Date:
Author: Rss error reading .
Original article: https://theconversation.com/peace-in-sudan-what-its-going-to-take-248328
Sudan, which included South Sudan up to 2011, has never known peace and stability since independence in 1956. The country’s instability stems from the absence of democratic rule; failure to manage its diversity; military coups; civil wars; and its fragmented and bloated security sector.
Numerous political processes to mediate the peaceful resolution of conflicts started in the first decade of independence and continue today. None of these have delivered anything. The earliest peace efforts – in 1965 – sought to internally resolve the country’s north-south divide, which eventually triggered Africa’s longest civil war.
Since then, there have been at least a dozen attempts driven by local or external actors to resolve political crises. Among them were:
-
the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement that ended the first civil war, mediated by Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie
-
a 1988 agreement to silence the guns, made by John Garang of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and Mohamed Osman al-Mirghani of the Democratic Unionist Party
-
the 2019 Khartoum Declaration, mediated by the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Britain, which provided a road map for the transition of Sudan into an elected and democratic government.
More recent talks have centred on the war that broke out in April 2023 pitting the Sudan Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces, a powerful paramilitary group. The two protagonists and various civilian groups have been called to Jeddah, Cairo, Bahrain, Djibouti, Addis Ababa, Geneva, Ankara and other locations for talks under different auspices and with different formats. Multilateral organisations like the UN, AU, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and League of Arab states have been engaged directly or through their support in some of the mediation efforts.
I have two decades of research and practice in conflict prevention, management and resolution with a focus on east Africa and the Horn. It’s my view that mediation processes in Sudan are destined to fail for three main reasons. The first is the lack of an accurate definition of the problems of Sudan, and a lack of broader direction of its resolution and areas of consensus. The second is lack of agreement on who should get everyone together to discuss and resolve it. Finally, the lack of public participation.
What’s missing
Sudan needs to find the right formula to manage its diverse political, economic and cultural interests under a viable state. It must bring peace, democracy, justice and genuine reconciliation among Sudanese.
The most robust attempt to define the problem was the process convened in the years of 2009-2012 by the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel led by the former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, in his capacity as a Special Envoy of the AU PSC. The panel’s final report defined the problems of Sudan as:
-
diversity management (differences between groups based on religion and on socioeconomic power)
-
absence of a viable state that values peace, democracy, justice and reconciliation
-
lack of a consultative forum or process for all Sudanese to contribute to important issues.
The panel report suggested that the Sudanese needed to arrive at a consensus through inclusive consultation. This has never taken place.
The second overriding problem is related to the architecture of mediation processes. Before South Sudan’s secession, Sudan shared a border with nine African countries. Even after the south left, Sudan remains a huge nation linking regions, and located at the strategic maritime route of the Red Sea.
Sudanese conflicts have been entangled in multiple regional and international cross-cutting interests. Outside actors have had various agendas: stability, counter-terrorism, and humanitarian action.
The existence of multiple interests by itself is an asset towards peace making in Sudan. But failure to coordinate them properly has been generating competing processes. This gives the Sudanese parties a chance to “shop for forums”, enabling them to procrastinate and avoid real engagement.
Key steps to effective Sudanese mediation
The key task of a mediator is assisting the Sudanese to define the problems of Sudan correctly, arrive at a consensus on it, and agree on a mechanism to resolve it.
Defining the problem and building consensus: Any mediation process begins with conflict parties defining the problem and developing the options for their resolution. The parties should have confidence in the neutrality of the mediator.
At this stage, the conflict parties are usually not represented by the top decision makers but by second level players with the expertise to develop options for decision making. This is because decision makers typically do not want to take positions from which they cannot backtrack.
Understanding this is important in creating a coordination mechanism for external stakeholders.
Neutral arbiter: The lead mediator needs to demonstrate neutrality to the conflicting parties as much as possible. Given the conditions in Sudan, a multilateral organisation such as the UN is most suited for the task. The UN has the ultimate responsibility. The AU, the Arab League and IGAD can also be engaged in support of the mediation by using their leverages on the conflicting parties. The choice of focal point must be accessible to all parties and perceived as neutral.
Foreign power influence: Creating the right mix of incentives for the warring protagonists is vital. This is a task for the external powerbrokers, which have the leverage on the warring parties. The protagonists will make decisions framed by their security, political and economic interests in the wider region.
But they may also be influenced by the fact that the humanitarian cataclysm in Sudan will have an impact on their interests. And failure to prevent that disaster will damage their reputations.
The US can use its relationships with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other external powerbrokers so that they refrain from supporting one or the other actor. The front-line states can use their influence on the warring parties to encourage them to work for peace.
The UN, the African Union, IGAD, and the League of Arab States are the sources for any international legitimacy to the parties. The Sudanese actors will need to respond positively to the demands of these institutions in search of international legitimacy given that the institutions act in a complementary manner.
With the right architecture for peacemaking, a peace process can be achieved in Sudan.