US backing away from insistence on abidance to UN security resolution
CAIRO: French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy confirmed with President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo yesterday his country’s willingness to arbitrate and resolve the Darfur crisis peacefully.
Douste-Blazy arrived in Cairo on Saturday to discuss regional issues as well as map out a strategy to resolve the conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region.
The conflict began in 2003 when armed rebel groups began attacking government targets in what at first appeared to be feuds over watering holes and territory.
The Khartoum government retaliated by launching a military campaign and arming Janjaweed militia.
Nearly 2 million people have fled their villages in the area with many pouring into Chad, where the government there is already locked in a low-level war with rebels.
We would like a UN command with an African general, Douste-Blazy said in Cairo before his meeting with President Mubarak about the possible composition of a peacekeeping force.
While there were originally two main approaches to the crisis – the US government was calling for strict abidance to the United Nations Security Council resolution and the Sudanese government rejected it as undermining its sovereignty – the Egyptian government has rallied for a third route, explained Hani Raslan, an expert on Sudanese affairs.
The Egyptian alternative accepts the presence of international troops and the increase in their power and eliminates sections related to executive and judiciary authorities, which led the Sudanese government to object it in the first place, he added.
There is initial conformity in Egypt and France s approach to the Darfur crisis in Sudan, on the features of the third route but the details are yet to be [discussed], Raslan told The Daily Star Egypt.
The French suggestion to deploy international troops under the command of the African Union is a compromise that the Sudanese government would accept, said Ibrahim El-Nur, director of African studies at the American University in Cairo.
He also noted that France in general could help resolve the crisis especially with its connections to armed parties in Darfur.
Currently, the ill-funded African Union troops can t control the situation in Darfur. And most recently, the head of the international envoy in Sudan, Dutch diplomat Jan Pronk, was expelled from the country for criticizing Khartoum’s actions in Darfur.
But the issue has more dimensions, especially since the US government has long rallied a stance different from the now internationally welcomed third route.
Raslan noted a conflict of interest between France and the United States in Africa, emphasizing that the European power, with strong ties to neighboring Chad, has vested interests to protect.
The French have a different approach because of their established interests in neighboring countries, said El-Nur. He said France is considered to be the original colonial power in francophone Africa.
There is a sense of competition [between the US and France] especially when it comes to oil, he added.
The French-US rift over Africa has tilted the former in favor of the Egyptian suggestion, adopting the same stance as China and Russia that rejected forcing the Sudanese government into accepting international troops.
The French government, however, stood firm on its diplomatic approach to the Darfur crisis long before the US changed its stance, said Raslan.
Recently, the US government has backed down from its initial position on Sudan. Now it is more lenient in accepting other alternatives.
We re taking a look at how we can address the various concerns that have come up from the Sudanese government, as well as others in the region, about the nature of this international force, said US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
Raslan explained that the US has realized that with firm Sudanese rejection of the UNSC resolution, any forceful intervention would leave the country with no ruling system, akin to the volatile situation in Iraq.
