Sudanese opposition NDA works to transform bilateral peace deal into national one with the help of Egypt
MEDINA, Saudi Arabia, June 08, 2004 (Sudan Tribune) — Mohamed Osman Al-Mirghani chairman of the Sudanese Democratic Unionist Party and leader of the opposition National Democratic Alliance welcomed the peace agreement signed by Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement on May 26.
In an interview with the London based Al-Sharq al-Awsat:, Al-Mirghani called for the need to involve all political forces and institutions of civil society in the peace negotiation process to reach a national, and not a bilateral, agreement.
According to the chairman of the Sudanese opposition umbrella, the NDA continues to be the acceptable formula for political forces. Its role and responsibility will increase at the next stage so as to positively contribute to transforming the bilateral peace agreement into a national agreement and to be responsive to the aspirations of the masses for democratization, a just and comprehensive peace, development, reconstruction, and services in all parts of Sudan
He considers that Cairo has taken positive diplomatic and political steps toward the Sudan peace process.
In the context of the special character of bilateral Sudanese-Egyptian relations, he expressed his wishes that it will undertake the initiative of inviting the main Sudanese political forces government and opposition to visit Cairo to discuss the peace agreement and achieve what is required to reach a consensus.
Following the text of interview with Mohamed Osman al-Mirghani, by Mohamed Said Mohamed al-Hassan, in Medina (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia); entitled “Al-Mirghani tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat: Opposition will stay; we seek to transform bilateral peace agreement into collective national agreement” published by London-based newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat web site on 6 June; subheadings inserted editorially:. It’s translated by the BBB Monitoring Service.
– Are you satisfied with what was reached in Naivasha?
Let us say that we accept and welcome any effort, which is exerted or agreed upon, to end the war and achieve peace in Sudan, since this would mean ending the destruction, the wasting of resources, and the suffering of the people of Sudan.
Of course, what happened in Naivasha was not without the contribution, participation, and follow-up of others, who showed great concern through holding direct contacts and meetings to urge the two sides to achieve what is required.
For us, peace represents a strategic issue, to which we have devoted all our efforts and attention since 1986 (the third period of democracy). This was through holding contacts and meetings with the People’s Movement [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, SPLM] in London. It was also through holding meetings and negotiations in Addis Ababa in November 1988, which ended in reaching the Sudanese peace initiative for ending the war and achieving peace.
– What is the difference between what was signed in Addis Ababa in November 1988 and what was achieved in Naivasha in May 2004?
We must admit that there are big differences between the atmosphere on the domestic, regional, and international levels in the 1980s and the sharp changes on these levels with the beginning of the third millennium. For this reason, there is a very big difference on several tracks. This can be summed up by saying that the Sudanese peace initiative remained a purely Sudanese effort, without mediators, observers, envoys of major or small countries, or experts for drafting [agreements] and others for proposing alternatives.
Also, the Sudanese peace initiative did not refer to the right to self-determination, marginalized regions, security arrangements, the presence of international observers, or the debate about the distribution of wealth and power, given that they are key, pivotal issues to be discussed upon the convening of the national constitutional conference, which is preceded by forming a national committee to prepare well for the agenda and decide the venue [of the conference].
It was agreed [to hold the national conference] on the first date, 31 December 1988; and the second date, in July 1989. The two sides, the Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] and the SPLM, stressed that all national and political forces should immediately join this national effort in order to achieve a just and stable peace in Sudan.
Transforming Naivasha agreement into a national one
– What is the method of transforming the bilateral agreement reached in Naivasha into a national agreement?
On our part, we have also called – at an earlier time and from all forums and capitals – for the need to involve all political forces and institutions of civil society in the peace negotiation process to reach a national, and not a bilateral, agreement. We have made contacts with all the concerned Sudanese, regional, and international sides. Our message was clear and direct in this respect and called for the need for a national consensus on the peace agreement.
– In the context of the rapprochement between the Salvation government and the SPLM against the backdrop of the Naivasha negotiations, does the DUP’s alliance with the SPLM still exist?
The alliance does exist. The same thing goes for bilateral contacts. However, the most important thing is to consolidate principles that were previously agreed upon between the two sides. The SPLM has felt our credibility in dealing and complying with these principles. It remembers very well the DUP’s decision withdrawing from the coalition government, when the prime minister expressed observations about the Sudanese peace agreement in Addis Ababa. The decision showed [the DUP’s] adherence to commitments and pledges with the SPLM.
Alliance with Ummah Party
– What about the alliance with the Ummah Party?
[Al-Mirghani] The alliance with the Ummah Party has been based on a historical heritage and a national responsibility since the 1950s. Despite the difference in stands here or there, the alliance does exist and is continuing. The alliance was consolidated in Cairo in the beginning of 2001 through launching the appeal of Sudan [nida al-sudan]. At the time, this appeal constituted a qualitative shift, which had its weight at that delicate stage in the direction of promoting a comprehensive political solution; calling for ending the war; achieving a just peace, democratization, and peaceful rotation of power; and renouncing all forms of violence.
We also focused on activating the Egyptian-Libyan initiative and dealing with it positively. The leadership of the Ummah Party also participated in the DUP’s conference in Cairo. This reflects the seriousness and concern about the alliance and the historical political partnership.
– What about cooperation with the National Congress (ruling party) and the Jedda agreement, which was signed with the Sudanese first vice-president?
The truth is that contacts with the National Congress were based on the DUP’s strategy of action for a comprehensive political solution, democratization, peaceful rotation of power, and facing imminent dangers to the country. The Jedda agreement has come to support national dialogue, democratization, and the national character of the agreement for achieving peace in Sudan.
The statements of the National Congress following the Naivasha agreements have come to support the national approach toward a political solution and a just and comprehensive peace, which is acceptable to the people of Sudan.
Will the DUP join the national unity government, stipulated in the Machakos agreement on 20 July 2002?
Role of the National Democratic Alliance
The DUP is first concerned with transforming the bilateral peace agreement into a national one, with the participation of all political forces. It is also concerned with introducing the necessary amendments to the constitution to achieve democratization and hold general elections.
– What about the opposition National [Democratic] Alliance [NDA] following the Naivasha peace agreement?
The NDA continues to be the acceptable formula for political forces. Its role and responsibility will increase at the next stage so as to positively contribute to transforming the bilateral peace agreement into a national agreement and to be responsive to the aspirations of the masses for democratization, a just and comprehensive peace, development, reconstruction, and services in all parts of Sudan.
– Is Cairo playing a special role in the stage following the signing of the peace agreement?
Cairo has taken positive diplomatic and political steps toward the Sudan [peace] process. In the context of the special character of bilateral (Sudanese-Egyptian) relations, we hope that it will undertake the initiative of inviting the main Sudanese political forces (government and opposition) [to visit Cairo] to discuss the peace agreement and achieve what is required to reach a consensus.
Hence, transforming it from a bilateral agreement into a national agreement to achieve a just and comprehensive peace.