|
September, 1998 |
|
|
September, 1998 |
|
Nairobi Peace Talks — May 1998
This past April, I traveled to east Africa to participate in a round of decisive Sudan peace talks. My travels took me to northern and southern Sudan, Kenya, and Uganda. I had many opportunities to speak with top leaders, hear their views, and urge them to support the Peace Agreement. I submit the following summary to our readers, along with my sincere thanks to the men and women whose faithful prayers and generous gifts made my journey possible.
–Wal Duany, Director, Sudanese Friends International
In May of this year, representatives of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement met with the Government of Sudan and the United Democratic Salvation Front (led by Riek Machar and the GOS) in Nairobi for peace talks. Discussion centered on key articles of the 1997 Peace Agreement. That Agreement had been signed in Khartoum by southern factions of the liberation movement and by the Government of Sudan. John Garang, leader of The Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army, never endorsed it.
The most important article of the 1997 Agreement debated in Nairobi affirms that after a four-year interim the southern Sudanese will hold a referendum, deciding to either remain one county with the north or to establish an independent county. Other discussion concerned an article promising freedom of religion and an article allowing the Southern Sudan Defense Forces (SSDF)— the so-called the rebel armies—to remain detached from the Sudanese Armed Forces during the interim before the referendum.
Assurance of Security for the South
Before the opening session, many of us went back and forth behind the scene suggesting ways to accommodate different views, defining more clearly the idea of self-determination, and allaying southerner’s fears about the referendum. The major fear was that the government might rig the election. We had to provide assurances such as, a guarantee that foreign bodies would supervise the voting.
We also worked to gain and give assurances that the southern armed forces would not be disbanded during the four-year interim. Many southerners feel that supporting adequate security measures during the interim is important in light of the historic lack of trust between the south and the north. The north has been known to get into an agreement and later jump out of it. Southerners don’t want a replay of 1983. During that year the Government of Sudan violated the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement and imposed Islamic Law on non-Muslims. This triggered mutiny within the government armed forces and violent resistance from the many independent guerilla bands existing throughout the south. Fifteen years later, the fighting continues. Keeping the SSDF as a separate force is one of the fallback arrangements southerners need to protect and defend their interests until the referendum decides the political future of southern Sudan. Joint military committees will monitor both armies. There are problems with this arrangement, but this is what was agreed.
Further Talks Needed on Religion and State
There was no agreement, however, on what would be the future relationship between state and religion. The Government of Sudan maintains that the state and Islam are inseparable. The SPLM maintains the idea of a secular state. The UDSF is of the opinion that peace talks at this level should not break down over the relationship between religion and state at this time, since the details of this issue would be best worked out after the referendum.
To prevent an impasse, another conference was scheduled for August in Addis Ababa. The subject of state and religion will be taken up again at that time, as well as the question of what determines the political boundaries of the southern region.
When the final session of the talks in Nairobi dismissed, all three groups had agreed on the referendum and on the separate deployment of armed forces. This was quite an achievement.
Southern Leaders Meet for Talks
by Wal Duany
Soon after my arrival in Khartoum in mid-April, some of my colleagues and I appealed to President Museveni of Uganda to use his good offices to bring the leaders of the two major southern factions, John Garang and Riek Machar, together. Museveni and John Garang have a good relationship, one that goes back many years. Riek Machar also trusts Museveni because of his openness and his concern about the southern Sudanese. Museveni seemed the most relevant person to bring these two together. And he did.
A Call for Unity On the Peace Agreement
They all met in June, following the Nairobi talks, in northern Uganda. The primary focus of the discussion was the Peace Agreement. The questions everyone put to John Garang went like this: Since we have an Agreement on the big issues, particularly on the right of the south to determine its political future, why continue the war? You have been fighting for the "unity and integrity of Sudan", why not now unite around peace? Why not work in Sudan and with the Government of Sudan and help us implement this peace agreement?
Garang admitted that the Agreement held the possibility for peace, but was skeptical. He didn’t think the Government of Sudan would ever be able to implement the Agreement.
A Call for Cease-Fire
Garang and Machar also discussed cease-fire, but John would not agree to it. He thought that the Government of Sudan would use the time to re-arm itself and place SPLA at a disadvantage. Since that meeting, John did agree to a three-month cease-fire, allowing humanitarian and food aid to reach people in Bahr al-Ghazal. The people in that region have been unable to plant crops because of the fighting. Now there is mass starvation.
President Museveni did an excellent job of bringing John Garang and Riek Machar together after years of opposition. It is my hope that healthy dialogue between the two will continue to be the pattern.
The New Sudan Council of Churches helped bring about a peace and reconciliation meeting among Nuer and Dinka chiefs, elders, and church leaders. This conference was held June 2-10, in Lokichokkio, a town at the border of Sudan and Kenya and center of UN aid operations. The Nuer and the Dinka are the two largest groups in the southern Sudan and, because of various factors, they have been in conflict at the grassroots for many years.
About 35 Dinka and Nuer leaders came from throughout the South to talk about how they could resolve issues of conflict and encourage reconciliation among their people. This kind of meeting, on this scale, has never happened before.
