An opportunity for political deal in Sudan

An initial assessment of Sudan-South Sudan conflict points to a possibility of further escalation of tension between these two countries, leading to a proxy battle which can eventually turn into an all-out war, but it seems that a potential disaster is always accompanied by a potential opportunity that needs to be grasped.
Despite the military stalemate within Sudan, rebel fighting in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile provinces and complete freezing of agreements between Khartoum and Juba — that call for cooperation and mutual interdependence between the two countries — there is a possibility that these very negative developments may provide a window of opportunity.
The economic situation will put pressure on the need to talk politics and garner the necessary political will to get South Sudanese oil flowing again through downstream facilities in Sudan in order to reach oil markets and ease economic hardship within the two countries.
Moreover, the inability of the Sudanese armed forces to dislodge the rebels from their strongholds in the Nuba Mountains in Southern Kordofan in particular, coupled with the inability of the rebels to maintain a foothold in the lowlands in Southern Kordofan, point to that military stalemate similar to the one created during the long civil war. That was only broken through the peace deal with rebels, which led to the separation of South Sudan. Their fellow rebels in Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile continue to carry arms to this day.
There is no way to avoid the link between what is going in each country and the bilateral relations between the two Sudans. Seeking a domestic political settlement will reflect on relations across the border and the approach — one of reciprocity, not animosity.
Last Friday, in a meeting before the National Congress, the ruling party, President Omar Bashir said that the rebels who call for the toppling of the regime and a separate state and religion should present their program to the Sudanese people to acquire a mandate to do whatever they like.
That is significant because it emphasizes the role of the ballot box as a peaceful means for change and a source of political legitimacy.
The last civil war continued for two decades. It was only put to rest through political settlement, as total defeat and total victory were hard to come by.
Sadly enough, the window for political settlement was opened for two weeks after the outbreak of the new war in Southern Kordofan in June 2011. It was abruptly closed again under the pretext that rebels had to be disarmed first before joining the political club as a party.
Since the violence broke out, 21 months have passed. The longer that violence continues, the more likely that old issues will subside while new issues force themselves on the scene, most notably the humanitarian crisis and the need to feed and take care of the victims.
The need for a settlement is not only a political expediency, but also a way to learn from previous experience and build on those to avoid paying a higher and heavier price later. In 1988, a deal was concluded between the southern rebels, then led by John Garang, and the leading political party of the time, the Democratic Unionist, during which a parliamentary regime guaranteed the unity of Sudan. Yet some political parties dragged their feet out of sheer spite.
Eventually, Bashir made his 1989 coup, which in turn blocked that agreement. After years of intensified war that put the rebels on the defensive, rationale prevailed and a peace deal was sealed in 2005. The political price — the separation of South Sudan — was high.
The price Sudan needs to pay this time is higher than it could have been two years when the political opportunity arose. Back then, it was only one group, which has since formed a political alliance with the Darfur rebels. This complicates the situation and increases the urgency to conclude political deals today rather than tomorrow.

asidahmed@hotmail.com