Doubts remain over Sudan's Darfur accord

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's tentative accord with one of Darfur's main rebel groups on Tuesday on its own does not mark a concrete move towards peace in the troubled region.

Getting Khartoum and the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) to sit down together was an achievement in itself. Both sides made commitments to exchange prisoners, protect displaced Darfuris, and make future peace talks a priority.

But serious doubts remain over whether the accord will build into a lasting agreement that will satisfy even the majority of the remote region's warring rebels, almost six years into the festering conflict.

* Other agreements have failed before. The conflict's six-year history is littered with failed ceasefires, confidence building measures and peace initiatives.

* JEM is not the only rebel group in Darfur. This agreement means little on its own without the support of other movements and militias in the region. Those other groups have so far poured scorn on the Doha talks, saying they are doomed to fail without their involvement.

* "Building trust and expressing goodwill are all positive developments," said Fouad Hikmat, from the International Crisis Group think-tank.

"But if it doesn't involve the other people of Darfur, it could be a root cause for further problems, if other groups and tribes feel aggrieved about being left out... It needs to develop into an all-inclusive process."

* A Darfur Peace Agreement negotiated in the Nigerian city of Abuja in 2006 fell apart when only one group signed it. Many feel Doha will suffer the same fate if JEM remains the sole rebel signatory. "Doha is like Abuja, but with Islamists," one western diplomat said on Tuesday. JEM is seen as an Islamist movement.

* There are many steps to go before even Tuesday's accord with JEM can be called a full deal. The sides still need to negotiate a cessation of hostilities and the terms of future negotiations over a string of difficult political issues.

* The terms of Tuesday's accord are vague with a lack of fixed deadlines and specific, measurable commitments.

* JEM has already hinted that future negotiations will see it push for democratic reforms beyond the borders of Darfur to other regions that it sees as marginalised. Khartoum may balk at such a thorough overhaul of the country's political structures.

* Both JEM and Sudan's government clearly have short-term objectives in signing Tuesday's accord. JEM wants its prisoners released. Khartoum wants to show it is doing something positive in Darfur to see off a looming war crimes case against its president from the International Criminal Court. If they succeed in satisfying those aims -- or if those aims fail -- their will to follow through on the deal may falter.

* On the positive side, the Qataris have already proved themselves to be skilled mediators with the time, patience and resources to bring previously irreconcilable foes together.

* Another optimistic note is that many of JEM's thornier political demands have already been agreed to in principle in a Khartoum-sponsored conference on the Darfur conflict.

Last year's Sudan People's Initiative conference, which involved some opposition groups, has already suggested better representation for Darfur and the possibility of merging the region's three states. Other movements may be persuaded to join in.

(Editing by Louise Ireland)