Darfur civil society, tribal leaders discuss peace and reconciliation

The Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation (DDDC) is an autonomous and non-politicized process owned by Darfurians. It facilitates a broad and inclusive consultation process and helps Darfurians find solutions to the root of the conflict in Darfur. The DDDC aims to bring the view of Darfurians into the peace process. Last Wednesday, civil society members and tribal leaders met at the Nyala University Center for Peace and Development Studies. Although the article does not share some of the views that were voiced during the meeting, it does note that the range of topics included were aimed at identifying common ground issues. In opposition to the DDDC's recent meeting, JEM spokesperson Ahmed Hussein Adam said that the only way a healthy environment can exist for the DDDC is after the hostilities and violence have ended not before that. Before this end, the spokesperson suggests is conducting the dialogue in an "acrobatic" way.

Under Secretary-General Alain Le Roy meets with Internally Displaced Persons

Representatives of El Fasher IDPs met with Alain Le Roy, the Under Secretary-General of UN peace operations. It is part of an effort to interact with the local community.

Ukraine May Offer Helicopters for Darfur

The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yuschenko, met with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and has been exploring the possibility of deploying Ukrainian military helicopter and personnel to Darfur. The Secretary General has had further discussions with the Ukrainian defense minister in New York. It is not clear whether Khartoum will accept the Ukrainian help. Ban has urged Khartoum to cooperate to ensure full and swift deployment of UNAMID. The force remains small due to obstruction from Sudan's government, UN bureaucracy, and a shortage of helicopters and equipment, according to UN officials, human rights groups and Western diplomats.

Darfur JEM denounces African-Arab efforts to defer ICC move

This week the Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha spoke before the UN Assembly General. He declared that no peace could be reached unless the ICC prosecutor suspended the request for an arrest warrant for Bashir. JEM condemns any attempts to obstruct ICC jurisdiction on Darfur crimes. They condemn the efforts of the African Union and the Arab League to back Sudanese efforts to suspend the indictment. JEM is ready for talks to be held in Qatar. JEM's spokesperson, Ahmed Husein Adam, has stressed that peace and justice can be pursued simultaneously and rejects calls to exchange one for the other. The SLM-Unity spokesperson, Mahgoub Hussein, has also rejected a bargain on international justice. He has expressed that justice is a first step for peace. The Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim binn Jabr al-Thani supports the ICC suspension because it would allow Qatar to host the mediation to end the conflict.

Sudan reports surrender of rebel unit

UNAMID received information from the Sudanese military that 116 Darfur rebels have surrendered and handed over 13 vehicles. The rebels belong to the JEM.

Palin Team Originally Opposed Divesting of holdings to protest Darfur

Although Sarah Palin has suggested that she was at the forefront of Alaska's campaign to divest from Sudan, the record shows that her administration was against the divestment first. HB 287 was introduced to the Alaska House of Representatives last January. It encouraged divestment. Palin's representative, Deputy Revenue Commissioner Brian Andrews, stated in a committee hearing that the passing of the bill would not help the afflicted in Sudan and would increase administrative costs. Palin's change of heart actually occurred in March, when she spoke with Democrat Les Gara when she showed sympathy for the bill. This is after the bill died in committee. Palin put her sympathy to action in April when her administration supported Senate Bill 227 on divestment. However, the bill also died in committee.

From My Perspective

This week sees American politics once again flaunt irresponsible claims and disguises. They hope that fact checkers or citizens who like to have a good faith relationship with those seeking political office will just lower their standards. Go ahead lie to us, what do we care, right? It's not impressive to make bad faith statements to win over people who don't think that running to the front of the line to self-aggrandize is all that impressive. Especially that’s true, when we’re talking about how spending for some means considering where their investments go. It's the type of bad faith move that Americans don't need. It's as bad as the fear and loathing approach taken by Palin on other foreign policy interests.

As far as within Sudan itself, JEM seems ready to move toward ICC indictments of Bashir, but not ready to allow civil society and tribal leaders in Darfur to begin talking before peace happens. Then there's disagreement on which should come first, peace or justice or should they be pursued on a dual-track. UNAMID's effort to strengthen its force by getting more support to meet transportation and equipment needs is getting more contributions by world leaders. This occurs while the UN reaches out to the IDPs in El Fasher to bridge the gap between aide groups and those who have been forced into the crossfire. The assumption might be that those who are targets of the hate crimes will simply disappear or not fight back.

What are the costs in not meeting a mutually agreeable solution in Darfur? How do different societies live alongside one another? That's probably on the minds of those traumatized by getting into a pretty hopeless situation where the odds haven't been in their favor for a while for wanting human security and their rights restored. Did the people who are displaced step out of line and how long do they pay for that if they did? Coexistence might be on the minds of the Janjaweed or at least maybe it could be eventually. There are various perspectives on this. If a group of people can be dehumanized and made invisible, and the leadership doesn't see a better way to govern or is unwilling to change its policies, can the representatives of that government be convinced that there are many interests that need to be met in the people they serve? This week, Bashir stated that the people are the referees and need to make their own choices; is that principle going to be reflected in Sudanese domestic policies and actions taken to encourage the displaced that they have nothing to fear and can live securely, eventually not needing to live in refugee camps? Wouldn't Sudan benefit from addressing the concerns throughout the international community economically, politically and socially?

Depending on how important it is to win a fight, we might look at the Darfur situation as unstoppable and that both sides will continue to increase attacks on each other. However, there's a way out for the victims and for those who continue attacks on each other. There is actually no victory to be had in Darfur. Darfurians and Sudanese have a few choices: participate in developing a society that will satisfy them or live in fear of attacks and be misused as a tool or obstacle to an ultimate goal.

What do the different interests want ultimately? The DDDC is hopefully getting closer to understanding what civil society wants. If the demands can be met for the various interests, it's possible that all the interests could help each other out of the bad situation where the benefits of saving each life on all sides far outweighs the worse choice of continuing down a destructive path. Ultimately, the responsibility to choose improvement over denying people their right to live experiencing life beyond feeling fear, pain, humiliation, and sadness lies on those who still have that choice and who can show they consider quality living a better option than the making of a circumstantial underclass.