AN AFRICAN PRAYER FOR PEACE

By Thabo Mbeki and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

PRETORIA, Apr 30 2006 (IPS) - May 5 seemed to be yet another day of good news for our continent, signalling that we were indeed advancing towards the realisation of the goal of Africa\’s renaissance: Sudan took a step forward towards the restoration of peace in Darfur, as the government of Sudan and one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, after a protracted process of negotiations, writes Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa. In this article, Mbeki writes that it is most unfortunate that another faction of the SLM/A, led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, as well as the second Darfur rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), decided not to sign the peace agreement. The negative impact of the Darfur conflict on inter-state relations, as between Sudan and Chad, as well as Eritrea to the east, which Sudan accuses of supporting the Darfur rebels, must communicate the strong message to the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja that, truly, the resolution of the Darfur crisis and the overall challenges of Sudan, would make an important contribution to the resolution of Africa\’s problems. A just resolution of the conflict in Darfur must indeed be based on the repudiation of any winner-takes-all approach, which makes it impossible to build the inclusive societies that are the only condition for the achievement of peace, stability and national unity and reconciliation in all African countries.

As Africans we are always thirsty for good news about all the countries of our continent to assess the progress we are making towards the renewal of Africa. It is therefore always very distressing to hear news that recalls the painful past of violent conflicts, wars, military dictatorships, and famines, against which our continent is trying to turn its back.

May 5 seemed to be yet another day of good news for our continent, signalling that we were indeed advancing towards the realisation of the goal of Africa’s renaissance.

On this day, Sudan took a step forward towards the restoration of peace in Darfur, as the Government of Sudan and one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, after a protracted process of negotiations.

We must salute Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the African Union (AU) Mediator, Salim Ahmed Salim, and others who have been involved in the process to assist the Sudanese parties to conclude a comprehensive agreement that would end the costly conflict in Darfur, as well as the government of Sudan and Minni Arcua Minnawi and his faction of the SLM/A for taking the critical step to sign the negotiated agreement.

It is most unfortunate that another faction of the SLM/A, led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, as well as the second Darfur rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), decided not to sign the peace agreement.

The agreement includes critically important elements: · a comprehensive ceasefire; · a programme to disarm all non-statutory forces and integrate them in the national security forces; · a resource-sharing formula; · a power sharing agreement; and, · dialogue and reconciliation within Darfur.

These issues parallel similar issues contained in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Nairobi, Kenya, in January 2005, concluding the similarly protracted negotiations between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, then led by the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior.

Though the CPA is a product of negotiations between two Sudanese players, the predominantly Arab and Moslem government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, representing the black and non-Moslem Southern Sudan, it is of central relevance to the whole of Sudan.

Obviously, anything agreed about Darfur cannot and should not result in unravelling the CPA. Rather, it should help to give meaning to the people in Darfur of the provisions contained in the CPA.

These include precisely the same issues contained in the Abuja Agreement on Darfur, such as equitably sharing political power and the country’s wealth, and respecting the national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of Sudan.

The conflict in Darfur has resulted in strained relations and heightened tension between Sudan and Chad. The latter is now faced with the threat of a civil war. The government of Chad has openly blamed the government of Sudan for supporting the armed groups that have engaged in military campaigns to overthrow the government of Chad.

Similarly, the government of Sudan has accused elements within the Chadian government of supporting the rebels in Darfur. The situation is of course complicated by the fact that Sudan and Chad share some ethnic groups, such as the Zaghawa who live both in Sudan and Chad, and move freely across the boundary between these two countries drawn by the colonial powers.

The negative impact of the Darfur conflict on inter-state relations, as between Sudan and Chad, as well as Eritrea to the east, which Sudan accuses of supporting the Darfur rebels, must communicate the strong message to the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja that, truly, the resolution of the Darfur crisis and the overall challenges of Sudan, would make an important contribution to the resolution of Africa’s problems.

One of Sudan’s eminent sons, Mansour Khalid, a distinguished politician, international diplomat and writer, published a book in 2003, entitled “War and Peace in Sudan: A Tale of Two Countries.” Mansour Khalid makes an important observation that the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja should take to heart:

“In the case of Sudan, the mainspring of war has been iniquitous attempts by one group to gain immoderate advantage over a presumed rival under the pretence of enhancing ‘national’ acquirements narrowly perceived.

“In this light, Sudan’s war may fairly be traced to a sense of perverted nationalism that never cared to keep the mean between two extremes. Invariably, perverted nationalisms are driven by a winner-take-all inclination. On no account do they put up with relinquishing a little; they always hunger for taking all.

“This acquisitiveness invites, as a matter of course, retortion by those who suffer most from its consequences either to reparate injuries or end injustices (real or perceived). Those root causes of conflict, if not identified, recognised and dealt with, inescapably fester and burst.”

A just resolution of the conflict in Darfur, and all the other historic tensions that have affected Sudan, must indeed be based on the repudiation of any winner-takes-all approach, which makes it impossible to build the inclusive societies that are the only condition for the achievement of peace, stability, and national unity and reconciliation in all African countries.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)