Q&A: Has America Washed its Hands of the Doha Agreement regarding Darfur?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question and Answer

Has America Washed its Hands from the Doha Agreement regarding Darfur?

(Translated)

Question:

(SUNA) has quoted on 23/03/2014 Ambassador Osman Dirar, the National expert of the Sudanese Presidency, as saying: “The U.S. stance on the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur contradicts directly with the stance and the desires of the stakeholders in Darfur…”. He was commenting on the remarks made by the representative of the United States in the Security Council, Samantha Power in her presentation before the meeting of the African Union Peace and Security Council in Addis Ababa, on 03/10/2014 where she said, “The Doha document has become outdated and cannot be relied on”, and she called on council members to find an alternative forum to resolve the Darfur issue. Note that America was behind the signing of this document in Doha on 14/7/2011. Does this mean that America has washed its hands of the Doha agreement? If not, how could the remarks of the representative of the United States in the Security Council, Samantha Power, be understood? Jazaka Allah Khair.

Answer:

1. Yes, America was behind the signing of the Doha agreement. It has exerted efforts in it and its purpose was to distance the European influence. America has been working to hold the strings of Darfur issue alone while working to keep France and Britain away. As well as working to keep them and their agents in Chad and Qatar as participants in the celebrations and as false witnesses of the signings. As well as to make them funders for the necessary expenses and compensation for the displaced, especially Qatar, which plays a supporting role for the benefit of Britain. The biggest role America assigned to them was involvement in a monitory committee to implement what was decided, that is as international observers carrying out U.S. decisions in the document concerning Darfur. However, Europe; “France and Britain”, will not submit that easily for the singularity of America in Darfur as it is in the southern Sudan. So, although it may be lenient in its position towards the agreement … it is no more than a warring break until Europe finds a suitable opportunity to penetrate this agreement in a manner able to grasp once again the Darfur strings even if they were not all the strings…

2. That document is important for America, and America has considered it an achievement of great significance! America does not consider this agreement as final, but considered it a step forward towards a lasting solution to the crisis in Darfur. Which means that America says this will be followed by other steps that may not only be content to make the Darfur region enjoy self-rule having extensive authority, but it may lead to the final separation of Darfur from Sudan. This will be through formulating another agreement along the lines of the Nevasha Agreement, by giving the right of self-determination for the people of Darfur until a referendum on that is possible and then separation, similar to what happened in South Sudan. It is therefore not likely that America to abandon the core items in the Doha document because it is one of many steps to achieve its singularity in the Darfur issue that is followed by new steps…

3. However, two events have happened based on them America is trying to delude Europe through deceptive statements that the United States does not object engaging Europe in the Darfur issue, and discussing the Doha agreement again. Acceptance of Europe of these entails having words of give and take about the Doha agreement that do not change its basic items, rather beautifying it with some frills to satisfy the other parties and then signing off on them. As for the two events, they are:

First: The Liberation and Justice Movement, which signed the Doha agreement is engulfed with disputes, even news circulated about the resignation of Vice President of the Movement for Political Affairs, Ahmed Kabr Jibril, Deputy of the East of Darfur Wali (governer). The Secretary General of the Movement, Bahar, Idriss Abu Qarda, admitted these differences, saying, “The situation within the movement is not harmonious in light of the big challenges that faces the security arrangements and implementation of the other tables,” and pointed to “the existence of contacts with the non-signatory movements on (the Doha Document for Peace) to join the peace process, because peace will not be complete until the signing of all the armed movements in Darfur to the peace document.” (27/02/2014, Akhir Lahza Newspaper). This movement is not cohesive, it is a gathering of individuals to increase numbers to achieve certain gains in the fastest time, they are just like any other rebel movements in Sudan, they are all dominated by divisions and disagreements, because its leaders have links to foreign forces, looking for money and positions, not driven by principles or ideas, and exploit the unfortunate conditions of people due to injustice and poor care, and the state’s inability to care and its inability to manage matters. Moreover these movements are directed by the colonial powers directly, as these countries work on making new leaders to follow them and be their subordinates and implement their colonial objectives. Such differences within the Liberation and Justice Movement affect the cohesion of a movement which was established by America and separated it from the other rebel movements to lead the negotiations and sign the Doha document after it isolated other movements that follow the Europeans such as the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement.

