Question: The Movement for Justice and Equality has refused to sign the agreement on the issue of Darfur, reached on July, 14th, 2011 at Doha, Qatar, between the Sudanese regime and one of the rebel movements known as the ‘Liberation and Justice Movement’. This agreement has been based upon the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur…
Does this mean that this agreement will also gradually end up and become redundant similar to the several previous such agreements in Abuja and other places with such movement which were signed with one particular movement and excluding the other movements, or is this agreement really different?
Answer: By properly considering the reality of this agreement, it is likely that this one is different to other previous agreements…:
1: It was Europe (France and Britain) behind the previous agreements trying to gain a foothold for itself in Darfur as a response to America’s hegemony over South Sudan, where the US successfully clipped Europe’s wings from the launch of South Sudan which finally secceeded on July 9th, 2011. Therefore Europe worked hard to conclude the agreements while the US is preoccupied in the South…
This is how the agreement was reached in Abuja with one of the Sudanese movements in 2006 as well as the framework agreement with the Justice and Equality Movement in 2009…However, the United States in connivance with the Sudanese regime worked to render these agreement ineffective…this was because the US did not want a solution for Darfur until after it was no longer preoccupied in the South Sudan so that Europe is denied a predominant role especially since the key organisations working in Darfur are European ones, essentially French ones supported by the British.
It is known that the Justice and Equality Movement which happens to be the main movement is principally a French protégé on whom it relies for material assistance and it is publicly backed by Britain. This is why France is striving to reach an agreement with the regime in Sudan so that this movement becomes the principal organisation in the negotiations leading to the agreement. It faced several hurdles and pushed Chad closer to Sudan, softened some of the stances of the movement and Britain took certain steps to conclude the agreement in Qatar whose loyalties to Britain are open. Qatar used the financial aid incentive to assist Sudan and the Justice & Equality Movement in order to push the deal…This is how it went, then on January 17th, 2009 the agreement was concluded between the Sudanese regime and the Justice & Equality Movement which was referred to as ‘the goodwll and confidence-building agreement’ or simply as ‘the framework agreement’...
However, the United States, despite its soft tone and describing it as ‘probably fruitful’ , remained un-opposed to the agreement. The US ambassador to the UN stated after the agreement was signed: “It is likely that this agreement will be modest step towards peace.” [Ash Sharq al Awsat: February 18th, 2009].
Despite this, the US in connivance with the Sudanese regime rendered the agreement ineffectual and hollow like anyother earlier accords reached between the regime and the Sudan Liberation Movement (Minawi faction) in Abuja in May, 2006. It was clear the US did not want any effective and working agreement under the aegis of Europe and its organisations working in Darfur, until after the US had cut off Southern Sudan and established organisations outside the traditional framework that are not dependent on France or backed by Britain.
2: On July 9th, 2011, the official declaration of the South Sudan seccecion was made by which it became a nation, and as a result, any dispute that might erupt between the North and the South will be considered as a dispute between two nations with international channels, who have access to the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, both are now effective international players and especially with the US and are no longer merely a ‘regime’ and ‘rebel movement’. As a result the Un ited States has now its hands free to resolve the Darfur issue by first focussing on the preliminary negotiations which it was earlier carrying out, but now the same will be with a new movement called the Liberation and Equality Movement, which was formed just a few months from the agreement signed on 14th July, 2011.
In the first stage, it was the US which gathered together a new set of separatists who had separated from the vaious rebel movements in Darfur and other who had joined these groups, this new group was named as the ‘Movement for Liberation and Equalty’ and was led by Tejani Sisi who is known to harbour secret relations with regime. Even a group from the movement declared Tejani Sisi’s fall from the leadership of the movement after they became aware of Tejani’s secret visits to Khartoum and establishing special relations with Basheer’s regime and others. This was disclosed in a statement issued by the Armed forces of the Movement for Liberation and Equality in October 2010! This did not affect Tejani Sisi one bit, rather he remained head of this movement with support from the US and regime.
3: The United States has been following the same path on the isssue of Darfur as it followed on the issue of South Sudan, i.e. the US has been gradually trying to bring Darfur also towards seccecion; and this is evident from the very nature of the agreement and the statements by the US officials connected with this agreement, as well as those of Tejani Sisi.
As for the nature of the agreement, it stipulates great powers as envisaged in Section II, Establishing of Darfur Regional Authority. It provides for this regional authority to have a council consisting of 22 members with powers and authority described as ‘wide’. Its responsibility will be to implement the contents of the agreement in cooperation with the regime in Khartoum. The Sudanese president would appoint an assistant to himself from Darfur who will look after not just Darfur , rather will function as assistant to the president for the entire Sudan just like separatist Selva Kiir and John Garang befor him were vice presidents from the southern Sudan but with charge over all of the country. The agreement also provides setting up of a 67 member regional legislative council as well as setting up of special courts which include observers from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the UN. Agreement is also reached on holding a referendum over whether to keep Darfur as one unified region or sub-devide it into a number of provinces governed by the Darfur regional authority. The agreement has set up an implementing mechanism comprising the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, the Arab League, The Organisation of African States, the UN, Qatar, the Sudanese government, the Darfur movements and the Chad. This agreement comprising 100 pages includes several points and details on the issue of human rights, general liberties, power sharing, federal financial set up, sharing of resources, issues related to the armed forces, police, customs, border guards and the setting up of a judicial apparatus in Darfur, general adminstrative set up in Darfur as well as issued related to the return of displaced persons, refugees, their compensations, issues related to land water resources management, Oil sector management, setting up of a special court for Darfur which empowers Darfur to take up cases of serious human rights violations and substantial violations of the international humanitarian law in Darfur since 2003.
