The Peace Process

Latest view from Africa on the Sudan Peace Negotiations and Darfur Situation

A View of Sudan from Africa: Monthly Briefing, May 2004

On Wednesday 26th May 2004, three protocols were signed by the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), concerning the status of the three contested areas, the percentages of power given to each party in a future government, and the religious status of the capital. Even as dignitaries arrived in Naivasha in the morning for the long-awaited signing, the parties were still struggling to overcome points of disagreement. Obviously this marks a significant step forward and is to be welcomed. However it is not the final stage of the negotiations. We can still look forward to hard bargaining on various aspects of the implementation, including international monitoring and peace-keeping, and the details of the cease-fire. The devil is in the details. And once these details are disposed of, the new challenge of actually implementing the agreement begins.

Meanwhile the conflict in Darfur continues and the situation there gets steadily worse. GoS has given many assurances that humanitarian access will be granted (most recently an announcement that embassies have been instructed to issue visas within 48 hours and that internal travel permits will be waived), but so far these have not had any significant impact on the ground. This conflict has been described as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. At the end of May the UN Security Council expressed deep concern at the continuing reports of large-scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sexual violence, forced displacement and acts of violence, especially those with an ethnic dimension, and demanded that those responsible be held accountable. Earlier the UN acting High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that many of the abuses committed by GoS and its militias "may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity". The Security Council also expressed serious concern about continuing logistical impediments prohibiting a rapid response in the face of a "stark and mounting" crisis, and called on GoS to fulfill its announced commitment to cooperate fully and expeditiously with relief efforts ahead of the approaching rainy season. A humanitarian cease fire was agreed in April, but the African Union (AU) commission charged with overseeing it was not due to meet until the end of May, and there have been violations. As recently as 25th May, Janjawid militias attacked five villages 15 kms south of Nyala, killing 46 civilians and wounding at least nine others, according to local sources. The Janjawid were accompanied by GoS soldiers in three Land Cruisers armed with anti-aircraft artillery. There are reports that both sides have used the cease-fire to consolidate their forces, re-arming and recruiting. Some Janjawid are thought to have been incorporated into GoS regular armed forces. It is thought that closer links have been forged between the Sudan Liberation Army and some elements of the Sudan Federal Alliance. Darfur has received widespread publicity, but there is little international political will to intervene in any meaningful way, apparently for fear of disrupting the southern peace process. Many are questioning the sincerity of a government which pursues a peace process in one part of the country whilst relentlessly pursuing a military option elsewhere. And the southern peace process may be disrupted not by international censure of GoS but by the war in Darfur itself.

At the same time concern mounts over the less-publicised military action by GoS and its militia against the Collo (Shilluk) people of Upper Nile. The All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) is the latest body to highlight the destruction of villages and the massive displacement of civilians, following a visit to Sudan by its Secretary General Rev Dr Mvume Dandala.

In the run up to a peace agreement there has also been an increase in local conflicts in the lakes region of Bahr el Ghazal. Since February this year, thousands of people have been displaced by a series of concurrent conflicts between different ethnic groups and sub-groups in Rumbek, Cueibet, Tonj South, Tonj North, Tonj East, Yirol, Aweirial and Mvolo counties. It is unclear how many have been killed, wounded and subjected to looting. Banditry has increased. In other parts of Bahr el Ghazal it is reported that tens of thousands of internally displaced persons have already begun to return home from the north.

While welcoming the signing, "which paves the way for a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in southern Sudan," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the same time called "on the GoS and the armed opposition in Darfur to seize the momentum created in Naivasha to reach a political solution in western Sudan, putting an end to the grave humanitarian and human rights situations there." The USA also made specific mention of both Darfur and the GoS militia. "We have made clear that we will begin a process of normalizing our bilateral relationship, but in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement and resolution of the situation in Darfur, including ending the violence being perpetrated by the militias, protecting civilians, facilitating unrestricted humanitarian access and cooperation in the deployment of international monitors and creation of conditions for the same return of displaced people," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "So as we approach that point of having comprehensive peace, these issues involving Darfur are still very much prominent on our agenda." In May the USA removed Sudan from a blacklist of countries that are uncooperative in its "war on terror" but has not yet lifted sanctions. The USA is in a dilemma. The Bush administration would love to enlist GoS as an ally in its "war on terror" in a critical part of Africa. But the more the dictatorship wages wars on its own citizens, the more difficult such an alliance becomes.