William O. Lowery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) facilitated the discussion. "It has been an overwhelming experience of grace," wrote Lowery, "moment by moment, day by day. The Spirit has nudged and given precise wisdom at just the key moments." All the Nuer and Dinka chiefs and church leaders signed an accord. They plan to follow-up with two more grassroots peacemaking conferences in 1999, one on the West Bank of the Nile, the other on the East Bank.
The meetings and conferences held during May and June have broken new ground in the peace process. On the national level, it wasn’t so long ago that the Government of Sudan was walking out of the meeting hall. Now they are working through the agenda. The Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) is doing a good job of providing the forum for these talks. IGAD functions as the most viable institution for conflict resolution in Northeast Africa and must be thanked for its patient effort over these many years.
The fact that faction leaders John Garang and Riek Machar met face-to-face was a necessary step for southern unity. We owe a debt of gratitude to President Museveni, who facilitated this major breakthrough.
The meeting between the Dinka and Nuer leaders was also an important link in the peace process. The grassroots people in one way or another have been supporting the war. If they can agree to stop hostilities, it will have a far-reaching effect. Nuer/Dinka understanding is vital for peace in the southern Sudan. Unless these groups come together on the personal and community levels, it will be very difficult to achieve anything on the macro level. The Presbyterian Church (USA) provided funding for the conference and deserves many thanks.
The meetings and conferences this year show that when internationals take a careful approach and allow the Sudanese to find their own solutions, positive change can result.
Recently Wal called a representative of SPLA and also Reik Machar to learn their views on the outcome of the peace talks held in Addis Ababa in August. Both conversations indicated settlement on some of the issues left unresolved from the May conference in Nairobi.
The Addis Ababa conference participants agreed to a cease-fire, allowing the delivery of humanitarian aid to Southern Sudan. They also ended debate on the definition of the boundary of the Southern region. During previous talks, the Government of Sudan had pushed to accept the lines drawn in 1956 at independence, while the SPLA had pushed to include Southern Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan regions. As it stands now, for the purposes of the referendum, these regions will not be included in the southern region. Self-determination for Southern Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan will be a separate question.
There is still no agreement on the issue of state and religion. It appears that SPLA is dropping its fight for a secular state on the grounds that after the referendum in the south, independence is likely. Then the question of Islam in the South will become immaterial.
Regarding news and Internet reports indicating that the Addis Ababa talks were not productive, Wal said, "I think some of this negative information is bluffing on the part of the SPLA. They have friends who are against the idea of self-determination for the southern people. Egypt in particular is against it and so are some of the Arab countries in the Middle East. There was a meeting, for example, of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Cairo some time ago in which John Garang was pressured to drop the idea of self-determination. To be a member of the NDA is to be for unity and against self-determination. Washington, D. C., also is a friend of SPLA and there are people in power there who don’t want to see the South to form an independent African nation. The negative reporting of the peace talks doesn’t, I think, contain any substance as to what has been achieved. The meetings in Nairobi and Addis Ababa succeeded in many ways. Other than on state and religion, we are moving toward the referendum with agreement on key issues."
"I would say that the leaders I spoke with are serious about implementing the Peace Agreement," said Wal. "Unfortunately, making it all happen will be problematic, because many people in the army and in the civil service want to maintain the status quo. I personally know people who are against the referendum, some of them highly placed. There is definitely a struggle within the government."
The shooting war has stopped in the Sudanese regions controlled by the southern rebel groups that signed the 1997 Khartoum Peace Agreement. Citizens enjoy the freedom of movement that is essential to their survival. The people are free to order their lives in ways that make best use of their energy and problem-solving capabilities.
Wal’s 1998 visit to Bentiu in the Upper Nile region revealed that the commercial and social activities of the local people are gradually returning to their normal patterns. Farming on individual and collective tracts, trade among local and northern merchants, the existence of cattle, and road repairs were some of the evidence. Medical aid continues, but, in general, food aid is no longer needed.
Yet shocking reports of famine in the southern region of Bahr al-Ghazal have appeared in the Western press. Bahr al-Ghazal region, controlled by the SPLA, has been dependent since 1989 on food supplies dropped in by United Nations’ Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) airplanes. The SPLA was among those who proposed the idea of dropping food into southern Sudan. The plan depended on the ability of the people on the ground to collect and distribute the aid. The government and the rebels both agreed to refrain from using the food as a weapon. To expedite distribution, the SPLA herded citizens into concentration zones. According to a CNN news report published during August 1998, OLS is the world’s largest food aid operation.
But are the people receiving the food? CNN reports that while "some relief goes to feed fighters," it is impossible to know how much of it ends up in rebel hands. One Sudanese pastor estimated that the amount could be as high as sixty-five percent.
A Western diplomat said that had it not been for the food drops, SPLA would have collapsed eight years ago. As a socialist movement, SPLA conduct stands in contrast to the actions of the Liberation movement in Eritrea some years ago. Those guerillas survived by allowing and even assisting in the activities of the local people who cultivated, rebuilt roads, provided services, or traded.
Lack of freedom is the cause of the famine in the liberated zones of Bahr al-Ghazal. Citizens, held hostage in the concentration zones, are unable to plant or harvest, as do their counterparts in Upper Nile. The situation underscores South Sudanese Friends International’s strongly held view that the national food supply increases not through enriching state monopoly, but through cultivating human freedom.
|