As for the statements of the US State officials are concerned, the US State Department spokeman Mark Toner said: “This agreement is a step towards a lasting solution to the crisis in Darfur,” he added “We will continue to exercise pressure on other armed factions that refuse to participate in negotiations to be fully committed to the peace process.” The American diplomat also urged Sudanese government to “affirm its openness” to further negotiations on a comprehensive peace in Darfur. [Jazeerah: 15.07.2011].
Thus the United States does not regard this agreement ans the final one, rather it considers the accord to be a step forward towards a lasting solution in Darfur, which implies that the US will follow it up with other steps which will force the Sudanese regime to make further concession after concession until a ‘lasting solution’ is reached, which offcourse the US has not clarified as to what constitutes a ‘lasting solution’. Until then, every thing is merely a step! Indeed, other such steps mean that the Darfur region enjoys wide-ranging autonomy, it certainly means nothing other than separating Darfur finally from Sudan by way of other agreements similar to the Nevasha accord which granted the people of Darfur, the right to self determination until a referendum is held on the issue, followed by the sececcion as happened in the case of South Sudan. This is what is understood by the words of the US State Dept. Spokesman as he demanded the Sudanese government to “affirm its openness” to further negotiations on a comprehensive peace in Darfur. In other words, America wants the Khartoum regime to be prepared for making many more concessions to the point that the US achieves what it wants of the comprehensive peace, which is why it demands the Khartoum regime to “affirm its openness” to further negotiations on a comprehensive peace. In other words, the US is saying that te Doha agreement is not enough and further negotiations must continue to reach what it calls “comprehensive peace”!
Thus America is striving to enlarge the Liberation and Justice Movement and its chief so that it becomes similar to its counterpart in South Sudan Peoples Movement which has become a US agent followings America’s commands. In fact it cannot be ruled out both, the Darfur Regional Authority president as well as the Vice-president of Sudan may well be from the Liberation and Justice Movement. Similarly, perhaps other important posts may alsp be allocated to it in order to ensure that the Darfur issue remans firmly in control of America.
As for the statements of Tejani Sisi, the president of the Liberation and Justice Movement described the signing of the agreement as “great achievement which aims to realise peace and stability in the region” and added: “This historic moment coincides with the secession of the southern part of the country and becoming an independent state.” He also added that the two events were similar in nature and they both address the issues in Sudan.” [Africa Today; 15.07.2011]. Thus Tiijani Sissi describes the signing of the Darfur agreement to the event in South Sudan which secceded and formed a nation, Tijani points nature of addressing the issues in Sudan, i.e. secession of Sudanese regions and acceptance of the same by the Sudanese regime. In other words, the Sudanese regime addressed the issue of South Sudan by giving the right of separate to the people of the region which wants to seccede from Sudan step by step until they acheive an agreement similar to the Nevasha accord. His statement also points to the Liberation & Justice Movement finally aims to separate the region and declare itself a nation following the bad precedent set by South Sudan. What Tijani Sissi understands from this mechanism, wherein the Sudanese regime led by Omar al Basheer and his cohorts, is what many other politicians also have similar understanding of, and that is to solve such issues in Sudan by giving the right to seccede to any region that wants to separate and then hold referendum on it followed by a decision toseccede and declaration of the birth of a statelet fractured from Sudan.
Thus, just as the United States has been successful in single-handedly calling the shots in South Sudan, it has also been similarly successful in Darfur, and clipping the wings of France and Britain from there. The US has successfully kept both France and Britain and their loyalists and agents in Chad and Qatar busy in the celebrations over signing the accord and bearing of fake witnesses over it. Ther role has been to pay the necessary expenses and compensation for the displaced people, especially Qatar which has played an important role for Britain. Another big role that may be assigned to them may be that of being members of a high committee set up to oversee implementation of what the US decides. In other words, they may become international monitors implementing US decisions just as they have done at the recent signing of the Darfur Document. The US has declared that it will “continue to exercise pressure on other armed factions that refuse to participate in negotiations to be fully committed to the peace process.” This is a threatening tone from the US towards other movements which implies that America will work to reign in all other rebel groups by using various means in order to bring them in line with its own wishes. These other means may include threats or inducements, pushing them to sidelines or altogether ending their roles or even their existence altogether. It may be mentioned that this accord document has been named as ‘the Doha Document of Peace in Darfur’ and was signed only after the US put its weight behind it. In the recent months, the US president sent his special the presidential envoy to Sudan Princeton Lyman along with his other senior advisors on Darfur Dane Smith to participate in the Doha negotiations until after the agreement is signed. On the same day, the US State Dept. issued a statement regarding sending its two envoys to Doha: “urging the Sudanese government and Darfuri armed movements to use the remaining weeks of the Doha talks to reach a political agreement, commit to an immediate ceasefire, and take immediate steps to improve security and humanitarian conditions on the ground in Darfur”, the State Department said in a statement. [Kuna 30.04.2011]. This itself proves that the US has been behind the signing of this agreement through its agents in the Sudanese regime and in Darfur and that this all is part of US gameplan to hold all reigns on the issue of Darfur and keep away the French and British from there.