During a speech to mark the 21st anniversary of the beginning of the southern civil war, Dr John Garang said, "…whereas we are fully committed to the peace process and will continue to negotiate in good faith, we must make the necessary contingency plans in case the talks collapse. That would of course be tragic, but it is always wise to plan for the worst possible outcome and to be pleasantly surprised by the best possible outcome. In the event of resumption of war, it would cover all of Southern Sudan, Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile, Eastern Sudan, Darfur and maybe other areas. The war could even reach Khartoum itself. Resumption of the war might result in the disintegration of the country and it is therefore a prospect both sides should be best advised to avoid, but for which we must obviously and definitely be prepared."

Churches have long warned of the danger of an expanded war, with a deadly alliance between all the areas of Sudan, north and south, which are fighting against the central government. Dr John starkly presents it as a scenario "in case the talks collapse". However many would argue that this scenario remains a real threat even if the southern talks do not collapse. As long as there is no meaningful attempt to find a solution to the problems of Darfur and eastern Sudan, and as long as there is the possibility that the compromises agreed in Naivasha do not satisfy the people on the ground in the Nuba Mountains and the Funj Region, the possibility of a continuation of the war by this broad alliance cannot be discounted. There might also be contingency plans for a return to war in the event of a failure fully to implement the terms of the peace agreement during the Interim Period - this is one of the main reasons that the SPLM/A insisted on keeping its armed forces intact in the south.

In his speech Dr John commits the movement to holding "several conferences of South-South dialogue and several conferences of the SPLM over the next few months, so as to achieve full unity of the SPLM and unity of the people of New Sudan". This is to be welcomed. It is to be hoped that these conferences will be transparent and truly inclusive, and will leave space for an independent civil society. The lack of ownership of the peace process by factions and parties in both north and south remains a cause for concern.

Sudan Miscellaneous

Twenty cases of the Ebola virus have been confirmed in Yambio county, with five deaths. The Atlanta-based Centre for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that the virus was Ebola, but was unable to match it with other known strains, leading to speculation that it might be a new strain.

GoS has once again confiscated property belonging the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of Sudan in Khartoum. According to a letter sent to the Minister of Religious Guidance and Endowments by ECS, "Without any notice or warning, armed police arrived at the ECS Guest House…. The police ordered the immediate eviction of ECS personnel and properties from the building. Staff were warned that if the order was not complied with, force would be used to ensure compliance. Three truckloads of armed riot police were threateningly positioned at the gate for this purpose…. When ECS lawyers requested the Court for details of the Court Order, they were refused." The letter goes on to list a number of previous occasions when ECS property has been seized. Former bishop Gabriel Roric is thought to be involved in this incident, and the ECS letter asks GoS "to explain why the Ministry of Religious Guidance misled the Court to believe that Mr Gabriel Roric Jur, who was dismissed from his position as bishop in 2003, was 'Archbishop of ECS'", and "to cease using Mr Gabriel Roric Jur to attempt to destroy the Episcopal Church of the Sudan." Mr Roric was formerly a GoS minister, and it is widely believed that GoS is still supporting him as part of its "divide and rule" policy. In February and March GOS security forces interfered with construction work in the ECS Diocese of Renk.

GoS harassment of the press continues. During May the National Security Agency reportedly detained and questioned journalists from six newspapers. Students have also been detained and harassed in Khartoum.

GoS security forces stopped cars and buses in search of alleged coup plotters in Khartoum towards the end of May.

GoS has recently criticised Norwegian and German churches for their advocacy work for peace in Sudan, accusing them of supporting the "rebellion" in Darfur.

GoS has protested to neighbouring Ethiopia over a hot pursuit operation undertaken by its military against suspected rebels in which several Sudanese villages were forcibly cleared in Gedaref state early in May.

Africa and Sudan

The peace process in Sudan is nominally an African process under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the achievements of Kenya's Special Envoys, Ambassador Daniel Mboya and then Lt Gen Lazarus Sumbeiywo, must be acknowledged. But the process has been driven by a troika comprising the USA, UK and Norway, with Italy and Switzerland also playing significant roles. The interests of these international powers are not necessarily those of the people of Sudan, nor the people of Africa, and some of them have a notoriously short attention span, usually the length of one electoral term of four to six years. It is unlikely that they will remain focused on Sudan for the six and a half years of the Interim Period, and beyond, so many are beginning to look to Africa for more input and support. However Africa in this time of renaissance is a complex and many-faceted beast.

