---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Ashworth <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:56 AM Subject: [sudan-john-ashworth] Some critical reflections on activism and Sudan To: Group <[email protected]>
I am very wary of circulating personal critiques and responses for a number of reasons, and indeed I had originally declined to circulate Monim's piece. Now I see Alex has publicly responded. It's not about personalities, it's about the people of Sudan and South Sudan. However I am now circulating this conversation, still with some hesitation about the degree of personality stuff in both pieces, firstly because I see it as a conversation between two people who respect each other, without rancour, and secondly because it does give some interesting insights into the murky worlds of both activism and peace negotiations. However I don't guarantee to circulate the next round of argument and counter-argument! I circulated Alex's original article, "Reclaiming Activism", on this Google group on 6th May 2013 and it is also available at http://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2013/04/30/reclaiming-activism/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer:%2Bviewfromthecave%2Bon%2Btwitter&buffer_share=076f9 My own small comment is on an issue raised by both protagonists, not a personality. While I accept that some negotiations have to take place with a degree of confidentiality, nevertheless the South African model whereby much of the negotiation took place live on public TV is instructive. If everything is totally transparent to the people who really matter, namely the citizens, then it is much more difficult for the negotiating parties, the mediators, the international community, the media and anybody else to manipulate and/or distort the situation. John BEGIN 1. Alex de Waal: the Rebirth of a Principled Activist? June 2, 2013 Monim El Jak Whenever Alex de Waal publishes analysis or reflections, Sudanese intellectuals and activists, and the concerned international institutions and individuals, give it priority attention. The last week of April and first week of May 2013 were for me remarkable weeks, watching de Waal coming with two articles, re-positioning himself as an advocate for ‘principled’ activism and presenting his belief in democratization as the central pillar for resolving Sudan’s multi-layered and multi-dimensional crises. The articles, “Reclaiming Activism” and “Flawed Politicians, Flawed Peace” are writings that signal, as I see it, the rebirth of de Waal’s old “identity”, the activist, who devotes his efforts, in his own words, in ‘solidarity with suffering and oppressed people’. What sparked my attention after reading the two articles was the voice of de Waal beneath the text expressing genuine compassion to the Sudan(ese) people and towards their stability and welfare. But at same time, he sounds reluctant to acknowledge some of his shortcomings or failures as an expert during his long engagement in Sudanese politics. I therefore find myself between two feelings or positions in receiving de Waal writings: the first, is to celebrate what I call the rebirth of de Waal, the principled activist, after the abandonment of this identity for about seven/eight years as he notes his first article as he returns to advocate for a holistic national approach to Sudan’s multiple crises, with democratization at the centre, supported by the three activism/advocacy principles that he outlines. My second feeling or position upon interaction with de Waal’s recent writings is one of questioning. In the context of my personal (in) direct engagement in the same public issues that de Waal has been part of over the years, in addition to reading his intellectual products, I am forced ask: why de Waal is only now debating activism and the fate of Sudan? Is de Waal trying to offer a self-critique, albeit an unexpressed one, about his own engagement on Sudan’s issues over the last seven- eight years? One major feature in the two pieces is de Waal’s reflection on a ‘wall of failures’ as he reviews his historic ‘principled’ positions across the fields of activism and Sudanese politics. In de Waal’s review of John Young’s book, “The Fate of Sudan: The Origins and Consequences of a Flawed Peace Process”, he describes the failure of ‘the inclusive approach championed by Justice Africa, and myself [de Waal], more than a decade ago, to resolve Sudan’s conflicts and engineer a democratic transformation’. This repositioning of himself also comes through in “Reclaiming Activism” when de Waal justifies his withdrawal from the “activist” tribe by saying that ‘about seven or eight years ago, I became rather uncomfortable with the word [activist]... because a group of people, in whose company I didn’t want to be, were claiming not only to be activists but to define “activism” itself’. The way I see de Waal presenting histories/events and his own engagement, in particular, make them more than just narratives. It is true that de Waal had tried to lead bright and principled initiatives seven-eight years ago as he said, and these principled efforts are still needed today because of the depth to which Sudan’s crises have reached. But I cannot easily accept the way in which connections are made in the two articles between de Waal’s principled positions of the past (seven-eight year) and of the now. My concern here is not to question the physical whereabouts of de Waal since he became ‘uncomfortable’ with the activist identity. His roles in political negotiations on Sudan’s peacemaking processes are known. My question here is how will