Monday, March 06, 2006

New split looms against Darfur rebels' SLM leader Nur

Here we go again. Whenever the Darfur peace talks reach a critical stage, trouble starts brewing in northeastern Sudan and the Sudanese rebels create a split. Darfur's rag bag army of rebels seem too hot headed and uneducated to be capable of discipline and responsibility. Give them an inch and they take a mile. No wonder they have been ruled by the stick for so long. They need someone with vision like John Garang to lead them by the nose and hold things together. The only joiner I can think of, who speaks their language in more ways than one, is Libyan leader Col Gaddafi.

Meanwhile in Darfur, anarchy reins, defenceless Sudanese women and children continue to suffer, and time ticks on while the dirt poor children grow up during war without receiving an education.

Mar 5, 2006 Sudan Tribune article says in a move justified by their opposition to the conclusion of a deal between their leader Abelwahid Mohmaed al-Nur and the Sudanese government, a 19 member group from the leadership of rebel group SLM decided to freeze the powers of Nur as chairman of the SLM. Excerpt:
"For his part, Abdelwahid said the 19 group is not qualified to take such decision, he also reiterated his decision to end the coordination with the other rebel groups which have been negotiating as a unified Front.

This is the second division within the SLM. After a conference convened in Haskanita, a rebel-held town in North Darfur state, the SLM is divided to two factions, Minawi faction and Abdelwahid faction.

These divisions will complicate the task of the AU Mediation team in Abuja. Also, it will conduct international community to make more pressures on the rebel group during the talks."

1 comment:

IJ said...

The right to intervene in a sovereign state has been under discussion since the end of WW2. Sovereignty is said by some to be sacrosanct, but how can this be reconciled with the need to act against massive and flagrant violations of human rights, such as those committed in Rwanda and Srebenica? This problem was considered in an academic paper three years ago.

Last Summer a paper was published, Darfur and the Responsibility to Protect.

Camille Kam wrote:

The prevailing idea that one cannot intervene in another state’s affairs unless specifically asked to do so is a fundamental element in any understanding of how and why the world is able to turn a blind eye to the Genocide of a people as it did in Rwanda in 1994. For the traditional idea of sovereignty, in which each state or nation has a right to be free from interference from others still holds a very real and historic power in the minds of our policy makers today. But what defines sovereignty, a state or its people? And how can we protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of those in other countries when their own government has turned against them?

The United Nations have recently agreed, in principle, that nations have a responsibility to protect their people. However, the details have still to be set out. "Darfur is fast becoming the litmus test for the Responsibility to Protect."

But what are fundamental rights and freedoms? When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 at the United Nations, for example, it was adopted without the consent of the Muslim states. Unfinished business?