'A Ticking Bomb'

It sounds as though you're talking about a negotiation process that is fairly extensive. Do you have a time frame in mind?
Dr. Salim and I have agreed to not set an exact time frame. This is not something you do in weeks, but it's also something you don't do in years. I hope we will work with speed and efficiency. We don't want to have a renegotiation of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), which was concluded in May last year, but we certainly need to look over some of the clauses of the DPA and look at the situation as it is today and reflect that in our negotiations. We hope that we will have a compact negotiation. We don't want to repeat the long, extended experience of Abuja [negotiations preceding the DPA].

Andrew Natsios [U.S. special envoy for Sudan] recently mentioned in a speech that you and Salim Salim have done extensive analysis of the Abuja talks, basically what worked there and what didn't work there. Can you share some of your insights from that and how you hope these upcoming talks will be different?
Some parts of the Abuja agreement are very well crafted and well done. I have been negotiating for many, many years and I am impressed by the work, for example, done in the security chapter in the DPA. But an agreement must reflect the realities, and we know that the agreement of May last year was not signed, and we have to look into the reasons for that. Probably we will find, in the end, several parts or segments of the DPA will be very useful and could even be taken over by the new agreement, but we will also have certain parts where we will have to work anew and find new angles of dealing with the problems. The main thing is that the agreement reflect the realities of the ground and the aspirations of the ground. There was a disconnect between the finalization of the talks in Abuja, far away from Darfur, and the realities in Darfur. Therefore, this time, there is a need to have a very transparent process where civil society, IDP representatives, and traditional leaders are also involved, and that we, the negotiators, also set up an effective communication line to the field, to Darfur and Khartoum, so that it is understood what is happening. One of the advantages of being in Libya is that it is closer to the field, and people can travel more easily than they could in the case of Nigeria.

I talked to someone recently who suggested that peace talks should be held in Darfur. Do you see that as a possibility?
That was my original idea, but it turns out to be, logistically, administratively, and from several other aspects, impossible. The symbolism of talking about the future of Darfur in Darfur is the right one. But it is not physically possible, especially because we are dealing with the deployment of the UN-AU hybrid forces in Darfur, and we have considerable logistical challenges facing us in that department. It was a good idea but unfortunately not a realistic one at this stage.

What about the Sudanese government? In the past week and a half it seems there has been military action from the government. Are they working in good faith in this process?
We are trying to investigate the military incidents and developments in the last few weeks. I don't have a completely clear picture; I don't have full reports from the different clashes that have occurred in the past two weeks. We expect both the government and the rebel movements to reduce the level of violence in order to create an environment conducive to the talks. We hope very much that it is duly understood that we expect de-escalation of hostilities. We hope that there are no parties speculating about gaining anything from military action. To me it seems slightly absurd that by gaining territory or military control, you would have a better chance of dealing with how Darfurians will live in peace in the future. This is not a territorial conflict.

In South Sudan the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) is looking increasingly fragile. How will any agreement that comes out of Darfur fit with the CPA, which actually provides for national power sharing and calls for elections in 2009?
The CPA is a very important agreement between the north and the south ending a huge tragedy. We hope that a good agreement on the Darfur problem will not infringe upon the CPA. On the other hand, it is evident that there is a relationship in both directions between Darfur and the north-south relationship. We have an interest in maintaining the credibility of the CPA, while the north and the south have an interest in creating a well-functioning DPA. I take it for granted that this is mutually reinforcing, and that there is no need to, in a fundamental way, change the CPA.

Where do you see Darfur a year from now?
There are two perspectives, one optimistic and one pessimistic.