/ 16 July 2004

Sudan the key to regional peace

Peace in the Sudan is undoubtedly overdue. It is important for Sudan’s neighbouring countries. Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya harbour refugees from the long-running civil war. Uganda continues to encounter the terror and abductions perpetrated by the child soldiers of the Lord’s Resistance Army, which is based in southern Sudan.

The region itself is awash with small arms. Peace in the Sudan could check the chaos that is so often associated with the Horn of Africa. It could give impetus to the limping peace processes in Central Africa, notably in neighbouring Congo and nearby Burundi, and give a lead to Somalia’s prevaricating clan leaders implicated in that country’s peace process.

Media reports emanating from or about Sudan must surely mystify the public. It is unclear whether Sudan is making steady progress towards lasting peace or is locked in a state of perpetual conflict. Peace agreements between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), brokered by Igad, the regional conference of Horn of Africa states, are promptly followed by warnings about an imminent or existing humanitarian crisis arising from violent conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan.

It is important to realise that the first process relates to the long-running civil war waged by the inhabitants of southern Sudan, who view themselves as predominantly African and Christian or Animist, against the Khartoum government, which has described itself and is regarded as Islamic and Arabic. The second covers the conflict on Sudan’s western border with Chad that originated in a recent rebellion by the inhabitants of western Darfur state against its marginalisation by successive Khartoum governments.

The Darfur conflict has eclipsed the achievement that the Igad peace deal represents. The Igad peace process is now in its final phase. Six signed protocols codify an extensive agreement between the parties on issues previously considered irresolvable and intractable, which have been the underlying causes of the civil conflict. Apart from a decade of cohabitation ushered in by the ”Addis Ababa Agreement” of 1972, the north-south conflict has raged unabated since the mid-1950s — shortly after Sudan’s independence. It has led directly and indirectly to the death of an estimated four million Sudanese. It has defied numerous attempts (about 17) to broker a peace agreement between the north and the south.

The Igad-brokered peace talks were rejuvenated in 2002 and commenced with an unheralded low-key set of meetings in Machakos, Kenya, the same year. To the astonishment of the international community these early talks generated an agreement on the two issues that had, until then, been a barrier to constructive negotiations. These concerned the demand of the south for the recognition of ”their right to self-determination” and the thorny question of the ”relationship between state and religion” or, more precisely, the imposition of sharia law on southerners. Sudan is a self-proclaimed Islamic republic.

The Machakos Protocol was founded on a unique model of asymmetri- cal federalism in which southern provinces and states would have their own regional coordinating government, the right to determine the role of religion as a source of law in the south, and the right to a referendum on the question of whether to remain united with the rest of Sudan after a six-year transitional period.

Successive agreements have dealt with the questions of how to share oil and other revenue (much of Sudan’s oil reserves are located in the south) and the security arrangements that will pertain during the six-year transitional period pending the referendum on the status of southern Sudan.

The protocol on security arrangements envisages the retention of the SPLM’s armed forces during the transitional period. The negotiations have been tough and the negotiators, facilitators and their international supporters have been persistent and creative in finding middle-ground solutions.

That this agreement has been brokered by an African facilitation team has been overshadowed by the disastrous conflict in Darfur. Yet even here the Igad Sudan Peace Agreement is not irrelevant.

Firstly, the principal parties — the SPLM and the Khartoum government — both have influence over the respective combatants in the Darfur region. The government is accused of assisting the Arab Janjaweed militias in their campaign involving pillage, rape, theft of livestock and destruction of crops. The SPLM would not want to take up its rightful position in a new inclusive Khartoum government only to face the task of suppressing rebellion. Many of the opposition forces in the north have been allied with or have close links with the SPLM.

Secondly, the Igad agreement envisages a real devolution of power and autonomy for the northern provinces. The model of autonomy spelt out in a side agreement for the regions of southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile states in particular would meet the aspirations of Darfurians and envisages a guaranteed share of wealth and power for the ”conflict areas” of the north. It also guarantees a proportionate participation in the central (federal) government.

There is every need to extend the Igad peace initiative to the whole of this war-ravaged nation and to ground that peace on sustainable political arrangements underwritten by the international community — on arrangements founded on democratic values, tolerance, devolution of power, respect for human rights and an equitable sharing of wealth and natural resources.

Should the SPLM and the Khartoum government conclude their final negotiations over the implementation and guarantees of the six protocols, and should the shaky ceasefire in Darfur lead to a political settlement, the impact on the region and Africa would be significant. It would be an auspicious turning point from war towards peace. It will create a basis for unlocking the economic potential of the Sudan, and the region’s oil wealth will be able to fund development and reconstruction, not weapons of war.

Fink Haysom was an adviser to former president Nelson Mandela, and is currently adviser and resource person to the Igad peace process, and consultant on peace in Africa and South East Asia