Update Report No.3: Sudan/Darfur

Update in Word Format• in PDF Format

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Jan Pronk, and the AU’s Chief Mediator in the Darfur crisis, Salim Ahmed Salim, briefed the Council today, 13 January. This followed a meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) and Council discussions with the Secretary-General, both on 12 January.

The PSC considered the report of a joint assessment mission that visited Darfur on 10-20 December 2005. The mission was comprised of AU, UN and international partners’ representatives. The report covers the future of the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). The report was essential because AMIS’ mandate from the AU expires on 20 January. Discussions will carry over into the AU Summit in Khartoum on 23-24 January. But it seems that the PSC has supported the extension of the mandate. Significantly, it has also agreed in principle to a transition between the AU and the UN, “within the framework of the partnership between the AU and the United Nations”, and to review the situation in two months.

Peace Process
Salim briefed the Council on the status of the peace negotiations between Khartoum and the rebels: the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A). So far, negotiations have stalled on power-sharing and security arrangements, with the rebels demanding the redrawing of Darfur’s borders and a Vice-Presidency for Darfur in the new Government of National Unity. Peace talks are scheduled to resume on 15 January in Abuja.

AMIS
Despite AMIS’ widely recognised contribution, Darfur has suffered significant setbacks, including increasing chaos, attacks on civilians and lawlessness. Lack of funds and capacity present increasing difficulties for AMIS, which only has committed funding until the end of March.

For some weeks there has been increasing pressure for change in the present peacekeeping presence. The EU and the US, AMIS’ main donors, have indicated that funding for the current operation is not sustainable. However, this has been taking place very much in private.

In recent days, both the Secretary-General and the AU Commission Chairman Alpha Omar Konare have begun to speak openly about the need for UN peacekeepers to become involved. And the Secretary-General has said that the UN has already commenced contingency planning.

This is consistent with the Secretary-General’s last report on Darfur (S/2005/825), in which he indicated that a political agreement must go “hand in hand with an enhanced international security presence”. Furthermore, in his 21 December report on Sudan(S/2005/821), he emphasised that “peace in the Sudan is indivisible and cannot flourish in one part of the country if it is fledgling in another”.

In the light of these developments, the Council will now start to focus on a possible future role for the UN helping with peacekeeping in Darfur. In our January brief on Sudan we highlighted various possible options for the future of peacekeeping in the region, including:

• a partnership between AMIS and the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), built on the principles of cooperation between the UN and regional organisations, (most recently the subject of resolution 1631);
• the incorporation of AMIS into UNMIS, which is currently tasked with assisting in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan; and
• the complete replacement of AMIS by UNMIS troops.

Any attempt to simply replace AMIS with a completely UN presence in Darfur is likely to encounter strong opposition from Khartoum. Indeed the Sudanese Foreign Minister was quick to oppose that option. In this regard, the issue will be complicated further by Sudan possibly taking over the chairmanship of the AU later in the year.

The matter is extremely politically sensitive. Council members have been looking for some indication that the AU would be ready to support an increased international presence in Darfur, possibly through the deployment of UN peacekeepers in some configuration yet to be determined. Council members do not want to be seen as critical of the AU, acknowledging that, despite its shortcomings, AMIS did play a unique and important role.

There is an understandable reluctance within the AU to dismantle AMIS, which was initially conceptualised as an African solution to African problems. AU Chairman Konare has indicated that the organisation would like to stay for another nine to twelve months. However, he has confirmed that this will not be possible beyond March without additional funds. Hence the two month extension of the AMIS mandate.

In any event, a very important logistical factor suggests that AMIS troops will need to remain deployed for at least six months. The Secretary-General indicated in a press conference that six months would be the likely timeline for UN force generation.

Key Issues
It seems clear that the challenge that has to be addressed by the Secretariat, the AU and the Council is to develop quickly – bearing in mind the financial deadline and the PSC ministerial meeting scheduled ot review the issue by the end of March – a package of decisions which, while needing to be taken by different actors, also need to be closely integrated.

The package needs to:

• Be agreeable to the donors so as to permit them to release sufficient funding to the AU to keep AMIS in the field in something like the current configuration for a transitional period of at least 4 – 6 months. (This is likely to require clear guarantees that there will be a transition to a new configuration involving the UN, for that transition to begin soon and for the protection of civilians to become more robust.)
• Be sufficiently responsive to AU political concerns to allow the AU to agree to further extend the AMIS mandate for the transitional period and accept the concept of a UN role in Darfur. (This is likely to require an innovative approach, perhaps using the concept of an AU/UN partnership as opposed to a takeover. The question of how the whole operation can be financed via assessed contributions will be a key element in this).
• Take into account to some extent concerns from Khartoum. (In this regard Sudan is looking for an outcome that does not involve a UN takeover. To that extent their position is likely to be somewhat subsumed in the wider AU position. Also, there will be more limits on Sudan’s capacity to dictate outcomes than in 2004/05. Sudan’s leverage is less given the AU experience in the field, the fact that UNMIS is now up and running in the south and the Darfur peace process underway in Abuja. As with the North/South peace process, a UN role to guarantee security will almost inevitably be an element in the eventual bargain.)
• There will also be significant technical issues to be resolved relating to mandate, force generation, command and control, political oversight, access of personnel and equipment to the theatre and, not least, financing.
  

Sanctions Committe Developments
The Sudan Sanctions Committee seems to have experienced some difficulties in recent days as Qatar sided with China in objecting to the transmittal of the Panel of Experts’ report to the Council. The move is unprecedented in Council committees, which have forwarded such reports as a matter of routine. The document reportedly points to violations of the arms embargo, especially by Khartoum, Libya, Chad and Eritrea.

UN Documents

Historical Background

Other Relevant Facts

Click here for other SCR Reports on Darfur/Sudan