be possible to understand (and other ‘principled’ Sudanese activists and victims of atrocities say “forgive” ) the role de Waal’s played since he left “activism” in a series of political/”peacemaking” processes which have only deepened Sudan’s ongoing dilemmas, and to accept him now as an advocate for ‘principled’ issues, including his ‘personal commitment to working in solidarity with suffering and oppressed people’. Between the two narratives is there any self-critique? In “Reclaiming Activism” Alex de Waal points to what he calls the “arrogation” of “activism” by “designer activists” reflecting on the result as offensive, demeaning and counter-productive, and which has dominated and undermined the space for ‘principled’ activism. While I fully agree and rally with Alex’s three principles of activism as presented in his article, I also fully disagree with the way that he implicitly portrays the period of his voluntary disappearance, jointing ‘ peace platforms’, as untrue activism era. My disagreement indeed goes further to be suspecting about de Waal’s interests of recent writings, and whether it can really be seen as ‘the rebirth of the principled activist? Or just laying the ground for a new political soft-landing for new failed initiatives and engagement? I recall the engagement that was guided by the ‘principled activism’ of de Waal before he abandoned ‘us’ (both Sudanese and international) seven/ eight years ago. We have been continuing this work up to now, thousands of principled activists, such as those working with Enough Project, Darfur Consortium, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and individuals such as Desmond Tutu, Gourge Cloney, Wangari Maathai, Eric Reeves, etc. During this journey I never seen what Alex describes as ‘consensus among national civil society activists viewing our regional and international partners/allies presenting narratives and prescriptions that are simplified, simplistic and pernicious’. My disagreement with de Waal indeed goes more, coming from both my participant and observer identities, to suggest that de Waal has not been faithful to his own principles. As a result many Sudanese democrats and independent activists do not have much faith in the narrative of de the Waal Project, as it pushes false judgments into our mouths particularly with respect to our longstanding and principled relationships with regional and international activists. For example, in his unjustified enough anger against the Enough Project, de Waal tries to de-validate the views of activists such as Alhaj Warrag, noting that he is “intrigued and concerned” about his confidence in Engough’s capacity to “represent” him. Is de Waal himself organic to his three ‘principles” which guide an individual or organization aspiring to the honorable term activist’? The answer to this I think can be found in an uncovering of choices/ interests that de Waal, the public figure not the person, has made over the seven/ eight years since abandoning his own activist identity. I would like to try to trace some of the highlights of these years in order to unveil other identities and tags that de Waal has chosen to wear, which in my opinion are reasons for him to leave (un) principled activism. In September 2004, Justice Africa, headed by Alex de Waal, was involved in the birth a courageous initiative aimed at making visible the humanitarian and human rights suffering in Darfur, the Darfur Consortium. The Consortium was composed of a diverse group of sub-Sahara African NGOs, Africa-focused international NGOs, Sudanese NGOs and civil society in addition to NGOs from the Arab region, created before Enough Project and Save Darfur. Suddenly de Waal and his Justice Africa team have disappeared from the platform and tried to erase any relationship they have with the consortium. The Darfur Consortium (now transformed as the Sudan Consortium) made notable breakthroughs on justice/accountability and on protection of civilians in Darfur. As de Waal left his activist identity shortly after, the Consortium adopted in letter and spirit the three principles of activism that de Waal emphasizes in his writing through a variety of bright activities. This experience- seven/ eight years ago- in my opinion marks the de Waal’s jumping from the ‘ principled and genuine activism’ boat into the camp of his political choices/ interests, the choices that have contributed to deepen Sudan’s crises. Soon after the creation of the Darfur Consortium de Waal joined the AU mediation team that facilitated the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May 2006. His involvement in that process clearly showed where his concept of ‘principled’ efforts lay, not in an inclusive, national and democracy centric transformation, but in advocacy for a partial, piecemeal and unjust peace deal that was pushed through by international actors with their own interests, using pressure and threats, and ultimately born dead. For example among his more than fifteen lobbying and advocating articles for the DPA de Waal completely dropped support for the principle of justice/ accountability. He wrote: “the DPA does not include any special provisions for accountability for human rights abuses and does not mention the International Criminal Court… some of the provisions of the DPA may change the context in which the ICC carries out its work. For example, if the peace agreement leads to the setting up of courts that bring human rights violators to trial, then it is possible that the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC may choose to limit or even call off his investigations, on