Darfur protesters condemn UN plan

There is growing anger about the possible deployment of UN forces

Thousands of people have marched through the Sudan capital, Khartoum, to protest against UN plans to take over peacekeeping operations in Darfur.

The marchers, including militias backed by the government, chanted slogans and held banners saying such things as "UN Troops bring your coffins with you".

The protests come as the European Union hosts talks on whether to transfer responsibility for the peace mission.

The African Union is running out of money for its 7,000 troops in Darfur.

Sudan has threatened to leave the AU if the pan-African body agrees to let the UN take over, with a bigger force and a stronger mandate to end the violence.

A Sudanese envoy has stressed his government's opposition to the United Nations taking over peacekeeping duties from the African Union in Darfur.

The envoy, Mohamed Elsamani, said Western troops in any prospective UN force were particularly unacceptable to Sudan referring to the behaviour of US soldiers in Iraq.

"Regarding the bad conduct or treatment of some, whatever linked with the UN or individual countries like America, how it is treating people in Guantanamo, how the allies are treating people in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib prison, or killing civilians - it is not a process which will be accepted in Sudan," he said.

Some 2m people are still living in overcrowded camps in Darfur, driven from their homes by the continuing conflict.

Death threats

The BBC's Jonah Fisher in Khartoum says although 10,000 United Nations troops are being deployed to southern and eastern Sudan, the prospect of a UN mission in the west is unacceptable to many Sudanese.

AU forces should be incorporated into the UN mission in which Africans should play a key leadership role Robert Zoellick, Deputy US secretary of state

Stirred up by violent rhetoric in Islamic newspapers, several thousands of people marched on the UN headquarters.

Our correspondent says many believe their country's sovereignty is at stake, with the West eager to turn Sudan into another Iraq.

Death threats against Western diplomats have been published and militia groups have warned of a holy war.

He says the crowd chanted a mixture of Islamic slogans and insults to America, George Bush and the United Nations.

Poorly equipped

The AU will decide whether to hand over its mission to the UN on Friday.

Ahead of the decision, Sudan's Vice-President Ali Osman Taha, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and the chairman of the AU Commission, Alpha Omar Konare, are attending the EU talks in Brussels.

Western leaders would like to see the poorly equipped AU mission replaced with a bigger and better armed UN presence more capable of dealing with Darfur's violence.

"We believe that, to the maximum extent possible, the AU forces in Darfur should be incorporated into the UN mission in which Africans should play a key leadership role," Mr Zoellick said in a statement, Reuters news agency reports.

The meeting has been organised by the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who says it is vital to find a new peace formula for Sudan.

---

Do you think the United Nations should take over the peacekeeping mission in Darfur? Would this signal that Africa is unable to solve its own problems? Or would it show that the international community is serious about ending the continuing violence there?

Let us know your views using the form below.

A selection of them will be broadcast on the BBC's Focus on Africa programme on Saturday 11 March at 1700GMT.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

The United Nations should not take over the peacekeeping mission in Darfur. I smell a rat that the United States has a sinister motive - it wants to invade Sudan and cause mayhem and bloodshed like in Iraq. And Africa is not unable to solve problems, it can easily handle all issues concerning Africa, but alas it is our African leaders who are attending to the demands of USA. If the AU peacekeeping force is lacking funds why don't the international community intervene, it shows they are not serious about issues hurting Africans.
Mohamed abdi Hassan, Nairobi Kenya

I think that AU and UN most work together. The UN doesn't have the best track record, but maybe with the help from AU they can get better results.
Jairo Ordonez, Konstanz - Germany

The UN should come and save the lives of those who are being killed in Darfur. And if the UN is to come they should enter into combat with anybody who wants to harm the civilians in Darfur. Not to just watch like the African troops which are in the country now.
James Tombe, Khartoum, Sudan

I worked as a junior university academic in Kenya's new medical school from 1968 to 1972. After that, I taught at the University of Southampton for 16 years. From 1981 to 1983 I was on sabbatical in the medical school at the University of Zimbabwe. I can honestly state that there was little if any difference in ability or application between my British students and my Kenyans or Zimbabweans. So, why Africa's leadership should be so inept and corrupt has always mystified me. My heart says that the UN should take over peacekeeping in Darfur. My head says that the West should stay out of that morass. Eventually, Africa's leadership will come to realise that they (personally) can profit more from a small share of a large and healthy economy than from a large part of a failed one. Then Africa will know peace, justice and decent government. It may be a long time coming.
Peter Bursztyn, Barrie, Ontario, Canada

It is a divisive issue. So much of what is seen out in Iraq has exacerbated the situation with these people and Western leaders trying to help. I think if the UN were to intervene, they must be serious in helping the Sudanese achieve the goal of unity and peace. I am highly opposed to bloodshed, but I am also opposed to Western powers adding fuel to the animosity they receive currently by their invasive practices. When you look at Africa from a Western perspective (or maybe even an African one), you see that only assistance from other powers can help them. But that is a place that has been plagued by colonisation, so I could understand their reluctance. If the UN does this, they must appear to be humanitarians rather than interventionists with a horrible agenda.
David Ross, Maryland, United States

I may have problems with neo-colonialism; I may even be fearful of the neo-conservative designs of some of the most vocal elements in the Bush Administration. But I think the greatest foreign policy decision of the Bush administration was to label the Darfur tragedy as a "genocide". It was a decision totally devoid of realpolitik, totally borne out of genuine feelings for the 400,000 dead and 2m displaced men, women and children. America has no geo-political interest in Darfur - Bush risks alienating Arabs further, and France, Russia and China cannot see beyond their short term interests with Arab regimes and especially the murderous one in Khartoum. The decision on Darfur has been Bush's finest hour and has brought out the statesman him.