5: Europe (France and Britain) has been aware of America’s success in this agreement and throwing its weight behind it, this is why Europe has begun to make its rebel movements, especially the Justice and Equality Movement to soften its tone of opposition. The official spokeman of this movement Gibreel Adam Bilal, while declaring his movement’s refusal to sign the agreement in its present form, said: “It is valid as a basis for the peace process and other points on the issue, but is not in the final form for signing.” He said that while the Security Council speaks of this documents a basis for peace, he would not describe the document as something ready for signing just now, but urges all parties on the necessity to reach peace in the shortest peirod of time.” [Africa Today webpage: 14.07.2011]. This is why there is yet a possibility of this movement signing the peace accord later since other movements have been given a period of 3 months to sign. Alternatively, the JEM may participate in any future signing for agreements wherein Basheer’s regime in Khartoum may concede even more especially if it gives seats of its choice to the JEM in the new political set up in Darfur. This is because as it appears, this movement has realised that the bulk of posts will go to the Liberation and Justice Movement which comprises those who left other organisations to join the LJM which is headed by Tijani Sissi. The JEM is aware that it will not get many posts and that too it will have to compete with other rebel movements for the same. The JEM spokesman Gibreel Adam Bilal said about the agreement: “This agreement grants diplomatic postings to those who sign on the agreement but fails to solve the real problems in Darfur.” [AFP 14.07.2011].
However when France realises that it stands to lose in Darfur if its agents do not sign the agreement, then it will ask them to sign, especially the Justice and Equality Movement after it is given some assurance of the positions that it wants in the Darfur regional authority or any other amended agreement so that it does not lose everything in the Darfur issue to the US. It must be noted that the delegation of thie JEM was present in Doha but did not formally participate in the negotiations. It will not be surprising that the colonialist nations ask their agents to change their positions upside down or even rephrase it if it suits their interest. When it realised that the US had the upper hand in Darfur during the negotiations with the Justice and Development Movement which the US had put together after the first half of last year, and had forced Basheer to strike an initial agreement with it in March, 2010, when Britain realiised this and decided to have a role in the Darfur negotiations while Basheer was unwilling to accept Khaleel Ibraheem as the head of JEM; it approached Basheer and advised Chad to ‘expel’ Khaleel Ibrahim the head of JEM to Libya where its agent Qadhafi rules. While Khaleel Ibrahim has spent his entire life in the service of France and Chad, he is now languishing in Tripoli as an unwanted guest of the Qadhafi regime and has no idea as to what he can do. Therefore it is not unlikely as we said that France, and thereby the JEM amy comply and sign up on the agreement after they are given certain specific positions and consoled by way of some additional incentives even if such incentives are symbolic.
However, Europe (France & Britain) will not easily concede Darfur to America as it happended in South Sudan. Though the Europeans have softened their stance on the agreement, and even if they have asked the JEM to sign, all this is nothing more than ‘convenient political posturing’ until Europe finds an appropriate oppurtunity to bury this agreement which will bring in instability through which the Europeans will once again hold on to atleast some of the strings of Darfur, as was the case earlier…
6: In conclusion, the painful issue is that these rulers have been tearing off the country and are neither ashemed of Allah (swt), nor His Prophet (saw) nor are they ashamed of the beleivers; the Sudanese regime has already openly and publicly conceded and gifted away the southern half of the country and has recognised ts secession a day even before the official declaration and even before the US accorded recognition to it, so that it could claim to be the first to recognise this criminal blunder of separation of southern Sudan. He became the first to acknowledge and bless the new state as president of the regime representing the entire Sudanese land, and this was to accord a semblence of local, regional and global legitimacy…After this, Omar al Basheer went personally to te South to take part in the criminal celebrations without any sense of shame or remorse and thereby encouraged and opened the door for more of such seccessions and bifurcations.
And here we simply watch what happens to Darfur: Wide ranging autonomy as a prelude to treading the same path as the South Sudan…
Indeed, the systems prevalent in the Muslim lands are guiding us to our destruction…unless the Muslims work seriously and dedcatedly to establish the Islamic Khilafah which replaces these regimes, otherwise there is nothing to prevent such separation, rather separations followed by more separations, over and over again…
“Verily, therein is indeed a reminder for him who has a heart or gives ear while he is heedful.” [TMQ Qaaf 50:37]