Sudan peace talks: One agreement but several addenda

Khartoum, Sudan (PANA) - When people hear about Sudan’s current peace talks in Juba, South Sudan, they will immediately think of three areas: Darfur, the Blue Nile and the Nuba mountains areas.

These are the areas associated with rebellion and grim stories of suffering, crimes related to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and marginalization. The  rebellion in those areas was spurred by grievances over lack of development and of participation in running the affairs of the country, thus marginalization.

But the situation in Juba, capital of South Sudan, is far from that simplified view as there are as many movements and armed groups as one could count.

For once, President Omar Bashir’s government was accused of applying the colonizers principle: divide and rule.

One salient example was that in 2003, a rebellion broke out in Darfur (493,000 sq km), a region the size of France or that of five European Union states combined --  Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Netherlands and Bulgaria combined (487,000 sq km).

But 15 years later, with Bashir going away, he left over 50 rebel groups, movements, parties and allies, all hailing from the same Darfur core rebellion. Each of these has its own agenda and seeks to be assertive in any peace negotiation, but with little claws, a concrete example of the policy of divide and rule.

When the new government took over in August 2019, it set as priority number one: the realization of a comprehensive and all-inclusive peace in the Sudan. To facilitate this, mediators and the mediating groups, have agreed to arrange the movements into their geographical affiliation.

The talks have been divided into five tracks, on the basis of geography and common features that set every track as a unique entity. These included Darfur track, South Kordufan (Nuba Mountains) Track, the Blue Nile Track, the Eastern Sudan Track and the Central Sudan track.

First, the Darfur Track which is made up of Darfur rebel movements (Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, Sudan Liberation Movement (Minni Minawi), Sudan Liberation Movement (the transitional council) and the Alliance of Sudan Liberation Forces. Within this grouping, the Sudan Liberation Movement (Abdelwahid) has chosen to boycott the peace talks.

National issues tackled within this track include the country’s identity, public liberties, human rights, religion and the state, constitutional development, the systems of government, the restructuring of civil and military organs, independence of the judiciary, wealth sharing and participation in the transitional government.

The Darfuri issues to be discussed include Darfur’s administrative position, the return to Darfur’s historical borders, participation in regional government, wealth sharing at all levels of government, land, the refugees and the IDPs, the nomads and pastoralists, compensations, indemnifications, transitional justice, accountability and reconciliation, development and rehabilitation, security arrangements, the Darfuri-Darfuri dialogue, agreement on timetables for accords’ implementation, development issues, border security and “any other issues to be agreed on.”

In the Darfur track, the two sides have agreed to discuss the inclusion of the peace agreement in the Constitutional Document of the Government of Sudan.

They also agreed to include participation of the refugees and the IDPs, Darfur’s civil society and the native administration in peace building and the writing of the social contract, allowing the national and international NGOs to return to Darfur to render humanitarian aid to IDPs and refugees and cancel any administrative restrictions that might impede the NGOs work.

The framework has stipulated the removal of war effects and adequate individual and collective compensation for those affected by the war.

The framework has also stipulated the restructuring of the state of Sudan ‘in a manner that reflects national cohesion and a fair distribution of employment opportunities without compromising the conditions for eligibility.’

The Second is the Central Sudan Track which includes the central territories of the country and is chaired by the deputy SRF Chairman Altoam Hajo. It was the first track to seal (on 24 December) a framework agreement with the Government delegates.

Hajo said they will sign a final agreement with the Government that addresses “the root causes of the crisis and issues of general nature.”

He added that the signing of this framework agreement was ”a good omen and heralds the road towards peace.”

 “The track of Central Sudan has covered all the area’s causes, in a bid to treat the problem before it explodes,” Hajo said, describing the area as “plagued with a host of problems.”

The third track is focused on Eastern Sudan. This track tackles the causes of rebellion in Eastern Sudan’s three states: Gedarif, Kasala and the Red Sea.

Activists complained that this region had suffered political, economic and social marginalization and, accordingly, assert that it is the responsibility of the Government to remove these grievances.

A report published by Sudanow magazine, early this month, pointed out that Eastern states are undergoing a lot of changes that lead to sharp and deep social disputes that surfaced of late in the form of conflicts between the Beja, Bani Amir and the Nuba communities.

In addition the political forces have started to reconsider their positions and rearrange their ranks for fear of being skipped during the transitional period. Some of these parties (namely the Bija Congress Party of former Presidential Assistant Musa Mohammad Ahmad) had previously signed the Eastern Sudan peace pact with the defunct regime.

It was accordingly agreed that the Eastern Sudan parties not included in the SRF convene a conference in Khartoum and then return to the talks in three weeks, starting 23 December. Before that the Southern Sudanese mediators had asserted that real peace in Eastern Sudan could never be attained without reconciliation.

Usama Saeed, a member of the Eastern Sudanese track, said they will be discussing with the Government delegation three dossiers: political, economic and security.

Saeed said the political dossier has provided a precise description of the problem in the East which he described as “an issue of political, economic and social marginalization.”

The fourth track deals with the Two Areas. It discusses the problems of the Blue Nile and South Kordufan states.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) /North (Malik Agar) is representing the Blue Nile State after its breakaway (due to internal rifting) from the mainstream SPLM/North (Alhilu) of Southern Kordufan. 

Alhilu claims to control 35% of the lands of Southern Kordufan. His military power base is the ninth and tenth divisions of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army of the SPLM, founded by the late South Sudanese rebel leader John Garang.

According to that rift, both Agar and Alhilu have entered the Juba talks with two different delegations.

Agar’s faction had preceded the talk’s inauguration by signing an agreement with the government that caters for easing the delivery of humanitarian aid to war-affected citizens of the Southern Blue Nile and the Southern Kordufan districts.

The Agar faction’s General Secretary Yasir Arman said their paper has opted for self-rule in the two areas and called for ending the war along the principles of justice, indiscrimination and ‘the building of a new Sudanese state.

Arman also praised the “positive spirit” that engulfs the talks with the Government side, “no wonder if we remember that the two sides are partners in the revolution.”

The fifth Northern Sudan’s Track, has witnessed differences between the Kush movement (a signatory to the Juba Declaration) and the Entity of the North (led by Mohammad Sidahmed) who argue that Kush movement does not represent the region and that “its entire membership draws from a single family.” This attitude has obliged the SRF to intervene to solve the dispute and unify the two groups. Accordingly, the two sides agreed upon and presented a unified position on the framework agreement.

The Juba, South Sudan, peace forum has meanwhile received support at the Pan- African level and at the level of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD).

Senior mediator Dhio Matok said the IGAD had in its latest meeting officially assigned South Sudan to mediate comprehensive peace in the Sudan. He said the African Union (AU) has also authorized South Sudan to do this job.

Matok also indicated the presence of several international envoys in the talks, including American envoys from the office of President Trump’s Envoy to Sudan Donald Booth.

He said the talks venue has seen repeated visits from European and African ambassadors “who come and sit in the talks hall as observers.”

Matok also said his team continues to provide those diplomats with due briefing on the progress of the talks.

Journalists covering the talks said a spirit of optimism overwhelms the talks’ venue and the parties are working in cordial atmospheres, possibly derived from the December Revolution’s most popular slogan: “Liberty, Peace and Justice.”

-0- PANA MO/AR 17Jan2020