Sudan about to sign Darfur agreement with Jem

The Sudanese Government is about to sign a peace treaty with Darfur’s largest opposition group the Justice Equality Movement (Jem). Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir arrived in Doha, Qatar to sign a ceasefire and "framework" deal, listing agreements to be fleshed out in further negotiation, with Jem leader Khalil Ibrahim. The deal follows a preliminary framework agreement which both parties signed in Ndjamena in Chad. According to a French draft of the document seen by Reuters the deal involves Jem members taking positions in the Sudanese Government. It also includes humanitarian issues, Internally Displaced Persons, wealth and power sharing, and release of Darfuri war prisoners. (photo of Jem fighter by Gallo/Getty)

If the deal holds it will be a major breakthrough in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts of the 21st century. Over 300,000 people have died in genocidal fighting and almost three million people displaced with both parties guilty of war crimes. The Sudanese Government has inflicted the most casualties with its superior firepower and its co-opting of Janjaweed militias. However the deal with Jem does not guarantee the bloodshed will stop.

There are two other major groups in Darfur not covered by the agreement: Abdelwahid Sudan Liberation Army (mainly composed of Fur tribespeople) and Minni Minnawi Sudan Liberation Army (Zahawa people). The Minnawi faction signed a separate deal with Khartoum in 2006 however the hardline Abdelwahid faction has yet to come to terms with al-Bashir’s administration.

But Jem is by far the largest of the anti Khartoum forces in Darfur. Its leaders claim they have as many as 35,000 well-armed fighters in the region. The group was founded in 2000 following the publication of The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan. Jem members say northern Sudanese Arabs are disproportionately represented within the Khartoum government and political elite, leaving southern Africans and western Arabs disenfranchised and impoverished.

Two years ago Jem fighters launched the first rebel attack on the Sudanese capital itself. They intended to topple the government and were only defeated once they had already reached the outskirts of Omdurman, near Khartoum. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan's president was sufficiently unnerved by the attack to instigate peace talks with Jem. On the weekend he cancelled death sentences handed out to more than 100 men accused of taking part in the Khartoum attack and promised to free 30 percent of them "immediately".

He will be hoping that an agreement will come in time for elections in April - the country's first multiparty elections in 24 years. He is also facing a referendum next year on independence for South Sudan. However the Sudan Tribune is reporting that Egypt is asking the two major partners in Sudan’s national unity government to delay both the elections and the referendum until the North-South disputed items are resolved and there is a peaceful settlement in Darfur. It is unlikely Khartoum will agree to these demands but the Tribune says Jem may make it a pre-condition of the Doha signing.

The other tricky issue for al-Bashir is how it will affect his status at the International Criminal Court. The ICC chief prosecutor issued a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest in 2009 on crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. However the court ruled the Sudanese president could not be prosecuted for genocide, saying the prosecutor failed to reasonably prove al-Bashir had genocidal intent. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo appealed the ruling and earlier this month the ICC's appeals chamber ordered the court to reconsider its decision to omit genocide from al-Bashir's list of charges, saying the initial ruling had been affected by "an error of law" for setting the threshold of evidence too high. This means the court's pre-trial judges will have to rule again on the matter.

Sudan's Bashir defies the ICC

The African Union has appointed Thabo Mbeki to act as an intermediary between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Sudan. The former South African leader will chair a committee to investigate human rights violations in Darfur in response to the ICC arrest warrant for Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. 300,000 people have died and two million others have been displaced in Darfur however the Sudanese dictator has rejected the charges and accused the court of a being a colonial tool. The warrant is the first ever issued by the court to a reigning head of state.

The ICC said his official capacity does not exclude his criminal responsibility or grant him immunity. On Tuesday the court issued the warrant “for war crimes and crimes against humanity.” The arraignment is on ten counts; three of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of war crimes. The ICC accused Bashir of being criminally responsible for intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Darfur over five years (2003-2008) and for “murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property.”

The most powerful Darfuri rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), has welcomed the announcement. Its leader Ibrahim Khalil said the ruling invalidates Bashir’s legitimacy to govern. He told Al Jazeera the warrant would "create huge transformation" in Sudan. Khalil expects that Bashir will refuse to attend the trial in person and hinted that JEM might be prepared to carry out the arrest warrant. "They say the ICC does not have a mechanism to arrest him [Al-Bashir],” he said “But we say that [the] JEM has its own great and powerful mechanism.”

The announcement brought a predictably more hostile response in Khartoum. The government arranged an impromptu anti-ICC rally where Bashir said Sudan was a target of Western powers and that the ICC was a tool of colonialists after Sudan's oil. He immediately revoked the licences of six aid groups working in the country include Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and Save The Children. MSF said it was absurd that impartial organisations were caught up in a political and judicial process. Sudanese officials also threatened witnesses who co-operated with the ICC. Last week, the head of Sudan’s security service warned: “We will sever the limbs of those who attempt to stick their hands in to execute the [court’s] plans.”