the grounds that Sudanese courts are able to do the job’. This kind of argument simply added ballast to the position of the Government of Sudan which was at the time strenuously trying to undermine the ICC through defense of the capacity of the Sudanese judicial system to address Darfur’s crimes (a lie clearly exposed later in the Mbeki report in which de Waal had a hand), e.g. silencing the voiceless victims of atrocities in their demands for genuine justice system. De Waal’s migration from activism to the political realm did not end with brokering a born-dead peace deal. For example over the next years he further cemented his departure from acknowledging the centrality of the quest for justice to achieving a lasting a peace. De Waal tireless efforts in attacking the ICC became a big question mark, and were simply food to the arguments and narratives of the ruling NCP against the ICC. In many respects the copy right for the Government of Sudan’s attempts to dilute the justice quest through the time-wasting debate of peace versus justice, and other efforts, goes to de Waal. However correct de Waals criticisms were of methods and attitude of the ICC Prosecutor the obsessive way in which he pursued his vendetta, was deeply damaging to the activist cause in Sudan and undermined the authority of the Court (and the Court is a far larger reality and dream than simply a Prosecutor). In the end the manner and context of de Waal critique contributed nothing to the ICC, but played only into the hands of those fundamentally opposed to justice, the perpetrators, the regime of Khartoum and its allies. The fourth station in tracing back de Waal’s engagement on Sudan issues after leaving ‘our’ activism is his work as an advisor to the African Union High-Level Panel on Darfur (AUPD), known as the Mbeki Panel. . Despite the great initial efforts of the Panel and its comprehensive recommendations in bringing back the holistic approach and emphasizing democratization as priority – to which de Waal was central - the disintegrated foundations of the Panel (born in political compromise) ultimately doomed it capacity to fruit. Ahmed Maher, the former Egyptian foreign minister and a member of the AUPD said in an interview that ‘our goal [the Panel’s] was to find a way out from the dilemma of the President Al Bashir and the ICC’. The fishy beginning of the AUPD in 2009, coupled with its transformation into the AU High Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP) – which now has almost nothing to do with the implementation of its initial ground-breaking report – unfortunately reveal that despite initial efforts the engagements and activities of the Panel are not transparent and not participatory, and don’t display any of the basic principles of de Waal’s activism. As a peacemaking mediator the Panel turned into an informal market trader for whom supply and demand determines its day-to day trading activity. The chronically disappointing life cycle of the Panel can be described as follows: it started with Darfur, then abandoned its comprehensive recommendations there after involving in petty fights and competitions over mandates and resources with the UN and AU bodies, then moved to procedural/technical oversight of the elections that buried democratization in Sudan through the Panel methods of pressure and compromises to political parties, then it jumped into a cycle of never-ending negotiations between the two Sudans on outstanding post CPA issues without prospects for a lasting peace, got stuck on Abyie, Southern Korodofan and Blue Nile without courage or power to enforce its own resolutions or facilitate effective inclusive negotiations. By presenting this selective reading of the AUHIP I am not of course trying to make de Waal alone accountable for these open- ended failures, but his continued involvement in these efforts – what I would see as basically unprincipled processes and actions – raises questions. Ironically, the central principled position and insight that the Panel has made was declared dead just weeks ago. The Panel’s report states that ‘Sudan continues to face the historical challenges of managing its diversity, nurturing democracy and promoting equitable development, and that democratic transformation remains the urgent task of the Sudanese leadership in all its manifestations, which will continue to need Africa’s unwavering encouragement and support’. Unfortunately, in a recent meeting in May Abdul Mohamed, an advisor to the AUHIP, and a close historic colleague to de Waal, declared in a civil society gathering in Addis that the AUPD’s recommendations are no longer relevant and it has been shelved after the Doha process been the only mechanism now open. I cannot narrate all of what I know that might fill the gap between the two de Waals, the one we have known during the seven/eight years after he abandoned ‘us’, Sudanese and international activists, and the principled de Waal before that era who is now trying to return through his recent writings. Some of these might be highlighted such as the inconsistent arguments of de Waal on elections (see for example his contradicted responses to Alhaj Warrag and John Young), his continued attacks on the late John Garang, who was perhaps the only potential national leader for Sudan, or his positive remarks about Kobar prison after he was allowed to visit political detainees in 2009, a move which particularly disappointed Sudanese democrats by giving free endorsement to a bloody regime. I conclude with two final thoughts about de Waal’s April- May 2013 writings. First is my acknowledgment of de Waal’s contribution