VZCZCXRO5470
OO RUEHGI RUEHMA RUEHROV RUEHTRO
DE RUEHKH #0908/01 2171543
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 051543Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4203
INFO RUCNFUR/DARFUR COLLECTIVE
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/CJTF HOA
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0100
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0337
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0151
RUEHSUN/USUN ROME IT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 KHARTOUM 000908 
 
DEPT FOR SE GRATION, S/USSES, AF A/S CARSON, AF/C 
NSC FOR MGAVIN 
DEPT PLS PASS USAID FOR AFR/SUDAN 
ADDIS ABABA ALSO FOR USAU 
BRUSSELS FOR PBROWN 
GENEVA FOR NKYLOH 
UN ROME FOR HSPANOS 
NEW YORK FOR DMERCADO 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC PGOV PREL UNSC SU
SUBJECT: HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT MISSION TO SOUTH DARFUR AND 
THE QUESTION OF RETURNS 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY.  On July 28 and 29, the High Level Committee (HLC) 
made a joint assessment mission to Shattaia, Gereida, Donkey Abai, 
and Donkey Dereisa, South Darfur.  The 40-person delegation included 
representatives from the Office of the Deputy Humanitarian 
Coordinator (HC), Arab League, UK Department for International 
Development, European Commission's Humanitarian Affairs Office, 
Government of National Unity (GNU) Humanitarian Aid Commission 
(HAC), Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UN 
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Embassy 
of the Netherlands, and African Union-UN Hybrid Operations in 
Darfur's (UNAMID) Humanitarian Pillar.  USAID Off represented the 
U.S. Embassy.  This was the second assessment mission organized by 
the HLC; during the first assessment in June 2009, the HLC visited 
Zam Zam camp, North Darfur.  END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
SHATTAIA: CHEERING CROWDS AND TALES OF RETURN 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) In Shattaia and Donkey Dereisa, the assessment team was met 
by large, well-organized crowds carrying flags and waving signs.  In 
both locations, local said returnees from surrounding camps had 
arrived after various tribes  reconciled, thus creating peace in the 
area.  (NOTE: Two days before the visit, high-level officials, 
including the Wali (Governor) of South Darfur, GNU HAC Commissioner 
Hassabu Mohammad Sueilman, and others visited Donkey Dereisa and 
Shattaia, pledging to provide the two villages with basic services. 
END NOTE.) 
 
¶3. (U) Shattaia is located in southwest corner of Kass locality, 
approximately 50 to 80 km from Kass town.  Ninety-five percent of 
the population belong to the Fur ethnic group.  During the visit to 
Shattaia, the Umda (local community leader), GNU HAC, and Dutch 
ambassador spoke to the delegation and crowd.  According to the 
Umda, 240 families have returned to Shattaia from 
internally-displaced person (IDP) camps and from El Derfusan, and 17 
ethnic groups are currently living in Shattaia.  The Umda said that 
since 2005, following several reconciliation conferences, the Fur 
and Benihalba ethnic groups have reconciled and agreed to live in 
peace.  (NOTE: Members of the delegation witnessed the signing of a 
peace accord between the local leader (Nasir) of the Fur and his 
counterpart (Shati) among the Benihalba.  END NOTE).  According to 
the GNU HAC, the GNU HAC is supporting voluntary returns and has 
requested that IDPs return to Shattaia.  The Dutch Ambassador 
praised the re-conciliation committee, and reiterated that the most 
important thing is that people feel safe at home. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Following the speeches, some team members visited the 
social center, which included a primary health care center and 
school.  According to USAID/OFDA, the structures in the social 
center were the only permanent ones in the area.   All the other 
buildings were partially destroyed and had no roofs.  In addition, 
the majority of the Shattaia village structures were located in one 
area and appeared to be temporary buildings made with local material 
and covered with blue plastic sheeting.  During the visit, a woman 
approached the group and said she had been promised assistance and 
food if she returned to the area, but after two months still had not 
received any assistance.  According to another local resident, what 
the delegation saw in Shattaia was a "simulation," and none of the 
people present actually lived there.  Another individual explained 
that most of the people present lived in neighboring villages.  He 
said he was from Shattia, but could not return to the area due to 
lack of security.  When USAID/OFDA staff asked the man about the 
police standing a few meters away, he responded, "those are 
Janjaweed... we don't have security here." 
 
