Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on June 24, 2004 at 12:57:57: EST (-5 GMT)

SUDAN OPPOSITION LEADER: NO "ETHNIC CLEANSING" IN DARFUR

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 24 June 2004

"I don't believe that the government has decided to intervene with the
aim of ethnic-cleansing. There is an ethnic dimension in the conflict,
but it does not amount to a deliberate ethnic cleansing policy."

Sudan's key opposition leader Sadiq al-Mahdi recently gave a key-note
interview on the Darfur crisis to 'Sudan Vision', Sudan's leading
English-language newspaper. Mr al-Mahdi is the leader of Sudan's Umma
Party, and Imam of the Ansar religious movement. He has served as the
prime minister of Sudan on two occasions, most recently from 1986-89.
His administration was overthrown in 1989 by the present government. He
returned from political exile in the late 1990s.

Sadiq al-Mahdi suggested a number of steps to help resolve the Darfur
situation. These included "assigning the administration of the region to
trusted national figures"; investigation of wrong-doings in Darfur and
holding those involved accountable; ceasing aggression on civilians;
guaranteeing adequate relief to conflict-affected-people in Darfur; and
a commitment to ceasefire monitored by the African Union. He also
advocated the convening of an all-Darfur conference with the
participation of political parties that were represented in the last
constituent assembly, SPLM/A, the two armed Darfur parties, tribal and
clan chiefs and prominent Darfurians outside and inside Sudan. Any such
conference, he said, should address political, economic, administrative,
security, service and tribal issues related to Darfur.

Sadiq al-Mahdi was also asked if the current conflict in Darfur amounted
to "ethnic cleansing"?. He stated that while the conflict did have an
"ethnic dimension" this did not involve a "deliberate ethnic cleansing
policy".

The 'Sudan Vision' article is reproduced below.

***

Sadiq Al Mahdi: Foreign military intervention is wrong and will lead to
counter results while a purely Sudanese solution is possible.

News Article in Sudan Vision
20 June 2004
www.sudanvisiondaily.com

Is the Darfur problem new or is it the product of old complications?
When did that problem surface and how did it develop? Where do Sudanese
politicians stand as to the international concept of that problem today
and calls to foreign intervention? What is the reality of the alleged
ethnic cleansing as propagated by agencies, organizations and states
reputed for fabrications and analogy with premeditated agendas? Sudan
Vision put all these questions before leader of National Umma Party, and
Imam of Ansar, Sadiq Al Mahdi, in his capacity as former prime minister
and leader of a party that has recently concluded a memo of
understanding on the issue.

Excerpts.

QUESTION: Is the Darfur problem new, or is it inherited?

ANSWER: Darfur is an important Sudanese region, having its own
peculiarities Central and northern parts of Sudan were parts of the Funj
Kingdom while Darfur was the centre of the Funj Kingdom that was a rival
to the former. The two kingdoms merged into one another a few years
before the rise of Mahdiya. In 1916, Darfur was subjugated by the
condominium rule. The population structure of Darfur and Fung is telling
of the historical disparity between the two. Secondly, Darfur is the
only Northern Sudan region bordering foreign countries experiencing
political turmoil. Causes bedeviling the Darfur problem are known, with
the major ones manifested in the development gap, conflict over
resources between nomadic and settled tribes following the drought that
hit the region, in addition to tribal and intertribal conflicts and non-
availability of basic health and education services. Added to that, the
civil war in Chad culminated in the emergence of armed robbery in the
region. The incumbent government policies also had their negative effect
on the situation. Attempts by Dr. Ali Al Haj, who was assigned the
affairs of the region, to establish a political base for the government
there led him to be antagonistic to major forces and tribes, hence
harming the social fabric without succeeding to achieve his goal.
Secondly, a few number of Arab youth received military training to
counter the activities of the people's army. Members from non-Sudanese
Arab tribes joined them, forming an elitist group whose activity was
seen as of a military nature. Groups opposed to this group looked at the
government as their real enemy because of its support to it, and as a
result, the former began launching subversive activities. To quell these
activities, Government gave support to the first group, hence a state of
polarization prevailed to finally culminate in human tragedies which
drew the attention of the outside world. Several foreign delegations
that visited the region saw for themselves these tragedies. The (150)
Fur who fled to Chad spoke to foreign media agencies about the tragedies
in the region and so attracted the concern of international public
opinion. Under the circumstances, the American administration openly
held the Sudan Government responsible for these tragedies, warning if
intervention of the conflict was not ended. In addition to this limited
internationalization of the problem, broad and armed intervention has
become relevant. In the face of this situation, we believe that armed
intervention is wrong and will have negative effects. Urgent moves
should be made to address the problem through the two following
scenarios. First, an administrative reform by assigning the
administration of the region to trusted national figures to give the
impression that change has been made. Second: firm investigation of the
wrongs committed and holding accountable those who committed them Third:
ceasing aggression on civilians Fourth: Guarantee of flow of abundant
relief to conflict-affected-people. These, in my opinion, are the
necessary measures to be taken, coupled with commitment to ceasefire
under African Union on monitoring teams. The second scenario involves
the convening of the all-forces conference with the participation of
political parties that were represented in the last constituent
assembly, SPLM/A, the two armed Darfur parties, independent sons of
Darfur inside and outside the country and clans chieftains. This
conference should focus on a six-point agenda namely, political,
economic, administrative, security, service and tribal issues. In my
opinion, this conference can reach to decisive measures that address the
problem. Our party has developed six papers addressing all these issues,
to be presented at a workshop scheduled to be held at Ahfad University
on June 21. The outcome of the workshop will help the party to prepare
its paper for the all-forces conference, which, if responded to by all
parties, will resolve the problem.

QUESTION: It was reported that an understanding between the ruling and
the Umma parties has been reached. What is the scope of that
understanding particularly as regards the proposed conference?

ANSWER: Our understanding with the government includes among other
things, the all-forces conference

QUESTION: That means the conference is agreed upon by the government and
your party?

ANSWER: Yes, but no agreement has yet been reached on the agenda and
date of the conference.

QUESTION: Does your visit to Darfur come within the context of the said
conference?

ANSWER: Certainly. Over the past period, we refrained from going to
Darfur to avoid rendering political activity there sort of settling of
scores with the government. However, since we have now agreed on a
common vision, there will be no room for settling of scores. Joint
political action is now needed to realize the goals that meet the
aspiration of the Darfur people.

QUESTION: Do you think the government is now prepared to respond to your
proposals?

ANSWER: Judging by the joint Memorandum of Understanding, I can say yes.

QUESTION: Does the current conflict in Darfur amount to ethnic
cleansing?

ANSWER: There is no doubt about that conflict having an ethnic dimension
without involving a deliberate ethnic cleansing policy. The various
militias launched attacks motivated by reasons including ethnic ones.

QUESTION: Can these attacks be described as tribal retaliatory raids?

ANSWER: Some armed groups thought that attacking tribal bases would
undermine their adversaries. I do not believe that the government has
decided to launch an ethnic cleansing war. However, some of the elements
it supported intensified hostilities against the other parties for
reasons including ethnic ones.

QUESTION: You expressed reservation towards foreign military
intervention in Darfur. What message do you have to the international
community?

ANSWER: We are fully aware of the buckle to an international
intervention motivated by the existing tragedies in Darfur. However, we
believe that Sudanese solution is the right prescription as foreign
military intervention will result in further complications and so lead
to counter results.