Shades of Grey II

Nairobi: Following my earlier post about Darfur not being quite the black and white issue many people want it to be, reports are emerging of a particularly nasty attack by unknown militias against the beleagured African Union force. Numbers vary, but anything up to 12 African soldiers were killed during the attack on an Amis base in Haskanita on Saturday evening. For now, rebels are blaming the government and the government is blaming rebels.

But a statement issued by the AU force, although not directly apportioning blame, makes interesting reading:

General Martin Luther Agwai, chairman of the Ceasefire Commission, said: “The Ceasefire Commission condemns the acts of violence committed against peacekeepers in Darfur. Such irresponsible acts constitute a serious violation to the Ceasefire agreement. Rebel groups, who indulge in such random violence and bloodshed, undermine their own credibility on any negotiation table.”

More often than not, attacks on the AU have been carried out by rebel groups – rather than Janjaweed or government troops. Sometimes they are stocking up on arms. Other times they are acting on their hatred of an African force they believe is colluding with the government, and which they believe was responsible for the flawed Darfur Peace Agreement. But again, the point is that the rebels are not always the good guys.

Shades of Grey

NAIROBI: Back home from my reporting trip to Sudan and a chance to reflect on what I’ve seen and heard in Darfur. Every time I visit Sudan or write about the conflict in Darfur, I am struck by the same feelings of inadequacy. By and large the crisis there is badly reported. It has become a deep, dark black hole for reporters – in part because of the problems caused by a government intent on preventing access and aid agencies who have to keep journalists at arm’s length for fear of being expelled (a subject I have already written about in Paranoia in Darfur).

The result is the overwhelming temptation to repeat the usual analysis. An  Arab government and the fearsome Janjwaweed militias are pitted against black, African farming tribes. This is a trap my own editor at The Christian Science Monitor has just fallen into, during a trip to the other side of the border in Chad.

Nevermind the fact that everyone in Darfur is black and African, and the term Arab is often used by tribes to signal that they are nomads and aspire to some sort of “higher” social status. If the rest of that analysis was true, it was maybe only true for a month or so in 2004. Things are very different now. “Arabs” have joined the rebels and the government has its own “black, Africans”.

And take what I learned on my latest visit. The Sudanese government has once again been bombing its own people, targeting rebel-held villages around Haskanita. But diplomats in Khartoum told me that the Government of Sudan (GoS) forces appeared to have changed their tactics, warning civilians to leave the area before it launched its offensive. The JEM and SLA-Unity forces involved had driven half way across North Darfur in order to “prove a point” by taking the villages in the first place. Could it be possible that in this case the rebels were trying to stage an audacious publicity stunt, while the government was acting as responsibly as possible?

I also met a former rebel commander in El Fasher. He had quit the movement two years earlier after becoming frustrated at the leadership’s preference for using civilian villages as bases. “They seemed to want to use civilian suffering caused by government and Janjaweed attacks in their PR campaign,” he told me in the offices of the human rights organisation where he now works.

Don’t worry, I’m not turning into an apologist for Khartoum. David Hoile is already doing that job with a breathtaking disregard for the facts. It’s just that there’s a danger in being sucked into believing that the conflict in Darfur is being fought in black and white. So while the government is undoubtedly responsible for war crimes, that’s not enough to assume the rebels aren’t also dishing out a kicking here and there, and milking their victimhood for all its worth.

Of course, the two positions are not morally equivalent. One side is a government with huge oil revenues, using Chinese and Russian-built bombers, while somehow holding down a seat at the United Nations. The rebels have a reasonable argument that their province has been marginalised for decades. My point is that there is more to a thinking, sensible, reasoned analysis than simply believing that it’s a case of good guys against bad guys.

But if that’s too much to deal with, you’ll enjoy my final vignette from Darfur. Part of my plan was to travel north from El Fasher up to Birmaza, one of the towns long considered a rebel stronghold and the sort of place where their leaders may meet in the run-up to next month’s peace talks in Tripoli. To do this, I needed a travel permit from the friendly chap at the Humanitarian Affairs Commission in El Fasher.

“Ah no,” he said, sitting back in the chair of his ramshackle caravan. “Not this week… maybe next week.”

This seemed strang, so I asked the obvious question:”Why? What’s happening there this week?”

