Summary: Is There an End to Civil War in Sudan?
Martin Pabst
Despite three decades of civil war, leaving 2 million dead, four million displaced, and 500,000 seeking refuge in neighboring countries, Sudan - being no actor in the East-West conflict - has received but little attention from the international community. Though ethnicity and religion did play a part in the conflict, the commonly held opinion of North Sudanese Arab Muslims suppressing secessionist black-African Christians in the South misses the point.
The central motives for the armed conflicts in Sudan were the compelling search for identity within an inhomogeneous state, power struggles between vying elites, vital material interests (land, water, crude oil) as well as the traditional marginalization of peripheral regions. One cannot label it a secession conflict either, since the rebels of the South have shifted between autonomy, federalism, and independence for decades. The strife for independence resulted from mistrust against the Khartoum government, rather than from unifying nationalism.
When Sudan, Africa’s largest state, gained independence in 1956 the South immediately demanded equal status of languages, religions, and cultures, all of which were denied by the North. The Southern People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) fought the Khartoum government receiving varying support. After the end of the Cold War Washington stopped supporting the government. Sudan’s increasing involvement in international terrorism eventually prompted the USA in 1993 to list the country among the rogue states and to impose sanctions.
The present peace talks are primarily due to US pressure on the Khartoum government. In view of growing Islamic terrorism, Washington has a vital interest in moderate Sudanese politics. While Christian activists are drawing US attention to human rights violations against the Christian population, US companies are interested in the newly established oil business.
A peace settlement at the negotiation table might open a chance to prevent the regionally as well as internationally unwanted separation of the South, which might entail further conflicts. The Machakos protocol signed on 20 July 2002 after five weeks of negotiations is no peace agreement but a broad framework agreement that grants the South the right to self-determination, including the option of gaining independence, while allowing the North to continue practicing Sharia law. A final decision on the future of Southern Sudan is to be made in six years from now.
Whether war fatigue on both sides will suffice to arrive at a lasting peace settlement is hard to tell. Too many agreements have been violated in the past and Colin Powell’s personal involvement in the peace talks will hardly be enough to guarantee that this time around the agreements will last.
Ihre Meinung/your opinion/votre opinion:
