfur humanitarian situation as the worst ever, with Powell supporting congress' declaration of a genocide in the war-torn region.
Unconfirmed sources indicated that the conveners of the Abuja talks, the AU, had adjourned the talks for four weeks during which mediators could harmonise the extreme positions of the groups.
The talks had to be halted following the refusal of the rebel groups to sign the protocol on humanitarian aid.
The rebels, rather than sign the protocol, insisted that the humanitarian situation could not be concluded without addressing the security situation as they were interwoven.
Discussions on the security situation barely took-off and was largely acrimonious as the groups stoutly disagreed over the issue of disarmament.
The humanitarian protocol would have eased the transportation of aid to the refugees and the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) but the rebels argued that such was only possible when all groups were disarmed.
According to Tugod, there was no way the safety of the humanitarian workers could be guaranteed with the Janjaweeds still "attacking and killing" people in Darfur.
"The Government (Sudan) is used to violating all agreements. So, even if we sign this one, they will violate it and continue to kill our people," he stated.
Sources indicated that efforts by President Obasanjo to convince the rebels to sign the protocol fell on deaf ears as they stood their ground.
A major disagreement of the talks was over who should disarm the fighters. While the rebels wanted a neutral group, the Sudanese delegation insisted government could handle the situation.
This stance was however, rejected by the rebel groups as they alleged that the government was arming and fully supporting the Janjaweed militias.
"There is no way the government can be fair in the disarming exercise. If they have nothing to hide, why are they against a neutral force disarming all groups?" Tugod queried last week.
|
|
||||||||||||
