The IGAD peace process may now be irreversible but can it brings a workable

The IGAD peace process may now be irreversible
but can it brings a workable peace to Sudan?
By Suleiman Musa Rahhal

The road to peace in Sudan is irreversible and it is now on the verge of completion, as many intrinsic factors have gathered to make a peace settlement appears imminent. The signing of the two agreements on Security Arrangements and Wealth-sharing have made possible for the two sides to resolve the long conflict of the Sudan. Many people have even predicted that the final peace agreement could be reached before the end of last year but several deadlines set came and gone and yet the two sides remain engaged in a “lock and key” situation to resolve the two remaining issues: power-sharing and the issue of the three marginalized areas in the geographical centre of the country which proved to be too difficult to resolve.
The pressure is mounting now on the parties to reach peace settlement as quickly as possible as the IGAD mediators and the troika are becoming nervous and losing patience. We believe that a final peace deal between the two parties could be reached soon after the parties resume their talks in Naivasha on 17th February to resolve the remaining two contentious issues.
The question is what kind of peace settlement will it be? Will it be peace with justice or peace built on injustice? It is evidence that the on-going Sudan’s peace process in Kenya has excluded at least 70% of other stakeholders from this important historical decision of shaping the future of our country. The argument raised by the British Special Envoy for Peace on Sudan, Alan Goulty and others, that peace will be inclusive, and others will be included to ensure long term stability is not convincing to many Sudanese. Put simply, when the two parties have divided the cake equally between them what is then left for the others to talk about. We know that IGAD and the Troika as well as the two parties involved would like to see the Machakos Agreement followed through and there is no room for other interested parties. If inclusiveness means consultation after a final agreement has been reached this will not be acceptable to many. We do not want to repeat the same mistakes committed by the Anglo/Egyptian rulers in Sudan 50 years ago when Sudan’s independence was negotiated with the two main Northern parties (Umma and DUP) formed from the two religious families which excluded all other Sudanese parties and groups.
Many of the Sudanese opposition forces have already warned of the danger of a bilateral agreement and the lack of inclusiveness. Sadig al-Mahdi, leader of the Umma Party said, “If the peace process is a bilateral process, it will be a very temporary peace that will unravel very soon.” The Islamist leader and former parliament speaker, Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, also warned that a bilateral peace deal would lead to an escalation of conflict in both western and eastern Sudan. The international Crisis Group issued a warning to the international community not to focus solely on the on-going peace process between the SPLM/A and the Sudanese Government, at the expense of the situation in Darfur and elsewhere in the country. The people of the marginalized areas of Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile, Beja Hills and Darfur, have all shown total resentment and rejection to what it had been agreed by the two parties so far.
The wider criticism among opposition and international groups is a clear indication of the dissatisfaction with the bilateral peace talks and if final peace reached in this manner, its implementation will be difficult if not impossible.
The people of Sudan do not want desolate peace of the Roman style described by the historian Tacitus, who said the Romans made a desolation and called it peace, and inflicted rape and pillage and called it government. What is more of a problem is whether there will be a genuine peace for the whole country or whether there will be simply peace for the sake of a peace deal to bring an end to the war between the North and the South. How can such a peace be comprehensive when the war in Darfur is escalating and the Government continues to deny the political rights of the people of Darfur? The logic says you cannot make a workable peace in the middle of the war.
There is a danger that such peace will be bought on the expense of the marginalized people and other political opposition groups in both Northern and Southern Sudan. Are the people of the Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile, Beja Hills, Darfur and other forces who took up armed struggle over a decade ago and who are now fighting for justice and power-sharing be the victims, who pay the price for this bilateral peace settlement between the SPLA/M and the Government?
Many observers believe that peace which excludes the majority of people in the country cannot bring a just settlement and the peace cannot be given in parts; either a comprehensive peace for all or no peace at all. People are very much concerned about the final outcome of the on-going peace process in Kenya. There are fears among many Sudanese that these bilateral agreements between the Government and SPLAM/A will not meet the demands and aspirations of the other interested parties. A peaceful and democratic solution can only be achieved if there is a genuine and comprehensive settlement to the whole conflict in the country, by addressing the root causes of the conflict, accommodating all the interest of others and above all recognizing their rights in the Sudan.