Second: The ongoing political unrest facing the regime in Khartoum, has recently accelerated to the point of pushing head of the regime Omar al-Bashir to search for solutions to bring stability… he was troubled enough to contact leaders loyal to Britain whom he had previously isolated indicating that the regime has exhausted solutions and it is in a critical condition in facing the turbulent political situation.

4. Europe, “Britain and France,” took advantage of these two issues and considered this an opportunity which can compensate for its exclusion of the subject of South Sudan, by controlling the Darfur issue, or at least to have a significant role in the solution. And so its agents worked with force in South Sudan to weaken the American influence and occupy it there, and in Darfur to impose a new political reality that compels America not to exclude Europe in solving the Darfur problem, and then have a significant say in the solution. The detailed situation in southern Sudan and Darfur is as follows:

A. In Darfur, there were noticeable recent developments that took place, where the some of the rebel movements in Darfur escalated events there; these movements carried out fierce attacks at the beginning of last month, the month of February 2014 until El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur as well as Nyala, capital of South Darfur became unsafe. The residents of the two cities were in a state of fear and concern after rebels seized the region of Taweela, which lies 60 kilometers from El Fasher. Also armed groups attacked around 45 villages in the area, about 50 km from Nyala. It has been reported that Sudan Liberation Movement the division of Mini Arko Minawi together with the Liberation and Justice Movement, division of Ali Karbino that have not signed the Document in Doha waged an attack on the areas of Haskanita and Al-laeet “Jar an-Nabi ” and they seized them, and also waged an attack on Mallit and At-Tawieshah the birth place of the Wali (governor Osman Kabr). The governor of North Darfur, Osman Yusuf Kabr was exposed to an assassination attempt which killed his driver and a member of his guards. “The Sudanese army admitted this attack has taken place and condemned it, and accused the mercenaries of Arco Minawi the rebel commander of the Sudan Liberation Movement in Darfur of perpetrating the attempt, and said the attempt is aiming to undermine security and stability and terrorize the citizens in Mallit in North Darfur.” Reliable sources confirmed that Kabr, who visited last Saturday (15/03/2014) Mallit area attacked by rebels; the residents refused to receive him and his convoy was subject to an armed ambush during his return to the city. (Saudi Arabian al-Watan 18/3/2014). What made these events even more heated and significant is that the peacekeeping forces made up of many countries were unable to prevent these attacks as the American delegate indicated, because among these forces are troops that follow the Europeans and not all of the forces are exclusively American, which lead the American delegate to criticize their role and their failure to carry out their function of preventing the outbreak of the latest events that the rebel movements loyal to the Europeans erupted.

B. As for South Sudan, the events in Darfur coincided with the English agent Riek Machar’s rebellion against the American agent Salva Kiir that conspired in South Sudan in the past months, and this rebellion continues and worries America and America is unable to put an end to it until now…

And thus, Europe “Britain and France” stirred the rebellion that is loyal to it in order to ignite the war again in Darfur after relative calm since the signing of the Doha Document for Peace… and it is clear from these movements that they are plotted to create a new political reality to influentially include movements that have not signed the Doha Document, and to return to the stage again. And what confirms that these rebellion movements move according to a plan designed by the Europeans is the statement made by Abu Ubayda Abdullah al-Taaishi, the assistant of the president of the Sudan Liberation Army – the Minnawi Media and Public Relations wing, in which he said: “The movement’s victories in Darfur have imposed a new political reality.” (Sudan Tribute page 18/3/2014).

