Hijacking Darfur peace process by unlikely peace brokers

Conflicts have always been issues that Africa continues to grapple causing massive devastation and displacement of people. In fact, much of Africa’s refugees are created through conflicts. Shaky peace agreements as well as threats of renewed conflicts often result in massive exodus of people who do not want to be stuck between warring factions. African nations find lasting peace often elusive especially when there are too many vested interests within the peace process.

The East African region typifies this trend where neighboring nations often use conflicts and support towards rebel groups as leverage to gain political or economic advantages over their neighbors. The conflict in South Sudan, the Ethiopian civil war as well as the Ugandan civil war are cases in point here. International mediators often go to these meddling nations to help garner support for peace talks because of the influence they wield among dissenting factions, thus alleviating the influence of these state actors in regional politics. Had the intention of these meddling states been in good faith and positive outcomes gained from them, one would not take issue with the process but if these state actors, as often is the case become part of the problem rather than the solution, one definitely needs to object.

The introduction of Libya and Eritrea in the Darfur peace process is a cause for ringing the alarm bells. Eritrea continues to be a destabilizing force in the region; the intervention of both Libya and Eritrea not only poses a threat to the delicate peace process but come at a time when the international community needs to tread carefully especially when there is a lot of mistrust in the negotiation process.

Eritrea and Libya continue to hold ambitions of re-inventing themselves as peace brokers in Sudan. However one takes issue in regards to the motivation behind this initiative in light of their past history, Eritrea continues to wield strong influences with rebel groups operating in the north- east part of Sudan as well as with the SPLM continues to use this position as a bargaining chip against Khartoum. Moreover, the Asmara regime continues to meddle in the internal affairs of nations in the region both in Ethiopia and Somalia by supporting dissent in these countries, conveying upon them both ideological as well military support. Eritrea cannot come into a peace process in the region because of its history as a destabilizing force precedes it. In regards to Libya, the idiosyncratic change in stands in regional issues do little for Libya’s position as a peace broker.

In addition, one would rather push for an AU led peace brokering initiative which despite past setbacks continues to wield an image of integrity as far as the Sudanese factions are concerned.
Multi- fronted peace negotiations can be productive provided that those involved in the peace process are on the same page. Duplicated peace pracesses or contradictory ones can only end in confusion and failure. Darfur is at a make or break point, the mistrust that runs deep in the peace process coupled with the continued fragmentation of the different factions involved in the conflict requires us to take careful steps. Circumventing the AU-UN led peace process for stature and influence in the region will do more harm than good. Instead of opting for a peace initiative that could undermine the existing peace process, Eritrea and Libya should be part of the AU-UN process.

The death toll in Darfur according to UN figures is estimated at 200,000 people killed and more than two million displaced since fighting erupted four years ago. The conflict in Darfur has already been a poster child for failed conflict prevention in Africa, we should not increase this African tragedy by experimenting with questionable peace initiatives. We have a process that has resulted in modest gains, what we need is more thrust to see all sides come to the negotiating table and create lasting peace in Darfur.

February 23, 2007