An overdue peace
LEADER, The Financial Times
Jan 10, 2005 — The comprehensive agreement that has been signed in Nairobi to end the war in southern Sudan is no less important for having been so long awaited. This conflict, which has been going on for more than two decades, has caused more than 2m deaths and uprooted about 4m people. In sheer numbers, that is even greater than the more recent emergency in the western region of Darfur.
The dispute between Khartoum’s Arab-led regime and the overwhelmingly non-Muslim south has been one of the most intractable of Africa’s conflicts. Since Sudan gained independence in 1956 it has allowed the country only 11 years of peace.
This deal is an ambitious one. It stipulates, first of all, a new constitution, and then a six-year transition for the country, with elections in the middle and at the end a referendum on whether to stick with Sudan or create a new landlocked nation. In the interim, it involves sharing oil revenues and jobs in government. There are to be two armies, which will form mixed units in some parts of the country. The UN is asking for 9,000 peacekeepers to oversee the ceasefire.
When the outline of Khartoum’s compromise with southern rebels was first agreed in 2002, it was meant to signal a return to international favour. But prospects for a peace dividend and the unblocking of aid are now largely pegged to developments in Darfur. The situation there is not just unresolved but getting worse.
The two conflicts are separate but related. The violence in Darfur began in 2003 when rebels there tried to get in on the carve-up of power and wealth being negotiated between north and south. It then became one of the factors holding up a final north-south agreement, when the US, one of the drivers behind the regionally led peace talks, shifted its attention to Darfur.
But the conflicts are also connected in amore positive way. The north- south agreement can serve as a precedent, if not an exact blueprint, for a political settlement in Darfur based on regional autonomy and participation at national level. The question now, vital for Sudan’s future stability, is how much room a new power-sharing government will give other political forces from the country’s periphery.
Yesterday’s agreement itself is full of potential pitfalls. It is far from clear how successfully local militias can be absorbed into the new security structure, or how the transition can move forward as long as Darfur or other conflicts persist. At best, the deal is only part of the solution for Sudan. But, in a continent just getting to grips with the complex tasks of peacemaking, it provides grounds for hope. It will continue to require concerted international action. Post-conflict support is one of the weak points in Africa policy. What is needed now is funding to back the peace process and sustained effort by the US and Europe, alongside African partners, to ensure that the agreement stays on track.