Darfur agreement?

Both the Darfur rebels and the government of Sudan are meeting in Nigeria to discuss terms for cease-fire and relative autonomy for the peoples of the region.  The U.S. and Britain and the African Union are trying to mediate a compromise.

Government officials in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, were taking the line Tuesday that there was nothing more for their side to do. The government has announced its acceptance of the draft peace agreement, but the rebels have so far rejected it, saying their demands on autonomy and representation have not been met.

And I don’t blame them.  If the Darfur rebels don’t get what they are asking for, or anything close to it, why should they agree to a treaty that they can’t trust the government of Sudan to follow through on.  The article points out that both sides have been disrespecting the cease-fire, but one guess as to which side is doing most of the breaking, or at least instigating the problems.  I’m getting tired of news outlets refusing to remind people in the midst of articles like this that it’s not the Darfur or Chadian rebels that started this, but Sudan government backed militants who invaded Darfur and started killing men, women and children indiscriminately.  I have a hard time siding with the government of Sudan on this issue.

Darfur has been a staging ground for Chadian rebels, who have risen up against the government there. Sudan accuses Chad of supporting Darfur rebels. The violence threatens to escalate: Osama bin Laden last week urged his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. presence.

What we have here, folks, is truly a world war.  Osama wants to make it global in scope and spread the U.S. out as much as possible.  So it remains to be seen if Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are actually still following his lead and if they are how involved other African countries are willing to get into the conflict.