¶5. (U) After the Shattaia stop, the South Darfur State Emergency 
Committee presented information on humanitarian gaps that had been 
filled in camps and various locations in South Darfur, focusing on 
nutrition, primary health care, and water, sanitation, and hygiene 
(WASH).  According to the committee, 40,500 IDPs have returned to 
nine villages in South Darfur.  The Acting Deputy HC commented that 
where conditions are right and sustainable, the humanitarian 
community is willing to provide assistance.  OCHA noted that South 
Darfur has experienced significant cooperation from the Sudanese 
 
KHARTOUM 00000908  002 OF 004 
 
 
government to address gaps, but work should continue because gaps 
remain.  OCHA also said that although the humanitarian community 
recognized that voluntary returns were the ultimate goal, the 
International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UNHCR were needed 
to verify the nature and scope of the returns.  OCHA added  that the 
humanitarian agenda should remain separate from the political 
agenda, and that security remained a concern for humanitarian 
actors.  The GNU HAC representative stated the GNU's had had 
negative experiences with IOM, adding that UNHCR and IOM needed to 
work jointly with the government rather than in isolation.  The 
Dutch Ambassador said gap-filling must be placed in the context of 
the pre-expulsion situation, particularly if other gaps are to be 
addressed.  The Sudanese government should look at the quality as 
well as the quantity of gap-filling measures, and South Darfur 
officials should begin taking on responsibility for humanitarian 
efforts.  The Ambassador emphasized additional issues including lack 
of basic services, addressing of grievances, as well as land issues. 
He said if the rights of the returnees are not considered, the 
people of Darfur will be in the same situation as they were 
pre-conflict, particularly in light of the inadequacy of the 
judicial system. 
 
------------------------------------ 
GEREIDA: SEEKING SUSTAINABLE RETURNS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶6. (U) Gereida is located south of Nyala town and home to one of 
South Darfur's largest IDP camps with more than 120,000 IDPs.  The 
Massalit ethnic group remains dominant in the area, and Gereida was 
rebel-controlled until February 2009.  According to the Massalit 
King, due to the relative peace and stability in the area, nearly 
7,000 IDP householders have returned, many at the start of the rainy 
season.  Currently, a large group of returnees remains nearby in 
Donkey Abai and needs basic services including seeds and tools, 
education, and bore holes for water.  In addition, the community 
leaders are looking to the humanitarian community to make the 
returns sustainable. 
 
¶7. (U) The Acting Deputy HC noted that some population movements out 
of Gereida are seasonal rather than permanent, and humanitarian 
staff needed to assess the nature of the returns.  The Special Envoy 
to the Arab League reported that the delegation was observing 
voluntary returns as an indication of peace.  The Special Envoy also 
noted that the Arab League is collaborating with the government and 
other humanitarian actors to provide humanitarian assistance to the 
states or the government and is working to rehabilitate villages to 
attract IDPs to return and be productive. 
 
¶8. (U) One of the Gereida sheikhs reported his willingness to return 
to his area of origin if the conditions and requirements are 
provided; however, he remained afraid of people coming on horseback 
and camels to attack the village noting a recent attack on local 
farmers.  Saying that the most important factors for IDP returns 
remain security, water, health, and education, the IDP leader 
underscored that the government needs to provide security for its 
people.  The GNU HAC representative responded that security needs to 
be established through social reconciliation and maintained through 
social networks between sheikhs. 
 
-------------------------- ------------------------------ 
DONKEY ABAI: SEASONAL RETURNEES WITHOUT PERMANENT SHELTER 
-------------------------- ------------------------------ 
 
¶9. (U) The delegation next visited Donkey Abai to see the new 
village of returnees located 10 km from Gereida camp.  Team members 
immediately noticed that the people there appeared not to be 
returnees, but rather individuals who had returned for seasonal 
cultivating.  The area did not have any permanent structures. 
Instead, the latter  appeared temporary and constructed of plastic 
sheeting.  In addition, children and livestock were absent.  The 
UNAMID commander escorting the team informed the U.S. Embassy 
representative that such IDP gatherings are common in the area, and 
that UNAMID has encountered several such gatherings outside Gereida 
town due to the current agricultural planting season. 
 
