The list of roadblocks to peace in the Darfur region of Sudan discussed above is not, regrettably, exhaustive. The current international peacekeeping framework is in disarray, and efforts to bolster it have been sabotaged by the Sudanese and foreign governments. A seventh round of peace negotiations with two of the three Darfur rebel groups is in jeopardy, as dissention in the ranks of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) recently has surfaced. Waves of vulnerable refugees and heavily armed militants crossing Darfur borders are destabilizing communities and negotiations in both Sudan and neighboring Chad . All told, the security situation in Sudan is spiraling out of control, leading to the conclusion that press headlines giving an impression that an end to Darfur’s violence is in sight is, in fact, grossly misleading.

The African Union, which has deployed some 8,000 peacekeepers across a region the size of France, claims to be running out of money. As a stopgap, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (see photo in previous column) requested $50 million from Congress to help fund African Union (AU) peacekeepers in Darfur, and US President George Bush has proposed sending NATO troops to bolster the deployment until the United Nations is able to deploy its planned peacekeeping mission fully. Congress has since rejected Rice’s plea, and the United Nations envoy for Sudan, Jan Pronk , poured cold water on the NATO proposal warning such a move would be “a recipe for disaster.” Acknowledging that the current AU force is inadequate, Pronk stated further, “You need either an AU (African Union) force which is effective… [or] you need the UN. There is, in my view, no alternative.” Although ambassadors to the African Union’s Peace and Security Council agreed in January 2006 to turn peacekeeping responsibilities over to the UN, the final decision will be made at a ministerial meeting scheduled for March 10. In the meantime, the Sudanese government has lobbied against UN involvement and has even secured support from Egypt and Libya on the AU to block such a move. “Plan B” for the Sudanese government is to block further international peacekeeping involvement from within the UN. Despite US chairmanship of the Security Council in February, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (see photo on following page) failed to finalize a resolution to the crisis. Even proposed UN sanctions on Sudan are being blocked by China , Qatar , and Russia . As such, as of March 1, 2006, progress on international peacekeeping efforts and sanctions has come to a screeching halt, and the international community is facing the prospects of pulling out the remaining peacekeeping forces.

Meanwhile, peace negotiations in the Nigerian capital of Abuja to resolve a three-year civil conflict in the west between the Sudanese government, the SLA, and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) has failed, thus far, to attract the involvement of a third rebel group, the National Movement for Reform and Development (NMRD) , or the government-supported Arab militia called the Janjaweed . A comprehensive peace cannot be finalized without their involvement. Yet, even within the negotiating teams, splits continue to plague the rebels. As recently as March 6, a statement signed by 19 senior SLA officials was released disavowing the efforts, announcements, and positions of recently elected party president Abdel Wahed Mohamed el-Nur and appointed his deputy Khamis Abdallah Abakr as transitional head until a congress is held within three months to elect a new leader. This faction promised to uphold previous agreements, noting: “We have taken this step when it became clear and beyond reasonable doubt that our cause was in jeopardy, and that the current leadership had become too weak to lead us safely out of danger.” Without adequate peacekeeping forces to instill confidence and secure stability, even if this seventh round of talks were to generate an agreement, the missing participation of the NMRD and Janjaweed would limit the document’s viability severely.

As if the efforts by Egypt, Libya, China, Qatar, and Russia are not enough foreign actions to completely derail the remnants of a western Sudan peace process, the international implications of the refugee flow across the Sudan-Chad border certainly are. Humanitarian groups and even western governments believe a Sudanese government policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide resulted in the deaths of some 200,000 refugees in three short months in 2003 and nearly two million refugees since then. However, another estimated 180,000 refugees have recently crossed the Sudan-Chad border fleeing militants on both sides. Darfur rebels hide in refugee camps in Chad while Chadian rebels, seeking to overthrow President Idriss Deby , live and hide among refugees in Sudan. Transnational ethnic and tribal ties further muddle the distinction between warring groups and refugees. Unlike negotiations in international forums, such as the AU and the UN, regarding deployment of peacekeepers and in Abuja between the government and Darfur rebels, there are no talks planned or even conceived to relieve the humanitarian catastrophe along the Chadian border or to address the agenda’s of the warring militants. In sum, with two levels of talks failing and a necessary third not even in sight, it is clear that Darfur crisis will surely get worse before it gets better.