The question, then, is not whether America and the UN should act to stop the deteriorating genocide but how quickly it can mobilise additional troops and take over the AU operations. Like Zimbabwe's Mugabe, the Janjaweed and those "rent-a-crowd" demonstrators in Khartoum protest UN involvement because it is a lot easier to continue their murderous activities without outside interference. If wanting peace as an African is to be a neo-colonialist, so let it be. If there had been neo-colonial intervention in Rwanda, 800000 people might still be alive.
St. James Odoh, Brooklyn, Unites States/ Nigeria

I don't think the UN should take over, but the UN can serve as an ally to support the work of the AU. Leadership should and must lie with the AU in addressing the Genocide in Darfur. It is clear that the AU needs support and if the UN can offer a solution to the challenges that the AU are identifying then the UN should definitely join the AU in protecting the people of Darfur. The UN must take the role of ally to AU. Not take over peacekeeping efforts. If the UN does take over in Darfur, it would be a continued perpetuation of the usurping of African peoples right to self-determination that has occurred since the first white man stepped on the African continent. A long term solution to the crisis in Darfur must have leadership and decision making power by Africans not Westerners.
Sheena Johnson, Philadelphia, PA, USA

I don't care if the answer is to send in 10,000 kindergarten students to teach everyone how to play nice and share, we need to find a way to effectively protect the people of Darfur. If the AU feels that they cannot complete the task and asks the EU or the UN to step in then that is what needs to happen. This is not to say that the AU lacks qualities that they EU or UN possesses - they don't - what the AU lacks are the troops and money that is needed to bring a stable peace to Darfur
Shana, Kansas City, MO United States

Where was the UN when the initial conflict erupted? We should not believe that they (the US, the UN and the EU) had a change of heart all of the sudden. I sincerely believe that there is a hidden agenda behind this move, Sudan has been on US's target list for a long time. Africa's problem has to be dealt primarily by the AU.
Endalkachew Seyoum, Alexandria, Virginia, USA

It is about time the UN stepped up and took its responsibilities seriously. It should exercise its mandate and protect the innocent people of Darfur despite the protests of the government. If not the UN - than the European Union. We cannot sit back and watch human beings suffer and blame politics for our inability to help. The UN must exercise authority.
John-Christopher Byrne, Cork, Ireland

The issue of sending UN Western forces to Darfur or any part of Sudan or Africa to take over from the Africa forces already there is a risky business. I, as an ordinary Sudanese citizen, am against it and I will do anything to keep them out. The West is interested in the Sudan not to keep the peace in southern Sudan or Darfur. They are interested in the oil, business and to exploit Sudan's natural resources. One may asked: "If the West was interested in peace why didn't they send a Western UN or military forces to stop the 23 years war between north and south Sudan in the past decades? The West is not coming to help us; they are looking for jobs in our country Sudan and in Africa.
Lagala Jalamwokwowoko

How many more people have to be brutalised before we do something to help them?
Greg Browne, Somerset, UK

The UN needs to be shown greater respect around the world or else there is no point to the organisation. Despite its flaws, it can do a better job than the AU because it is better funded and has much more experience in peacekeeping. The people of Sudan should see this as a good sign, the world is taking note of the events in Sudan, they are not alone. The UN is also certainly not a puppet of the US.
Thomas Nemes, London, UK

The United Nations agenda is not for the good of the Sudanese people - especially as far as the women as concerned. Take DR Congo, for example, where some UN peacekeepers have been accused of raping women. I would tell Kofi Annan to keep off Sudan's ground, because of their past involvement in other countries which have not been fruitful, and let the AU do what they think they can do. I am a very disgusted Sudanese woman as I am writing this.
Ayaan Osman, Sudanese national in South Africa

It's taken long enough for the UN to get involved... It's true, they don't have the best track record when it comes to peacekeeping, as someone already pointed out, but I'm holding out hope that they can improve that record - more then ever we need a large international organisation committed to securing peace and justice without bias. In order for the mission to the Sudan to be successful, the peacekeepers need to be given power do actually do things, and it needs to be a genuinely international effort.
Bryan Conrad, Bellingham, Washington, USA

I visited Al Fasher in Darfur in December where frustrated AU personnel told me how they had to stood by and watch many atrocities being carried out. In part to the weak mandate the AU has in the country and otherwise because of a lack in resources. It was shocking to see that the airport in the town being used by the AU was also the station of Russian attack helicopters owned or hired by the Sudanese government. On the day that I was in town two of three helicopters were out on ¿a mission¿ and the AU could do nothing about it. If the UN does not take over, the AU mission needs a massive cash injection and a stronger mandate.
Louis Oelofse, Pretoria, South Africa

Terms & Conditions