The Secession of South Sudan and Its Impact on Darfur: Time for a New Direction
* Article
* Comments (2)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Ahmed Hussain Adam*
May 30, 2011— Darfur Conflict is more than 8 years old today. The UN
described it as the world worst humanitarian crisis; the International
Criminal Court (ICC) as well as the US State Department classified it
as genocide. The ICC indicted the Head of the regime, ALBashir for
masterminding with absolute control a criminal plan to destroy the
people of Darfur. Yet, the international community failed to impose
the norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in favour of the
civilian populations in Darfur.
The human and economic costs of this conflict are horrific beyond the
belief. The international and regional political responses to the
Darfur conflict started in 2004, nonetheless, they failed to put an
end to the conflict. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the international
community and all concerned actors to reassess their approaches and
strategies to formulate a holistic and bold approach to end the human
suffering and restore peace and security in Darfur. It is time for a
new beginning in Sudan. This is the only way forward, to guarantee a
united, democratic and stable Sudan or rather Sudan minus the South.
Darfur is a key factor for the stability of Sudan and the region as a
whole. ONCE it is less than a million square miles, Darfur becomes a
majority in terms of number of the population (more than 45 percent of
Sudan’s population) and land-size in the Sudan; with major
implications. Thus, Darfur crisis has to be resolved within the
context of the broader agenda of structural and democratic change in
Sudan. The experience of more than 8 years of the negotiations
manifested that, a peaceful and negotiated solution can’t be realised
under the current regime. Nevertheless, Darfur can’t be resolved
militarily.
In the spirit of a new beginning, it is imperative that, the people of
Darfur including, the armed movements, to take a genuine pause and
assess their cause, and answer some fundamentals questions; For
instance, after more than 8years of war and suffering, what is the
ultimate goal of the struggle of the people of Darfur, and how it can
be realised, within the current shifting national, regional and
international dynamics? As for the people of Sudan, in particular the
elite in the Centre, can they afford to accept more fragmentation of
Sudan after the South? Are they ready to live under chaos and total
war? Indeed, the northern elite bear a historical responsibility to
act and work for a democratic change in order to secure the unity of
the remaining Sudan on new basis. It is also essential that, the
international community should reverse its strategies and approaches
in Sudan. Such new approach is vital to address the challenges of the
post independence of the South, which will have direct consequences in
Darfur and other remaining parts of Sudan. Independence of the South
should close the page of war and hate, and open a new era of strategic
relationship and co-operation, for the best interest of the peoples of
the two countries.
The purpose of this article which consists of two parts first is to
examine the political and constitutional impacts of the independence
of the South Sudan, on Darfur. Second, presents the prospects of
democratic change in Sudan. This is the first part, which will
generally address the impacts and implications of the independence of
South on Darfur.
In matter of weeks, the South Sudan will be declared as an independent
sovereign state. This is will constitute a historical and landmark
event by all standards. The declaration of the new nation in South
will be on the 9th of July 2011. Such declaration will be in
accordance with the time-lines of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA), which signed between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the
Sudan Liberation Movement (SPLM/A), in Nairobi January 2005. The CPA
is theoretically designed to accommodate the South Sudan in a new
political system of governance, whereby the Southerners are guaranteed
to exercise their full citizenship rights without any form of
discrimination. The CPA provided the People of the South with two
options: either to remain within a united Sudan, provided that the
unity would be attractive for the Southerners, or to separate and
establish their own independent state. Regrettably, the NCP failed to
make the unity attractive and convince the Southerners to vote for the
unity option. Consequently, the people of South Sudan exercised their
right of self-determination and voted overwhelmingly for separation.
This new reality has tremendous legal, political and diplomatic
impacts, not only in Sudan but also in Africa, as colonial legal
boundaries now on play.
However, the historical precedent of the separation of the South has
been setting an inspiring and attractive example for the marginalised
regions of Sudan including Darfur. The root causes of the conflicts in
Sudan are similar; there are a lot of common grounds and shared
history between the South, Darfur and other marginalised regions of
Sudan. The people of Darfur can now claim the right of
self-determination as an option, to end their intractable conflict
with the centre, if there is no hope to live in a country that is,
equal, just and democratic.
Certainly, Darfur can’t continue that long with the existing status
quo, it is matter of time before sizeable forces within Darfur may
call for the right of self-determination. Such demand can be justified
under many legitimate grounds including, the state of the continuation
of the genocide (Kosovo precedent), and the legal, political and
historical justifications. The fact that Darfur was an independent and
sovereign Sultanate until 1916, until the British colonisation
forcibly annexed Darfur to Sudan; such historical fact would make the
claim of the self-determination for Darfur is incredibly sounding and
strong case. In addition, Darfur case of self-determination is similar
to that of Eritrea –“the colonial context of self-determination” or in
other terms,” external self-determination”. No doubt, the current
stalemate can’t be tolerated anymore; the marginalised peoples of
Sudan are entitled to seek different options to end this political
impasse, and realise their legitimate aspirations.
In Darfur, for instance, the military campaign has increased its
intensity and brutality, shows no mercy for the civilian populations
including women and children. The aim of the government has been all
along, is to impose security and military solution. Sadly, genocide,
rape, mass displacement, abduction of aid workers and destruction
continue to be the main feature of the humanitarian and security
situations in Darfur.
Regrettably, the UNIMAD and other concerned international institutions
failed to fill the vacuum and provide the needed security and
protection for the civilian populations, according to its mandate
under the UN Security Council Resolution (1769) which passed under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter, on 31/July 2007. Ironically, the
international community succeed in the test of the responsibility to
protect in Libya, whilst failed to impose its will in Darfur.
