For the UN to wrest back its proper global role its intervention in Sudan must bring results, writes Mohamed Abul-Fadl* The UN had its share of success and failure around the world. Its role was eclipsed by the ascendance of the US as the ultimate arbiter on the global scene. Now that the US is losing its grip, the UN is once again thrust to the forefront of international affairs. Sudan is its litmus test. The UN is about to tend to both the political process and peacekeeping missions in Darfur. That is why Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon toured Sudan last week where he had talks with politicians from across the political spectrum. Darfur was at the heart of his talks. The UN has a formula for the deployment of international forces in Darfur. The formula, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 1796, calls for a "hybrid" deployment of troops: a combination of African Union troops and symbolic contingents from outside the continent. The UN secretary-general got everyone to agree to another round of peace talks between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels due to be held in Tripoli 27 October. Three things about Ban's visit are worth noting here. First of all, relations between Khartoum and the UN have gone from estrangement to collaboration. Second, regional powers who had been opposed to international mediation seem to have recognised its importance. Third, the UN is once again doing what it is supposed to do. It is taking charge of regional conflicts. And it seems willing to use its political and military resources to get things moving in the right direction. The coming round of talks in Tripoli is crucial. No one wants a repeat of the Abuja debacle. The UN is determined to maintain the momentum and the international community is lending it credible support. But problems are to be expected unless current mistrust between the government and some of Darfur's insurgent groups is defused. The Sudanese government didn't want to be depicted as the one obstructing the path to peace, certainly not during Ban's first visit to the country. This is why it agreed to resume talks. The rebels are less sure. They claim to not have been consulted about the timing and venue of the talks. And they say they don't know enough about the agenda. So expect further diplomatic efforts ahead of the Tripoli session. Part of the ongoing debate is on what should come first: peace or negotiations. The UN wants to restart the political process right away. Its diplomats argue that peace talks should not wait for the tedious arrangements of peacekeeping to be sorted out. Unless a political settlement is reached, peace will be vulnerable, UN officials warn. The rebels beg to differ. They say that the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Darfur calls for immediate action. And they are not convinced that the government will honour its promises, citing Abuja's failure as an example. Chad and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) have been trying to narrow differences between the government and the Darfur rebels. Chad invited the rebel groups that rejected the Abuja agreement for a session of preliminary talks ahead of the Tripoli meeting. A few days ago, an SPLM delegation went to Paris for talks with Abdel-Wahed Mohamed Nour, the Sudan Liberation Movement commander who didn't want to go to Tripoli. Following the talks, Nour seemed more reconciliatory. "Our primary concern is peace for our people," he said. Two groups of rebels are expected to show up in Tripoli. One is the Asmara group, including the United Front for Liberation and Development, the National Liberation Front, the National Movement for Reform and Development, and the Federal Democratic Alliance of Sudan. The other is the Tripoli group, including the Justice and Equality movement, the Sudan Liberation Army, and the Sudanese Democratic Alliance. The UN had a hard time convincing Khartoum of international deployment in Darfur. Now that politicians are about to meet, the UN has to be more specific about military and political details. Some confusion persists concerning the final shape of international forces and their mandate. Although UN Resolution 1796 has clarified a few points, further discussion is needed. The UN cannot afford to lose this one. At stake is not only Sudan's future, but its own prestige. Sudan, UN officials know, is a watershed. * The writer is a researcher specialised in African and Sudanese affairs.