While many Sudanese are crying out for peace it is feared that what is going to emerge from Naivasha might not meet their aspirations. We believe that any settlement solely between the SPLA/M and the Government, which excluded others is not going to solve the problem of stability in the North or in the South of the country, as the two parties do not represent the majority of the Sudanese people and beside their own agendas do not necessarily reflect the aspirations and demands of all people of the Sudan. For example, the Nuba took up armed struggle not only fighting for injustices to be reversed but also fighting for power and wealth-sharing and above all to be treated the same like other Sudanese people.
While the issue of the three marginalized areas in the geographical centre of the country remains unresolved and difficult to settle, some information has already leaked out which revealed that the agreement over the issue of Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile region had been reached but not signed yet. It revealed that the party agreed on ‘self-rule for the two regions during the six years, autonomy and popular consultation’ said rebel source at peace talks in Naivasha, Kenya. This means that there will be no self-determination for the two areas. The Abyei issue is still under discussion. The two areas will be part of the North with limited self-rule.
If that is true, it means that the right of the Nuba people for self-determination has been compromised for Abyei to go with the South, which is not surprised to many of us. We have our doubts as from the beginning when the mandate was given to the SPLM/A by the Nuba at the All Nuba Conference in Kauda, that the SPM/A Leadership will not stand firm on the Nuba issue, particularly on the issue of self-determination which Nuba have been consistently demanding. The Nuba have an irrefutable claim for self-determination - one of the many reasons for which they took up the armed struggle and have been fighting for many years. Today the Nuba are expressing their concern over many of the points which incorporated in the two signed agreements and also over what had been leaked recently. The points of concern are :
The Nuba ‘self-rule’ government with limited power agreed by the parties (leaked out) must be full self-rule, which must also be inclusive, transparent and based on the rule of law, democracy, fair elections and human rights. The implantation mechanism for this Nuba self-government must be robust and clear with international guarantees.
The ‘popular consultations’ after the six-year interim period must be binding and should include the following options:
a. Join a Northern state with guarantees of a strong self-rule for the Nuba;
b. Join a Southern state with the same guarantees;
c. become an independent state.
The joint/integrated army units from the Government and SPLA forces to be redeployed in Nuba mountains, should be replaced by the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces must be also deployed in the Nuba Mountains.
The Nuba demand a land commission with strong powers to set land policies and investigate the confiscation of Nuba lands.
While the Sudanese Government and the SPLM/A had signed a one-month trust extension this month to be able to resolve the two outstanding issues, yet the growing crisis in Darfur has complicated the peace process in Naivasha, as the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) in Western Sudan, SFDA and Justice and Equality Movement are all demanding the share of wealth and power, and seeking negotiations with the Government on these demands. In addition, a new political development has also emerged in the neighbouring region, Kordofan Province, where three prominent political leaders from Kordofan State and from Arab decent and one Nuba leader from Southern Kordofan sent a memorandum to President al-Bashir demanding development in the region and sharing of wealth and power. They also called upon the Arab tribes in Western Sudan, to support The Sudan Liberation Movement, and emphasised that they are prepared to resort to arm struggle against the central government if their demands are not met.
This frustration and resentment that have been growing in the western Sudan in recent years are due to the deliberate policies of all central governments since independence in 1956 towards these two the Western Regions. The Darfur and Kordofan Provinces in Western Sudan despite their huge contribution politically, economically and military in the creation of a modern Sudan, yet today they remain undeveloped. They are politically and economically marginalised , ethnically and culturally discriminated. Therefore, it is not surprising if the people of the Western Sudan now resorted to arm struggle, particuarly when they see that the people of Southern Sudan through arm struggle are able to achieve their rights, including the right of self-determination.
Currently, the peace talks between the two negotiating parties stuck on the remaining issues: power-sharing and the fate of the three central regions. However, there is a mounting pressure on both sides by the US Government and others to conclude a final agreement as quickly as possible.
It is important that a peace settlement that emerges from Naivasha peace talks must meet the demands and the aspirations of all the Sudanese people in order to end the long conflict of the Sudan. Anything less than that will make the agreement reached by the two parties difficult to be implemented and it carries the risk of being short lived.
We believe that a workable peace can only be built on justice and the recognition of the rights of others. In our view, the word ‘justice’ means the inclusiveness of others in the peace talks to achieve a comprehensive, workable and sustainable peace in the Sudan. It is also essential that the current brutal war in Darfur must be halted and that the political rights of people of Darfur should be recognized and accepted by the parties if they are really serious and committed to achieve a just and lasting peace for the whole country.