In the following months the violence in Darfur got worse, as the government continued to attack areas held by the rebels and the rebels themselves fragmented into ever smaller factions.

In his interview published today, Eliasson pointed to a meeting in Arusha last year when he was, briefly, hopeful that a peace deal could eventually be struck. The eight different rebel groups represented in Arusha managed to find a "common agreement", something Eliasson claimed was a step forward. In reality it was nothing of the sort.

The rebels did not fragment because they couldn't agree on policy – most of the splits were down to personality. Finding a common agreement was the easy bit, getting the rebels to choose who would represent them at full talks with the Khartoum government was the real challenge.

The rebel leaders I spoke to at that Arusha meeting all insisted their disparate groups could unite – but all were equally insistent that it could only happen under their leadership.

The talks in Libya were a wash-out before they began. The two most prominent leaders, Abdul Wahed al-Nur of the SLA and JEM’s Khalil Ibrahim, refused to turn up. Then the talks' host, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, stuck the knife in further, claiming the conflict in Darfur was nothing more than a "quarrel over a camel".

Even if the rebels had managed to get themselves united the chances of getting Khartoum to agree to anything concrete were slim to none. Over the years the Sudanese regime has only given in when faced with unrelenting international pressure. Western leaders have proved adroit at making statements criticising Khartoum - they've been rather less impressive when it's come to action.

So, what happens to the peace process now? Probably nothing. A new envoy will be announced shortly but without a new policy which has the full backing of all five permanent members of the security council it's difficult to imagine how things will work out differently.