to my intellectual and professional development through my learning from his old writings such as; e.g. facing genocide, food and power, famine that kills, when peace comes, and through my personal engagement in some of Justice Africa/ his initiatives. Along with common friends and colleagues (the late Sudanese intellectual Abdelssalam Hassan on a top of list), we shared admiration for his contribution. Secondly, is the analysis that I recently contributed to in the newsletter of Sudan Democracy First Group about the splinter faction from the ruling Islamists in Sudan, the Sa’ihoon, who have called for a ‘principled’ reform, and have showed interest to join opposition. In that article I have shared with my SDFG’s colleagues the analysis: ‘ the Sa'ihoon would have a lot to explain to the Sudanese before they could be accepted in the mainstream of Sudan’s civic and political sphere. They provided the striking forces of the human waves of Mujahideen who in the 1990s committed untold civilian killings in the South and later in Darfur… They would have to come clean on this dark page in their collective biographies and take responsibility for any unlawful actions to persuade the public of the genuineness of their new reformist credentials’. I am not saying that de Waal needs to come clean as the Sudanese Sa’ihoon, but I see that his ‘rebirth as a principled activist’ necessitates, at least, a degree of a self-critique? END1 2. Some critical reflections on activism and Sudan: a reply to Monim By Alex DeWaal Dear Monim, June 20, 2013 - I have long argued that humanitarians and human rights activists should embrace critical self-reflection including acknowledging their mistakes (see my piece, originally entitled "Writing rights and getting it wrong". So I welcome the change to debate–though not, of necessity, on everything. Monim puts his finger on two closely-related key issues, which are (1) the tension between transparency and confidentiality in conflict mediation, and (2) the associated tension between securing an end to a war and promoting a democratic transformation. Let me make four points. First: my record as an activist and academic from the 1980s until 2005 included considerable critique of international humanitarian and advocacy efforts. I came to Sudan in the early 1980s precisely because Sudanese academics were leading the way in developing a critique of international humanitarian action. I resigned from Human Rights Watch in 1992 rather than support the U.S. military intervention in Somalia. The African Rights project to gain access to the SPLA-held areas of the Nuba Mountains in 1994-95 was intended to give a high profile to the Nuba’s own efforts at survival and socio-political renewal, and a low profile to external players. We did not trumpet our role in that effort but put Yousif Kuwa and the Nuba Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Organisation in the spotlight. I was a strong critic of what I saw as an opportunistic approach to the question of slavery by foreign advocacy organizations. So you should not be surprised to see me mounting a critique of those who advocate solutions from outside. Second, I believed that progressives in Sudan, especially those elements of civil society that had earlier been sympathetic to the Sudan Communist Party, were making a strategic error in aligning themselves with the SPLA. Much as I liked the rhetoric of the New Sudan, the actual record of the SPLA suggested something rather different. In fact part of the rationale for the “human rights in the transition” project was in order to strengthen progressive forces, both those inside the SPLA and those who shared its stated aims. The issue of the political organization of progressive elements in Sudan demands serious reflection and debate, similar to that initiated by the late Khatim Adlan with his famous tract, "It’s Time for Change." The question of the political organization of progressives in Sudan is unresolved. My third point is the most important: the record of the outcomes of international-led mediation activities, including the AU-led efforts of the last nine years has been mixed. There’s no question: I have been involved with them, beginning with the Abuja negotiations, and so I am associated with their outcomes, which have mostly been disappointing. But that’s not the whole story. Of necessity, most negotiations takes place out of the public gaze. And in most cases of mediation, the record then remains locked away, except what participants later want to talk about. When there’s a successful outcome, mediators and their friends write glowing memoirs. When there isn’t, no-one wants to accept the blame. But either way, because the records aren’t available for independent scrutiny, it isn’t possible to make an objective assessment. With the partnership of the World Peace Foundation, the African Union will be making an archive of these materials available, so that Sudanese and others can assess them and make an objective assessment. For example, there is no comprehensive analysis of the effort that led to Darfur Peace Agreement. Critics of the DPA write as though the intent was to create a partial agreement with Minni Minawi, or to abandon democratization and justice. I can assure you that those were not the aims. When the DPA was signed and the entire mediation team left, I stayed behind for another week in an effort to bring Abdel Wahid on board–and in fact reached an agreement on a supplementary document to the DPA that would have brought him on board. The U.S. insisted that not a word could be changed in the DPA however, and the AU