He laughed and winked at me, but offered not explanation.

Two hours later I learned that an Antonov bomber was in the air over Birmaza. No wonder I wasn’t allowed to visit.

Paranoia in Darfur

KHARTOUM: Any journalist in Africa will tell you that it is best not setting plans in stone or even inking meetings into your diary. Things rarely work out quite how you expect and a plan B is usually only the first of a series of contingency measures. The story idea that seemed so promising when viewed from an office in Nairobi soon becomes a nightmare as punctures, rains or missed appointments throw everything off the rails. Nowhere is that more true than in Darfur.

Journalists can expect all the usual problems and, for good measure, a particularly obstructive government. Sometimes I have waited 10 days for a travel permit to reach Darfur, running out of money in the process; other times I have given up after a fortnight and gone home, despite daily assurances that I would be on my way “tomorrow, Insh’Allah”.

This time it was not the government that proved to be my biggest problem. The African Union and the aid community – often my allies in exposing what is happening in Sudan’s troubled western region – treated me as some sort of leprosy-riddled time bomb.

One charity did stick out its neck for me, helping me reach a usually inaccessible town and rebel village. But only after kicking me out of its guesthouse for fear that being associated with me might imperil their work. Other agencies were less helpful. One off-the-record briefing enlightened me with alternate answers of “I don’t know” and “I can’t tell you that”. Other organisations simply refused requests for information.

Irritating though this might be, I guess it’s unfair to criticise the aid groups working in the world’s biggest humanitarian operation. This week two organisations – Oxfam and World Vision - have expressed concern about rising numbers of attacks on staff. World Vision has cut back its operation after two workers were shot in the head in South Darfur. Sticking their head above the parapet by helping journalists is increasingly a risky prospect.

Even more problematic for the agencies is maintaining a relationship with Khartoum. Last month the head of Care International in Sudan was kicked out. (I hear on the grapevine that he was expelled after a sacking a national member of staff who was passing internal emails to Khartoum’s intelligence network.) Aid agencies that engage in advocacy work, publish reports critical of the government or talk to journalists face a huge amount of scrutiny and the risk that they could be expelled for engaging in “political activity”, leaving thousands of people without support.

This has always been a factor during my previous visits to Darfur. But this time it was more intense that ever. It seems that a reasonable level of discretion is turning into utter paranoia, and once again Khartoum has succeeded in limiting the flow of information from Darfur.

Coffee and Cake

KHARTOUM: Arriving in Sudan’s capital city after spending a sweat-drenched week in Darfur always brings something of the demob spirit to the tired hack. The traffic is a pain. Especially now during Ramadan. The city’s notoriously aggressive drivers are now also tired, hungry and in no mood for such considerations as traffic lights. But once the wilting traveller has negotiated his way through the roads there is a treat waiting at Ozone.

Arrange a meeting with a charity worker, diplomat or well-to-do businessman and this is where they are likely to suggest – a funky coffee shop on a roundabout, where jazz tinkles gently in the background and a fine, cooling mist descends from a hosepipe overhead. It offers perhaps the finest carrot cake in the whole of East Africa and after a week forcing Nescafe down my throat, its coffee is something to behold. But none of this comes cheap. I may have splurged a little today after spending seven days in Darfur, but $38 for cake, coffee and a milkshake for me and a friend strikes me

No-one seems to mind though. Most of the year the shiny aluminium tables and chairs are packed with foreign aid workers, spending their per diems, or trendy, young Sudanese. At the moment it is quiet. Khartoum is two weeks into Ramadan so the only customers are Kawajas – Arabic for foreigners – tastefully shielded from sensitive eyes by green screens arranged around the open air seating area.

It is difficult as I eat my cake and sip my $4 coffee to remember that Sudan is an international pariah. My Visa card is useless here and earlier this year George W Bush stepped up sanctions against Sudanese companies in an effort to force Khartoum into ending the conflict in Darfur. One of the government’s ministers is wanted by the International Criminal Court and European companies face vigorous campaigns to pull out. But the view from Ozone suggests the supply of carrot cake and coffee is unaffected. See my story here

Divide and conquer

DARFUR: This is my third visit to the camps around El Fasher now, and every time they throw up something different. Abu Shouk was expanding rapidly during my first visit. This was just at the end of the first phase of the conflict, when the Janjaweed and government forces were still engaged in large-scale attacks on civilian targets. People were arriving in large numbers on a daily basis.

