The 21-year-old war in southern Sudan is Africa’s bloodiest, longest-running and, so far, most intractable. It has cost the lives of more than two million people. For that reason we have to hope that yesterday’s agreement signed by the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement under the watchful eyes of the UN Security Council, will bear fruit. The UN has been accused in recent months of being soft on the government in Khartoum, but there is nothing soft about the Nairobi resolution. It is a clear-cut ultimatum, with a year-end deadline, to both Khartoum and the southern rebels, to settle their differences.
Nonetheless, it is not easy to be wholly confident about this deal, and the fact that there are no threats attached to the ultimatum does not help matters. There have been too many false dawns, too many promised deals by Khartoum and the southern leader John Garang in the past — three in the past year alone. Over a year ago, Sudan’s Vice President Ali Osman Taha and Garang signed an agreement in Nairobi and promised a final settlement by the end of 2003. It did not happen. The devil was in the detail of the negotiations. The necessary compromises still are not all made. Yesterday, Garang told the council that four issues remain unresolved. Given the past record, six weeks is anything but an adequate time to settle outstanding matters.
Yet the encouraging reality is that although no settlement happened by the end of 2003 and sporadic fighting in the south has continued, the two sides carried on talking. Progress has been made. To the initial deal, under which there will be a coalition government in Khartoum while the south will be largely autonomous for a six-year interim period after which it can vote on its future, have come further agreements on wealth-sharing and on disputed regions of Blue Nile, Nuba Mountains and Abyei. Slowly, but surely, both sides have inched forward.
That, though, was as much thanks to continued pressure from the international community as it was to a realization within Sudan that peace and prosperity is not going to come from the barrel of a gun. And sadly, the Arab League failed totally to make any meaningful contribution toward peace in Sudan.
It is now up to Taha and Garang to deliver. The international community demands it and will keep the pressure on to make sure it happens. But peace in the south does not necessarily mean peace for all Sudan. Although the Nairobi resolution calls on the government, the rebels and all armed groups to immediately halt the violence in Darfur, the meeting was almost entirely about the conflict in the south. Nor should the two issues be confused. They are very different. The demand from the Darfur rebels is for better treatment, not secession. What is on offer for the south is therefore no blueprint for Darfur. Nonetheless, it provides real hope for an early settlement there. If Khartoum is willing to do a deal that could result in a southern secession, a deal with rebels who want to stay should not be that difficult.