5. All this has caused America to state through its delegate that phrase to convey to Europe that America is prepared to restart the Doha Convention, and meet the demands of the rebellion movements who have not signed to have an “influential” role in the situation by annulling the Doha Document or altering its basic articles… knowing that America is in fact unyielding to the basic outlines of the Document because it considers it an important accomplishment and the first step in its project to divide Darfur. However, the statement is intended as a ploy to allow the movements that have not signed the Doha Document to sign it after making some cosmetic changes to it. What indicates that America does not wish to drop the outline of the Doha document for Peace in Darfur is that it did not present the statement that the American delegate Power mentioned in front of the African Peace and Security Conference in Addis Ababa. “The Doha Documents has become obsolete and has become unreliable, and called the council to create a new forum for resolving the Darfur issue.” It was not posted in its official statement issued two days after published on the site (IIP Digital US State Department Official Site 14/3/2014). Her statement related in that conference was not published in the official site of the US Secretary of State as usual, but a new release was drafted that included all that she mentioned in the conference except for that phrase! This indicates that there is a manipulation of words, because she mentioned it in the interview, but it was not mentioned on the official US Secretary of State site so as not to be considered official, since what it published on the site becomes an official statement that expresses the policy of the American administration. And thus this Doha Document is an American accomplishment that gave it unique control of the Darfur issue, and it superseded the agreements that Europe had a part in such as the Abuja Agreement of 2006 and the framework agreement with the Justice and Equality Movement in 2009. Therefore, it is unlikely that America will abandon the basic items of this document through which America plans to hold a comprehensive peace convention to decide the fate of Darfur on the style of the Nevasha Agreement.

6. As for the appearance of the Sudanese statements of protest against the American delegate’s statement, they are only to appease the people, and all this is to complete the ploy America weaved to show the Europeans that it is preparing a plan that will satisfy Europe and its agents even if it does not satisfy the Sudanese regime! To create reassurance that America is truthful in its call in order to push the Europeans and its agents to partake in the talks about the Doha Document, and America understands that if they agreed to negotiations, then consequently they will be futilely busy with the fine details requiring a long period to sort out without due amends.

In the meantime, the rebels’ military actions have subsided, if not a thing of the past! Under the pretext of not disturbing the atmosphere of the negotiations which shows that the statements of Sudan’s regime about its dissatisfaction with the statements of America’s Delegate is only grinding without fanf, this is shown in what the Delegate herself declared in her statement dated 14/3/2014 in which she mentioned the readiness of Sudan’s Government for Political Dialogue and called for the armed factions to participate in the Political Dialogue aimed at reaching a peaceful and comprehensive political settlement. This is what was mentioned in the Commissioner’s Statement published on 14/3/2014: “We note that the Government of Sudan stated in January that it was prepared to lead a political dialogue including all sides of the political spectrum, as well as armed groups that had renounced violence. We call on all armed groups, including paramilitary groups supported by the Government of Sudan, to end all violent attacks and join in political dialogue aimed at achieving a peaceful, comprehensive resolution to the conflicts in Sudan, including tackling outstanding disputes over Darfur…” (IIP Digital US State Department Official Site 14/03/2014), what indicates a complete coordination between the Sudanese regime with America … and that American wants to show itself siding with these movements against the Sudanese regime and that they want to subject the Regime to the demands of these movements until these movements end their attacks and then come to negotiate with the regime under the supervision of America.

7. In conclusion, the U.S. Delegate statements against the Doha Agreement are only a deception to convince Europe and its allies that America is serious about involving them in the solution for Darfur’s problem, and that it agrees to discuss the Doha Agreement between the factions combined to find a solution for Darfur with the consent of everyone without excluding any party. And in fact, it adheres to the broad basic lines in the Doha Agreement, and wants through its statements to show its seriousness and that it is with Europe’s interests and the movements that have not signed… and in order to deceive them with its credibility, it made those statements which appear as though they disagree with Sudan’s Regime! All of this, as we said, is to deceive Europe and its allies to embark on the Political Negotiation on the agreement of solving Darfur’s problem, and then stop the armed actions of the rebel movements in Darfur under the pretext of not disturbing the atmosphere of the negotiations.

It is painful for the Kafir Colonial States to take control of the Muslims affairs at the sight and hearing of the oppressive agent Rulers in the Muslim lands, allowing the Colonialists to intrigue Islam and its followers in broad daylight, while a Ruler in the Muslim lands dares not to say no!

ذَلِكُمْ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مُوهِنُ كَيْدِ الْكَافِرِينَ

“That is your reward. Allah always confounds the schemes of the kuffar.”

(Al-Anfaal, 8:18)

23 Jumada I 1435 AH
24/3/2014 CE