Africa gained notoriety recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The African bloc rejected a strongly-worded US-sponsored motion on human rights in Darfur, finally accepting a watered-down version. The developing world then gave a strong message to the industrialised powers by electing Sudan on to the Commission, an act which caused the USA to walk out, saying it was perplexed and dismayed that the African Group had submitted the candidacy of a country that massacred its own citizens in Darfur. Last year the African vote was crucial in resisting a motion to re-appoint a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan.

Many would condemn Africa for taking this stance, not least the suffering people of southern Sudan, Darfur and other marginalised areas. The South African Catholic church confronted its government over the vote in a letter to the Foreign Minister: "While [we] appreciate the importance of African solidarity, this should not override moral choices in the case of individual countries. Neither should it be viewed simply as solidarity between governments. We in South Africa, with our own particular history of struggle, would never have achieved our liberation if our African brothers and sisters had shown solidarity with the apartheid government rather than with our people. Thus we should be uniquely sensitive to the need for solidarity with suffering peoples of our continent." However the South African government's position was clear - basically this had nothing to do with Sudan, but everything to do with what is widely perceived in Africa as the USA and Europe using human rights as a political weapon against Africa.

While Zimbabwe and Sudan are singled out by the west, African states point to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and many other countries which have dubious human rights records - but which are friends of the USA. African nations are perceived as corrupt. Their elections are monitored and criticised, but the last US election appeared to be equally suspect - virtually every newspaper in Africa carried a cartoon showing African monitors being flown to the USA to teach the US how to hold a free and fair election. If an African president were to award lucrative reconstruction contracts to his political cronies he would be roundly condemned by the western world, but when a US president does the same, there is only muted dissent from one or two left-of-centre European newspapers. Recent events in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which may be the work of a few "bad apples" but are more likely be a symptom of something rather more systematic, have not helped the west in its attempts to claim the moral high ground on human rights. None of this excuses African states for failing to address the problems of Sudan, Zimbabwe and other troubled nations in their continent. But it does begin to explain it.

It is fairly easy to see why Africa equivocates over Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is an elder statesman in a continent where elders are still respected. He is a towering figure of the liberation struggle, and many peoples throughout the world, not only in Africa, have proved very tolerant of the later excesses of the political leaders who led them through major conflicts and who have become part of the national myth. The western media, and some western governments, have fallen squarely into the trap that Mugabe set for them, allowing the conflict to be portrayed as white against black, the last remnant of the struggle for independence from colonialists, thus making it very difficult for African leaders to publicly oppose Mugabe. Add the fact that there is a genuine problem over land, and this issue, if not Mugabe's handling of it, strikes a chord in Namibia, South Africa and even as far away as Kenya. Africans have not been totally silent. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been outspoken, and all the churches in South Africa have condemned the routine intimidation, murder, detention, torture and rape of opponents of the Mugabe regime, who are not just a few whites but are in fact the 50% of the population who voted against ZANU-PF in the last election. Flushed with pride in his own country's peaceful democratic transition, the Kenyan foreign minister advised Zimbabweans to hold free and fair elections, "like us". Some African media have regularly reported events taking place in Zimbabwe. But generally African criticism of the Zimbabwean government has been muted, and, to the frustration of Bush and Blair, the policy of quiet diplomacy reigns supreme.

