IGAD to arbitrate row over Khartoum, the right choice

Editorial, The Khartoum Monitor

Mar 26, 2006 — The ongoing negotiations between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the National Congress Party (NCP) on the constitution of Khartoum State has been stalled due to the hard-line positions adopted by negotiators on both sides. Having reached a deadlock, the SPLM side resolved to push the sharp differences to the presidency for arbitration.

It is unfortunate for both sides to reach this status of mutual distrust. Both sides on the negotiating table have disappointed the presidency and the entire Sudanese people by failing to deliver what was expected of them. They are supposed to send back to the presidency reports of concurrence not of discord and disagreement. How do they expect the presidency to come up with a solution to what they have collectively failed to achieve?

The picture in the presidency is even more complex. First vice-president, Salva Kiir, is pushed into a tight corner where he needs acrobatic skills to come out of. In the presidency, Kiir is a lone SPLM player against three NCP giants. It would be more of a political naivety or buffoonery to expect any of the NCP members in the presidency to side with Kiir. One against three would not hold. For the NCP, it is a matter of “united we stand, divided we fall” or “unity is strength”. In clear terms, Kiir has to either give up and succumb to NCP stances or look around him for other solutions.

One possible area to explore would be the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) itself. The CPA, with all its six protocols, is a good reference point for the presidency to browse through and see where the negotiating parties have swayed or got stuck. This needs impartiality, prudence and a high sense of nationalism without which, Kiir and his other three presidency colleagues would agree to disagree. Should this fail, more options could be opened up and looked at.

The Interim National Constitution should be able to provide solutions to the points of divergence between the two sides. The interim constitution is an outcome of the six major protocols of the CPA. Drawing solutions from it also requires open mindedness from the presidency, not the dogmatism, intransigence and hardlinerism that has brought the negotiating parties to standstill. If this could not bring amicable results, Kiir would find himself at a cross roads. He should either give up to NCP or take the last train to Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) where endless possibilities exist.

The SPLM negotiating team seemed smart enough to role the ball to Kiir with hope that he would in turn kick it on the IGAD’s court. Kiir needs to read between the lines of IGAD rather than waste time in the presidency whose top chair is the boss of the NCP. Kiir should draw lessons from past mistakes. The scenario of the Industry and Mining Ministry seems to be recurring. It all started with a committee then a stalemate that eventually ended in a smack down at the presidency.

Going to IGAD for arbitration is beneficial to both sides as that would restore mutual confidence and make each side satisfied that it has not been outwitted by the other. The issue of the status of the national capital is crucial to the unity and cohesion of the Sudanese people. This is what the SPLM group has conceived and would want to consolidate while the NCP partner endeavours to see the opposite realized.

The NCP has already started to tilt the ground of unity towards the direction of secession so that when the referendum ball is dropped it would, just like water, drift towards the cessation slope. After all, nobody blames water for the direction it takes. The responsibility falls on whoever and whatever has made the slant.