Monday, October 01, 2007

The Mystery Of The Darfur AU Attack

As most of you know, the Islamist regime in the Sudan has been committing what amounts to genocide in Darfur over the last few years, but any real action in terms of a UN peacekeeping force was stymied first by Russia and China, who sell the Sudanweapons and buy their oil and second by the regime itself, which refused to accept a UN force in the region because it would violate the Sudan's `sovereignity.'

FInally a makeshipt deal was hammered out to allow an enhanced force of African Union troops, which seeemed to be progressing in a stop and go fashion...until a raid a few days ago on an AU base which killed 10 AU soldiers and left nine more missing.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but the Sudan's government was very quick to accuse the two main rebel groups - the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

Sudan's U.N. Ambassador Abdalmahmood Mohamad was pretty clear..."Factions of SLM and JEM," he said. "It is very clear, the African Union said it, not only the Sudan government… The evidence is there: they were active in (the) area, they did it, the African Union said it, so they are very visible, it is not necessary to reinvent [the] wheel to know it is them."

Now here's the tricky part...just why would the Darfur rebels attack the AU, who are protecting the Darfur civilians, at least to a small degree? What would they have to gain?

The answer is, absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, the Sudanese government has everything to gain from formulating a `false flag' attack on the AU troops. Because of the casualties, several of the AU nations, Senegal among them are talking about bringing their troops home and foregoing the peacekeeping mission altogether...which, strangely enough, would suit the Sudan just fine.

Amazing how that works out.

If you remember, the Sudan has done this before, using clearly marked `UN' planes to transport troops and stage attacks on the rebels.

The UN Security Council reflected this ambiguity, with a condemnation of the attack issued but not a formal statement, because the members couldn't `agree on language'...or in other words, a number of them weren't buying the story that the rebels were behind the attack. Even if some of the Darfur rebels were involved, the motivation is murky...unless some money or other quid pro quo from the Sudan's government was involved,in which case things become crystal clear.

A peace conference is scheduled to go on in Libya in a few days between the rebels the Sudan government and a few other players...we'll see what happens.

As for me, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more of these `rebel' attacks on the AU troops in an attempt to get them to pull out altogether.

No comments: