Response to Naivasha Protocol by Ahmed Z Rahhal

It is without a doubt that many Sudanese people want a just and lasting peace for their country. A peace that will bring an end to the longest and most horrible civil war in Africa today, that has claimed millions of innocent lives. Peace has become the beloved word for all the Sudanese whose lives have been deeply affected and traumatised by this long conflict.

However, in our desperate search for peace we should ask ourselves this question: what kind of peace are we contemplating? Do we call the mere stopping of the guns peace? or do we just want any kind of peace? However, we all need to see that the guns are silence and stop roaring forever.

It is of significant importance that any peace should be built on justice and doesn’t exclude anybody. Specifically, we want peace that is based on democratic rights, equality, justice and respect for human rights. It is high time after more than twenty years of war and destruction that the Sudanese leaders and politicians should take positive steps towards achieving a workable peace that can embrace all the Sudanese people which will lead to the unity and stability of our country with its diversity. The majority of the people in the country are sceptical and they don’t endorse the Naivasha Agreement. Precisely they do not accept the Bilateral Agreement signed by the government of Sudan (GOS) and Sudan People’s Liberation Army/ Movement (SPLA/M) in Naivasha last May. In my view such peace deal will not meet the aspiration of the majority of the Sudanese people and therefore it be short lived.

We like to see a wider participation of all the Sudanese people in the negotiations to have a say in the future of their country. It’s easy for agreements to be nicely worded and ceremoniously signed, but the implementation will be the real test for its success.

When we contemplate this peace deal, we shouldn’t forget Addis Ababa’s Agreement during Nimierie’s regime, when the nation’s high hopes and expectations were destroyed by the wrong implementation of the Agreement. I ‘m not pessimistic, but we should learn from history and the experience of other nations who have been through similar sort of conflict. Yet they were able to find a better and suitable conflict resolution to their problem. The best example I can give here is South Africa as a model.

How many agreements, during the era of the present regime alone, have been dishonoured? The Khartoum Agreement signed in 1996 was abrogated and Dr. Reack Mashar one of the signatories went back to SPLA/M. The questions were these agreements genuine? In my opinion they were not genuine and this was one of the government’s tactics to buy time and create more divisions among the opposition forces. In order to achieve a comprehensive and workable peace there is a need for honesty, sincerity, commitment and concessions from both negotiating Parties.

Many Sudanese people look at the Naivasha Agreement as a solely deal between the government of Sudan and the SPLA/M , who had divided the wealth of our nation and the power between them, leaving out the majority of other stakeholders. In addition, such peace deal will get the Government out of the hook and will escape the accountability for the grave crimes it had committed since it seized power in June 1989. The evidence for that is the continual denial of the government to allow other Sudanese parties to participate in peace negotiations, which went on for more than two two years since the signing of Machakos Protocol in the neighbouring Kenya. The Government of Sudan and the SPLA/M need to show to the people of the Sudan that the Agreements they had signed are genuine and that there are no hidden agendas, as many of the details are yet to be disclosed. It is always said that the devil is in the details and I hope not.

By and large the government of Sudan and the SPLA (the South) are the main winners in this peace deal. By signing the six Protocols and hope the final Agreement to be signed next August one sees that the Government has cleverly escaped accountability for atrocities it had committed. The people of the South at least has guaranteed the right for self-determination, which might lead to the formation of an independent Southern State in the near future.

As for the people of the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile they are the main losers in this peace deal. While Abeyei was given the right to self-determination. The majority of people in these two disputed areas have shown their disappointment, frustration and dismay and consider the deal below their ambitions and expectations. For the last two decades, the two areas have fought fiercely alongside the SPLA and they gave the SPLA leadership a mandate to negotiate on their behalf. Despite all these sacrifices they were robbed of their rights. Ironically they became part of the deal. At the last minutes hitch the GOS cunningly relinquished their request for the post of the Vice President in th Government of the South in return to be given 55% representation in the government of the two regions. The Movement (SPLA/M) accepted the deal, which most Nuba see it as a sell-off.

The signing of the six Protocols has now become a history but the real challenge will be the implementation. Whether this might lead to a permanent peace or not – only time will tell.