'A Ticking Bomb'

Jan Eliasson, the U.N. secretary-general's special envoy for Darfur and head of the U.N./AU (African Union) mediation team facilitating peace talks, says that an agreement on cessation of hostilities will be the first issue on the table for the talks set to begin on Oct. 27 in Libya. While he acknowledges the importance of including civil society, Arab tribes, women, and displaced Darfurians in the talks, he says he "cannot promise full participation at the negotiation table for all groups." He calls the frustration and anger in the Darfur camps a "ticking bomb," and stresses that "without a peace to keep, peacekeeping becomes futile."

You've been working for 10 months now to get Darfur's rebel groups to some kind of unified position. Clearly it's a really difficult process. What is the nature of the divisions?
: The parties, SLM [Sudanese Liberation Movement] and JEM [Justice and Equality Movement], have different ideological colors, no doubt. SLM is very strongly a Darfurian party; the Justice and Equality Movement also has a national program. There are other ideological differences that I cannot indeed describe, but there is also, in Darfur, an element of difference of the tribes. Darfur is a country of strong and proud traditions, where the tribes play a very important role. You have the Fur tribes; in fact, Darfur means land of the Furs. Dar means land and Fur is the major tribe. You have the Zaghawa—and this shows the relationship of the neighboring states, if you take into account that the president of Chad is a Zaghawa. You have the Massalit, which is another important tribe, and you have the Rizeigat—a tribe of Arabs that is very important. These tribes form the traditional structure of Darfur, and sadly this structure, this sociocultural fabric, has been torn apart. They still play a role, but so many of the movements have tribal elements, and that has been a divisive factor between both SLM and JEM.

At this point it is not clear whether these rebel groups actually represent the interests of the people of Darfur. You've talked about the importance of including groups like women, IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons], and Arab tribal groups in the peace process. How will the positions of these stakeholders be represented at the talks?
It is very important for the credibility of the process that we include civil society, traditional leaders, women's groups, and other representatives of internally displaced people and refugees. In a country or region that has been struck by this terrible disaster, the methods of selection are not well developed, so it's hard to identify who are the best representatives of these groups. We have a dialogue with these different categories through the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue by Mr. Abdul Mohammad, and our own civil-affairs component of the United Nations.
Dr. Salim [Salim Salim, the AU's special envoy] and I cannot promise full participation at the negotiation table for all groups, but we promise that we'll definitely listen very carefully to the voices of the concerned groups on every issue.

We have identified major traditional leaders and representatives of civil society whom we are going to invite not only to the opening of the talks in Tripoli on the 27th of October but also to the working sessions on particular subjects later on. The key areas are wealth sharing, power sharing, and security. There is also interest in discussing humanitarian affairs and land issues. We have a plan to invite these representatives for specific sessions to make sure their voices are heard when substantial decisions start [being made on] an area that affects them. The three major issues for the people of Darfur, particularly those in the camps, are security: disarmament of the militias; compensation or "blood money," which is from the huge loss of lives and property; and the right to return to their land.

For us to discuss these issues without listening to those people who have been victims of the war would be wrong. We have received positive signals from civil society and tribal leaders to attend. We have also talked to the government about this. There was some reluctance to begin with, but we hope they will see the value of having supported the peace process. One leader, Abdul Wahid, who is located in Paris, has decided not to come. He has a strong standing in the camps—I have seen it myself. We hope very much that he would allow, even if he doesn't attend, the voices of the camps, his own followers, to have their views known to the negotiators.

When you say the different groups will be represented at the working sessions, what does that mean in terms of the actual hammering out of some kind of agreement? Will, say, women have a voice at the final negotiating table?
We take one step at a time. We hope the first phase of the talks will agree on a cessation of hostilities that will be respected. We will then proceed to the other issues, and then we will try to identify the best combination of negotiators. Dr. Salim and I cannot promise full participation at the negotiation table for all groups, but we promise that we'll definitely listen very carefully to the voices of the concerned groups on every issue. We will see whether we will find an even more active role for some groups in some situations, but we will take one step at a time. To begin with, we need to have the cessation of hostilities agreement, and for that we need to have an inclusive invitation list, inviting all those who can affect the situation on the ground, not least militarily. Later on we may find other accommodations necessary for the talks, but that will be the result of the conversations that will start immediately after the initial phase.