The Secession of South Sudan and Its Impact on Darfur: Time for a New Direction

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]