fell in line with that. When I wrote about the lack of justice in the DPA, it was an exercise in public education, not endorsement, and an attempt to remedy that fault next time round. But you should also recall the words of John Garang, speaking to the UN Security Council on February 8, 2005, who referred to Darfur, saying: “the conflict there was an old one that had begun in the 1980s, rather than in 2003, as commonly reported. It had existed even before the present Government of the Sudan had taken power…. The SPLM, having concluded its own accord with the Government of the Sudan, was confident that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement enhanced the chances for a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Darfur conflict. However, the Janjaweed militia must be reined in and eventually brought to justice after the achievement of a solution – otherwise the cart would be placed before the horse, in which case neither would move. The SPLM stood ready to offer assistance.” The CPA was not as inclusive as I would have liked, and did not prioritize democracy in the way I would have liked. But in 2005/06 it was a reality and the task was to make it work. The vision that most of us in the mediation had for the DPA was as a buttress to the CPA, to bring in the Darfurians to bolster the democratization of Sudan. It didn’t work, but we tried. As for the International Criminal Court, the prosecutor’s public application for an arrest warrant against President Bashir was so incompetent that, if the case had come to court on that basis, I have no doubt that it would have been thrown out. It was irresponsible not to criticize that. Turning to the AU High Level Panel on Darfur (AUPD): it is clear, the process of consultation that produced the report, and the report itself, were a model of participatory analysis and democratic recommendation. The substance of the report was that the conflict in Darfur was properly defined as the Sudanese conflict in Darfur, and it could only be settled by a comprehensive approach that involved all Darfurians addressing the challenges of peace, justice, reconciliation and Darfur’s place in Sudan, in an inclusive way. The AUPD spent forty days in town-hall style meetings listening to the views of Darfurians, and having formulated its recommendations, went back to discuss them with Darfurian stakeholders to make sure that they were endorsed by the people. Only with popular support would such recommendations be meaningful. As for the late Ahmed Maher, former Egyptian Foreign Minister, he came to Sudan just once or twice and did not participate in any of Darfur consultations and was expressing a personal view. It is deeply unfortunate that the AUPD recommendations have not been implemented. My colleague Abdul Mohammed does not consider them in any way irrelevant or superseded. But it is a simple political reality that the international community, led by the UN and Qatar, chose a different path, leading to the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur. That is a reality that Darfurians must deal with. And it is also true that the AU Panel simply does not possess the power to enforce its own resolutions. How would it force the Sudanese government or rebels to follow a particular course of action that they did not want to follow? The AU Panel does not have the authority to write and adopt Chapter VII resolutions at the UN Security Council, and does not possess an army. My last point concerns the lull in my writing on Sudan since I scaled back on writing for my “Making Sense of Sudan” blog in September 2010. The last two postings were: “Sudan: On Mistrust and Defamation,” (September 13, 2010). And “Sudan:Time to Begin a National Constitutional Review,” (September 19, 2010). For the following ten months I was wholly taken up with work for President Mbeki and the AU High Level Implementation Panel, particularly on the Two Areas. For obvious if regrettable reasons, the records of that period are still confidential. President Mbeki has been adamant that he will not negotiate through the press, and correctly so. But, given that the negotiations constitute an important part of Sudan’s modern history, I have also initiated a project whereby the process will be properly documented and the archive will be made available to researchers. Then it will be possible to have an objective and properly informed debate about what was done and not done, what mistakes were made, what crises were averted or not averted. * Alex de Waal is Executive Director of a program at the Fletcher School at Tufts University established by the World Peace Foundation aiming to provide intellectual leadership on issues of peace, justice and security. http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article47078 END2 ______________________ John Ashworth Sudan, South Sudan Advisor [email protected] +254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile) +211 919 695 362 (South Sudan mobile) +27 79 832 8834 (South Africa mobile) +44 750 304 1790 (UK/international) +88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone) PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation -- -- The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the content and the source is always cited. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" 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.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South Sudan Info - The Kob" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14orhK1C0%2BYFDwwOEgXcLksnYcApkCXU51d4iFuWd-%2BFcHg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