The foremost challenge to the State of the North Sudan is the Crisis
in Darfur. The Conflict in Darfur, at all its levels is getting worse
and far from being resolved or peacefully ended. Indeed, any objective
evaluation to the ongoing Doha Political Process on Darfur, doesn’t
give any hope that, the Doha Peace Process will bring about a lasting,
just, comprehensive and inclusive solution to this Conflict. This is
due to multiple factors and reasons:
First, the regime is still unwavering its stubborn strategy of
security solution. This is the only known tool by this autocratic
regime. The regime has never departed from the state of denial and
deception. Thus, it failed to deliver any strategic concession on the
table to convince the people of Darfur that they can get some symbolic
rewards for their suffering and injustices.
Second, the armed movements failed to provide a genuine break through
either to establish a broad and an inclusive single movement or to
create a strong and an effective broad coalition.
Third, the AU/UN Mediation suffered from the lack of coherence,
consistency and effective international support. However, it is true
that lately, the Americans, British, Canadians and Europeans made some
effective and semi permanent presence in Doha, in particular,
Ambassador Dane Smith, the US Senior Advisor on Darfur, he proved to
be a good listener with an excellent understanding to the issues of
Sudan.
Furthermore, the divisions and bitter rivalry between some
international organisations as well as international dignitaries, who
have been assigned to work on Sudan and Darfur issues has
significantly undermined the efforts of the Mediation and prolonged
the suffering of the People of Darfur.
Fourth, both the State of Qatar as a host Country and the AU/UN
Mediation exerted a lot of continued efforts to bring about a
negotiated settlement in Darfur. Nevertheless, such efforts were
intentionally undermined and spoiled by the regime in Khartoum. It has
been evident that, the host country and the mediation lack the
leverage over the parties in particular, the Regime. These are the
main flaws of the Doha political process that, will lead to an
imminent failure of the Process, if there is no rapid intervention
from the key international players to save it. Let us be clear, even
the current attempts by the State of Qatar and the Mediation to create
a momentum for the Doha Process wouldn’t have tangible results. It is
obvious that, the regime is manipulating, vetoing and dictating to
derail the whole process, and continue with its one-sided and internal
measures.
Having stated that, the failure of Doha will drastically push the
crisis in Darfur to a new phase of violence and chaos which may affect
the reset of Sudan. In such circumstances, the dynamics will open the
way for military options by the belligerent parties to survive.
The Conflict of Darfur can be defined as intractable conflict,
however, the humanitarian and security situation reach stage of
explosion. Therefore, one would highlight three options for Darfur to
be resolved: a just, comprehensive and inclusive negotiated
settlement, or a clear victory and regime change or a separation of
Darfur from Sudan.
Based on the regime’s track records in dishonouring the agreements, it
is not realistic that one would imagine a negotiated settlement in
Darfur under the current regime. The wise words of the Late Dr John
Garang, are still echoing “the regime is too deformed to be reformed”.
In addition, the position of the Regime on the nature of the State in
the North after separation of the South, yet, provides another example
about the difficulties in realising negotiated solutions for the
crises of Sudan. Al-Bashir didn’t give any room for speculations about
the nature of the future state in the North! The Head of the regime in
Khartoum declared in many occasions that, after the separation of the
South, the new state in the North would be an ethnically pure one, in
terms of its racial, religious and cultural dimensions. According to
Al-Bashir, the State in the North will be an Islamic and Arab state.
Al Bashir’s fascism, extremism and ignorance made him oblivious of the
diverse nature of the North, and that the North isn’t one entity, it
is neither pure Islamic nor pure Arab. Therefore, such short-sighted
and extremist views, will never lead the country to peace and
tranquillity, rather, it will push it to a new phase of wars.
With the current deadlock, the marginalised peoples of Sudan,
including Darfur have no options, either to change the regime or
impose the right of self-determination and follow the example of
South. Status quo isn’t an option. However, the option of the
separation entails tremendous challenges, it can’t be realised without
unity and international support. In my view the solution to the crises
of Sudan including Darfur requires a surgical solution of the
dislodging democratically the current regime from power. This process
would yield structural change in the system of governance.
In the concluding remarks, one would emphasise that, if the current
status quo continues to prevail, it is very likely that, the scenario
of change can take a violent and bloody shape. It is possible that,
the armed movements from the marginalised regions of Sudan which have
been suffering for decades, from persecution and historical injustices
of the centre could advance militarily and change the regime in
Khartoum by force.
Undoubtedly, if political deadlock continues without hope of swift and
concrete resolutions or change, Sudan may cross the threshold of a new
phase of chaos and fragmentation. It is likely that, Darfur, the Nuba
Mountains and the Blue Nile may follow the path of the South and
secede. It is worth mentioning that, secession of Darfur will affect
Kurdofan. Having stated that, it is up to the Sudanese peoples with
the support of the international community to realise a meaningful,
peaceful and democratic change in Sudan, to avoid the scenario of
fragmentation and new phase violence in Sudan. It is important that,
any change has to be genuine and structural.
The armed movements and the political parties require genuine
democratic and organisational reforms. It is crucial that, the
movements and the political parties should avail the youth and women
the opportunities to lead and spearhead the change. This is the only
way that, the movements and the political parties can be of relevance,
and part of the forthcoming democratic change in Sudan.
The leaders of ruling NCP have to make their choices carefully, either
to be part of the change or join the class of the ousted dictators.
In my view, only structural and democratic change which restructures
and redistributes equally the power and wealth of the country for all
its peoples including the marginalised majority, can maintain the
country secure, united and stable.
The Author is a Visiting Scholar at Columbia University in the City of
New York, can be reached at: [email protected] or
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD
info" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
