The conflict in the region has outgrown the initial analysis of it but the winner continues to be the government in Khartoum, writes Rob Crilly
THE appeal is always the same. Whether it is the women building shelters amid the scorched sand of Al Salaam camp in south Darfur, or the children waving placards as my donkey plodded through the mountains of Jebel Mara, there is only one plea: when is the United Nations coming to save us?
African Union (AU) soldiers are not up to the job. Overstretched and underfunded they cannot protect themselves, much less the 2½ million civilians crammed into aid camps. So for now the Arab militias, government troops and a bewildering array of rebel splinter groups have the run of Darfur.
No wonder the international community was quick to welcome last week's decision by Khartoum to allow in a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force. Never mind that this is the same deal that Sudan agreed back in November, only to backtrack as government officials picked over the small print. And never mind that it meant Khartoum had managed to shelve last year's security council resolution authorising a purely UN force in Darfur, in favour of a hybrid mission under the day to day control of the AU.
The first two phases of a joint AU-UN operation are far from operational despite being authorised in November and April. In south Darfur the two organisations are squabbling over who is to provide office space for extra staff sent as part of what is known as the light support package. The fine idea of bolstering the African force with UN expertise has to wait as the logisticians spend each day moving their papers and laptops from spare desk to empty office.
At each stage Khartoum has prevaricated and delayed before appearing to make a concession, knowing that every agreement signed buys more time for its military strategy.
And if the two organisations ever get their acts together, the Sudanese government is perfectly capable of impounding armoured personnel carriers for a year as officials find problems in import documents.
Already there are fears a projected $1 billion (€743 million) shortfall in American contributions to UN peacekeeping could undermine the whole operation.
So why, given all the problems, the focus on military intervention? The problem is the lack of noise coming from organisations at the sharp end in Darfur. The Concerns, Cares and Oxfams of this world see at first hand what is going wrong. Gradually they are withdrawing as insecurity worsens and promises of protection from Khartoum, the UN and the AU disintegrates.
But while they are happy to discuss the unfolding humanitarian crisis, they are reluctant to get drawn into the debate on its causes and solutions. Privately, many talk about the importance of restarting peace talks and pressurising the warring parties into a fresh ceasefire.
Publicly, their powerful advocacy networks stay silent. Best to steer clear of anything Khartoum may deem "political" for fear of being expelled, depriving Darfur's population of food, medicine and water.
That leaves a policy vacuum which is filled by the Save Darfur Coalition. This amalgam of anti-genocide campaigners and religious groupings makes no bones about its agenda: Darfur is in the grip of a genocide conducted by an Arab government against its black African tribes. Stop the government and the problem can be solved. A no-fly zone and an intervention force are no-brainers.
While charities in Sudan are forced into silence, the Save Darfur Coalition is mobilising thousands of protesters in the US and Europe and is hogging the headlines.
But their's is not the Darfur I recognise. On my most recent visit I met Arabs who once commanded Janjaweed militias but now fight with the Sudan Liberation Army rebels. Non-aggression pacts have been struck between Janjaweed and rebels, as Arab tribes realise the conflict is destroying their nomadic way of life.
If Darfur was ever about good guys against bad guys the conflict has outgrown that simplistic analysis. There is no genocide. Tribes are split by infighting and village is pitted against village over grazing land or water sources. With so many local disputes and shifting loyalties the violence flits from place to place.
This mess cannot be cleaned up by 20,000 peacekeepers. The answer lies in bringing all the players back to peace talks so that a shabby deal hatched last year can be resurrected.
For now the winners are not those children in Jebel Mara or the women in Al Salaam. It is the government of Omar el Bashir. He has handed Tony Blair, George Bush and Ban Ki-Moon the breakthrough they needed. It's just that nothing has really changed.
Rob Crilly is an east Africa correspondent for The Irish Times, based in Nairobi