 
KHARTOUM 00000908  003 OF 004 
 
 
--------------------------- ----------------------------- 
DONKEY DEREISA: NEED FOR SECURITY, SHELTER, AND EDUCATION 
--------------------------- ----------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Donkey Dereisa is located approximately 60 km south of 
Nyala.  According to the local leaders, most of the residents there 
were displaced to camps in Nyala.  According to the local HAC 
commissioner, IDPs returned to the area from various camps and need 
humanitarian assistance, particularly plastic sheeting.  In 
addition, one female civil society leader reported continued 
security concerns, and noted that if security is not provided, 
returns will not occur, and people will go back to the camps. 
Currently, the greatest needs are shelter, education, and security; 
without which, the possibility of returning to conflict remains. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
BACKGROUND AND USAID APPROACH TO RETURNS 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) According to IOM, although Darfur has experienced some 
returns that can be considered permanent, the majority of returns 
remain seasonal in nature/  (NOTE: IOM has a mandate to verify the 
voluntary and appropriate nature of returns in North and South 
Darfur under a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the 
Sudanese government.  END NOTE.)  In addition, the occurrence of 
seasonal or temporary returns is primarily linked to the 
agricultural season, as well as ad-hoc visits to places of origin to 
explore livelihood opportunities and assess the security 
environment. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Currently, IDPs cite insecurity as the primary obstacle to 
their return, with many returnees reporting being displaced a second 
time, according to IOM.  Additional deterrents include lack of 
documented land tenure and ownership, and unclear occupation 
statutes in areas of return (NOTE: IDPs returning to areas of origin 
frequently find other residents on their land and have little legal 
recourse to retake the property.  END NOTE.) Other concerns include 
a lack of economic and livelihoods opportunities.  Although the 
majority of potential return areas lack basic services, 
infrastructure, and access due to the ongoing conflict, the GNU on 
this visit and other occasions frequently downplays the role of 
insecurity as the main reason for IDP reticence to return. 
 
¶13. (SBU) In recent weeks, the GNU has named 15 to 20 so-called 
"return areas" throughout South Darfur.  Humanitarian staff have 
noted the seasonal nature of migration.  They remain unsure whether 
these are true returns areas, model villages, or land occupied 
during seasonal migration.  Assuming that the GNU is correct in 
classifying these as areas of legitimate returns, the humanitarian 
community needs to conduct additional verification exercises and 
develop a response plan to address the needs of recent returnees. 
 
-------- 
COMMENT 
-------- 
 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Given the current landscape and potential for  increasing 
returns, the UN, Special Envoy Gration and US Embassy officials have 
all underscored the importance of permitting IOM to meet its 
designated mandate in Darfur in order to verify and monitor ongoing 
returns and determine appropriate humanitarian assistance needs for 
newly- returned populations.  Population displacement and subsequent 
returns are often more complex than an individual leaving a village 
of origin, residing in an IDP camp, and subsequently returning to 
the original village.  As a result, proper verification of returns 
and provision of assistance for confirmed returnees are important. 
Coercion to return violates IDP rights/principles, including that of 
"Do No Harm". 
 
¶15. (SBU) Whatever the reality is on the ground, whether in the 
Potemkin Simulation in Shattaia or other more credible areas of 
return, the IDP perceptions on security or the lack thereof, is a 
concern.  By emphasizing the so-called "returns" areas like Donkey 
Abai, the GNU is asking the humanitarian community to expand its 
 
KHARTOUM 00000908  004 OF 004 
 
 
reach to previously unsupported areas and to provide the same level 
of services as in the urban camps.  Ultimately, sustainable returns 
will require humanitarian agencies providing some assistance in 
GNU-identified areas, but only after support to returns communities 
has been independently verified. 
 
WHITEHEAD