I returned about eight months later, shortly after the Darfur Peace Agreement had been signed, to find that the camp residents were angry in a way that I hadn’t seen before. The flaws in the DPA and their support for Abdelwahid Mohammed Nur (who didn’t sign up) meant that the largely Fur population was politicised in a way that was new. They knew what they wanted and felt they had been stitched up. Tensions with other tribes were on the rise.

Now there is a new dimension. It has long been known that rebels have been in and out of the camps visiting relatives and sometimes hiding weapons. This time Khartoum is getting in on the act, allowing weapons to reach the tribes that have fought alongside government troops in the past. The camps that were once safe havens are now riven by the same tribal tensions that the government has exploited across Darfur. See my piece in The Times

These divisions are not real. Darfur’s tribes have a long history of rubbing along rather well. Any differences could be solved be sitting down together under a shady tree, and coming up with a compromise – often involving a few unfortunate goats. But throw in a stack of cheap Chinese-made AK47s, undermine the traditional authority of the sheikhs and suddenly those differences become divisions. The roots of this conflict are not tribal, but the government has cleverly nurtured historic slights, grievances and misunderstandings to keep its opponents on the run.

What is happening in the camps is really a microcosm of the whole of Darfur.

Liberals look away

DARFUR: General Martin Luther Agwai, commander of the African Union Mission in Sudan, gave an interview to the BBC’s Orla Guerin a week or so ago. It dwelt on what exactly needs to be done if the new UN-AU hybrid force is to make a difference in Sudan, once the green hats of the AU are swapped for the blue hats of the UN. So far so good. But what has got the Khartoum government hot and bothered a week later? Well his choice of military heroes included Ariel Sharon, a name certain to raise liberal eyebrows and to send Arab governments – such as Sudan’s - into a tizzy. Don’t expect too many more interviews from General Agwai in the immediate future.

The general told BBC News that building a peacekeeping force of that size from scratch would take time, and he warned against high expectations, saying without peace his troops would be in a “in a very uncomfortable position”.

The former head of Nigeria’s armed forces is courteous and softly-spoken.

He told me his military heroes are General George Patton and General Ariel Sharon.

Asked if his new job is a poisoned chalice, his response is characteristically low-key.

“When I was accepting this job I did it with all sincerity,” he said, “believing that somebody has to do the job and if somebody has to do it, why not me.”

Sudanese voices

DARFUR: Peace talks between the government and rebel leaders are due to start in Tripoli next month, but if the voices on the ground are to be believed there seems little hope of progress. The members of the Fur tribe I have been meeting in camps such as Abu Shouk, near El Fasher, are pretty clear that Libya is the wrong place to hold talks. Gadaffi has at different times backed a policy of Arabisation in Darfur and has continually sought to destabilise chunks of Africa for his own ends. Tripoli is anything but an honest broker.

At the same time, rebel commanders I met close to the town of Kutum in north Darfur say they are worried about a build-up of Government of Sudan (GoS) troops and militias close to their positions. They say their man, Abdelwahid Mohammed Nur, will not attend the talks until an international force is deployed to protect then from GoS advances.

The problem is that the talks now are the only option on the table and there is a real danger - just as in last year’s Abuja talks - that growing international pressure is looking for a solution, any solution, whether it’s the right one or not. Anne Bartlett, of the Darfur Centre for Human Rights and Development, seems to get it.

DARFUR: El Fasher is the dusty capital of North Darfur. About 150,000 people who have fled their homes during fighting in the past four years now live in three sprawling aid camps around the town. While the camp dwellers of Abu Shouk, Zam Zam and Al Salaam find their wells have dried up, and wait for their food deliveries, the long-term town residents are making heaps of money running shops selling olive oil, Camembert (fabrique en France) and jars of sour cherries to the expats working for the African Union/United Nations/aid agencies. I’ll be checking out the pizza restaurant later.

Somehow I’m pleased that some of the money arriving here from overseas will be sucked into the local economy. But house prices are already rocketing as the town prepares for the arrival of a chunk of the hybrid force that is being sent to Darfur, and things seem to be getting out of hand. Locals are going to find it difficult to afford a place in their own town soon.