It is rather more difficult to understand why Africa equivocates over Sudan. It has a relatively young president and has no particular credentials in the liberation of southern Africa. It appears to be closer to the Arab League than to the African Union - indeed Khartoum has been chosen as the Arab cultural capital for the year 2005. (Organisers have given assurances that cultural groups from other parts of Sudan will also be allowed to participate, and that they will probably even be allowed to wear their own traditional costumes rather than having to cover their bodies in Arab style. It will be interesting to see when this same relaxation of dress code will be extended to southern policewomen in Malakal, who currently have to wear an Islamic-style uniform.) While it would be misleading to describe the conflict in Sudan in ethnic terms alone, this is nevertheless one aspect of the complex war. People in the south, Darfur and other marginalised areas who identify themselves as "African" feel that they are being victimised by others who are described as "Arabised". Many southerners would argue that Zimbabwe is not the last remnant of the colonial struggle, but that Sudan is, the difference being that Sudan is still suffering from the effects of Arab rather than European colonisation. But the Arab connection might also explain Africa's reluctance to intervene. The AU itself is not homogenous - Sudan is not the only country in north Africa that has both Arab and African identities. A great deal of Arab funding finds its way into sub-Saharan Africa, and Libya is actively courting Africa. It may also be that most Africans know very little about Sudan's "forgotten war". Even in neighbouring countries such as Kenya and Uganda which host hundreds of thousands of Sudanese refugees it is surprising how little the ordinary folk know about their giant war-torn neighbour. And then there is the general trend, found not only in Africa, for governments to support each other rather than the people. The end result is that unlike Zimbabwe, GoS does not even appear to be the target of the "quiet diplomacy" - it is simply left alone to carry on as it sees fit.

Many would also question the international Muslim community, strongly represented in many of the developing nations, as to why it does not speak out against human rights abuses carried out by GoS. In the south the victims are generally non-Muslims, but in the years immediately after the 1989 coup d'etat which brought the current National Islamic Front military regime to power it was northern Sudanese Muslims who were tortured and killed in the notorious "ghost houses". And the current conflict in Darfur also pits Muslim against Muslim. An experienced reporter, recently in Darfur, writes, "The ethnic Africans of Darfur, unlike those of the South, are Muslim. And not just Muslim: deeply, devoutly, unshakably Muslim. Theirs is not the shrill, extremist Islam of the fundamentalist generals who seized power in Sudan in 1989, but a quiet, tolerant Islam that has characterized Sudan for most of its recent history and that still characterizes most of its citizens - Arab or African. 'Our Islam is good,' says [a 65-year old imam]. 'We pray all the time. We read the Koran all the time. It is they who are bad Muslims. Not us.'"

Nevertheless, there are signs of hope in Africa, with the appearance of new democratic governments, and the slow and painful development of pan-African bodies such as the AU, the African Peer Review Mechanism, the Pan-African Parliament, the African Security Council (inaugurated in May 2004) and NEPAD. They will not lead to overnight change, but those who wish Africa to help Sudan must support these initiatives.

Post-colonial Africa was never truly independent. During the late 1950s and early '60s when most states shrugged off direct colonial rule, the Cold War was at its height and they quickly became clients of either the west or the east. Both major power blocs supported brutal dictators or corrupt elites, and Africa had little chance to develop healthy and participative political structures. That paradigm shifted with the end of the Cold War, and the 1990s were a time when the beginnings of change could be seen in Africa. However it is too early to say whether Africa is yet free. The new neo-colonialism might be the trans-national corporations and the world trade structures, which favour the rich nations. South Africans are amongst those who have discovered to their cost that their government is not free to implement significant economic changes, and that political transformation does not automatically lead to economic transformation. Or it might be the "war on terror", where the whole world has now become a battleground for the USA and its allies to wage war to keep their own homelands safe.

It is in the light of all this that those in the west who are concerned about human rights in Africa must situate their efforts. Like the South African bishops, many would wish that African states would look at the human rights abuse in Sudan on its merits and take appropriate action to safeguard the suffering people. In reality, that is unlikely to happen until there is a more level playing field for Africa in broader economic and political terms. Rich westerners must be careful not to be too strident in their criticism of Africa.

At the same time the people of Africa must raise their voices against human rights abuses. The South African church has taken on board solidarity with the suffering people in a number of African countries, including Sudan. As Cardinal Wilfred Napier said after visiting Sudan a few years ago, "We were supported by our African brothers and sisters during our struggle; we now have a duty to support them in theirs." However in many other countries neither church nor civil society have yet played a significant role. Those churches should be targets for advocacy about Sudan, in order that they may influence their governments. Regional church bodies are also important. AACC is beginning to emerge as a player in Africa. Many will remember its significant contribution to the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement and would hope that it can contribute again to the implementation of the new agreement. AACC may also be able to help Africans by articulating a moral code by which political action in Africa can be judged.

Sudan Focal Point - Africa
Pretoria
27th May 2004