But even some sympathetic Darfur watchers also have misgivings about sticking their hands in. British writer and expert on African issues, Alex de Waal, called the indictment a sad day for Sudan. He says we are now in unchartered waters and calls the indictment a “roll of the dice, a gamble with unknown consequences”. He says that the Sudanese problem requires delicate negotiation and compromise between the various diverse stakeholders with an interest in the future of the nation. He says the ICC undermines this process by being a “human rights absolutism that demands that some people be ruled out entirely”. He says the most likely reaction is that the Sudanese government will ignore the indictment, and the West will be left with no leverage in the country, short of invading it.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) is more hopeful, though it too admits there is little likelihood of Bashir resigning. The ICG says the status quo is unsustainable in the long term and believes that some senior members of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) are unhappy with Bashir’s policy of confrontation with Sudan’s peripheral regions (Darfur, Kordofan, Eastern and Southern Sudan). “To preserve its economic interests and guarantee its survival,” says the ICG, “the NCP is likely to look for a way out of a situation, by changing its policies or leadership.”

The new US president will also have a role to play in what happens next if he revisits the hostile American position to the ICC. The court was conceived of as an important mechanism for protecting civilians against atrocities and the US is the only Western power not among the ICC's 108 member nations. The Save Darfur Coalition immediately urged the Obama administration to immediately take advantage of what it called a "new window of opportunity for peace" in Sudan. But so far the response has been equivocal. Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to specifically support the warrant on Thursday merely saying that “the White House believes that those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable; that as this process moves forward, that we would urge restraint on the part of all parties.” Gibbs and his boss know that until the US joins the ICC, it can’t afford to put its mouth where its money might be.

Bashir defiant with Chinese support

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir received a hero’s welcome in a carefully choreographed appearance in North Darfur yesterday. Bashir spoke in front of 10,000 people in El Fasher where he defied the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. Bashir told his audience it was an attempt to foil his government's efforts to restore peace in the region and said Sudan would not be cowed by the threat of sanctions either. His feisty words come a week after the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, sought an arrest warrant against Bashir on charges including genocide and war crimes in Darfur.

Moreno-Ocampo presented his evidence in The Hague on 14 July after a three year investigation. In 2005 the UN referred the Darfur war crimes to the Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreno-Ocampo’s conclusion is that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Bashir bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Bashir failed to defeat the armed movements in Darfur, so he went after the people. “His motives were largely political. His alibi was a ‘counterinsurgency'.” However, he continued, “his intent was genocide.”

Not everyone in the international community accepts this intent. China warned last week it was “deeply concerned” and hoped “the situation in Darfur would not be complicated by any attempted prosecution of Sudanese President”. Chinese spokesman Liu Jianchao proceeded to snow the issue by saying the international community held different views on Sudan and China was ready “to continue an exchange of views” as long as they were “within a certain framework”. Liu said China was only interested in safeguarding the peace and stability of Sudan and the Darfur region. But his glib patter made no mention of China’s real interest: Sudanese oil.

China has incorporated a strategic element into its energy deals with developing countries. In order to gain access to markets such as Sudan they provide sweeteners such as millions in economic and military aid, access to China’s growing market, and diplomatic support at the UN where China can wield its veto power in the Security Council. China has provided both cash and political cover to the Bashir regime in direct violation of international sanctions.

The Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Sudan as a “sponsor of terror” in 1997 which effectively banned investment by the West. China stepped in to fill the void to enable Sudan circumvent the US-applied economic pressure. China now imports seven percent of all its oil from Sudan. It is Sudan’s second largest export partner (after Japan) and is the largest import partner by a considerable margin (ahead of Saudi Arabia). Chinese companies own substantial parts of the $2 billion Sudanese oil industry including the Khartoum Oil Refinery and half of the 1,600km pipeline to Port Sudan.

China stood up for Sudan when it got into international trouble over its genocidal policies in Darfur. When in 2004 the US brought a resolution to the Security Council demanding oil sanctions if the Sudanese failed to rein in the militias, China threatened to use its veto. As a result, the US baulked and the UN agreed on a watered-down resolution which merely “considered further actions”. China’s ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, claimed oil interests were not a factor and argued stronger resolutions would eliminate the Sudanese government’s incentive to co-operate.

This is clearly a specious argument. China has paid for some of Sudan’s oil in weaponry and over 4000 non-uniformed Chinese military forces are reported to provide physical protection for Beijing’s investments. Two weeks ago, BBC’s Panorama program reported that the Chinese government is providing training and equipments that are used by Bashir’s forces in Darfur in contravention of an arms embargo. Earlier this year China defended its policies claiming it accounted for just 8 percent of Sudan's total arms imports and blamed the US, Russia and UK as "the biggest arms exporters to developing countries including Sudan.

Whereever the weapons come from, there is little doubt Sudan is eager to have them. Omar al-Bashir’s regime is in many ways a typical example of a state-controlling regime in Sudanese history. Sudan has many communities and tribes characterised by hierarchical traditional cultures, some of which have state power. The state is therefore a competition between different Arab groups for power. The situation in Darfur is even more complex. Removing Bashir would not remove the authoritarianism that lies at the heart of Sudanese society. The Bashir regime has survived since 1989 by appealing to Islamism and by maintaining the support of the armed forces. For Sudan to succeed it needs to move on beyond its policies of nationalist and ethnic exclusiveness and compose a national identity that makes non Arabs and non Muslims feel welcome. Without that transformation, the future for Sudan is bleak, regardless of whether Bashir is indicted or not.