After much arm-twisting, the parties to one of Sudan's conflicts have finally signed a peace "pledge", writes Gamal Nkrumah The signing in the Kenyan capital Nairobi of a pledge to officially end the 21-year-old civil war in southern Sudan was greeted with much international media fanfare. Under the terms of the document, the warring Sudanese parties committed themselves to reaching a comprehensive peace settlement before the end of the year. In an exceptionally rare move designed to throw Sudan into the spotlight, the United Nations Security Council shifted the venue of its meeting half way across the world from New York to Nairobi. This was only the fourth time in its history that the UN Security Council has convened outside its New York headquarters. Significantly, UN Security Council head John Danforth presided over the proceedings. Danforth, the US ambassador to the UN, stressed the symbolism of moving the meeting to the African continent. "[The move] put Sudan and the problems of Sudan at the centre of the world stage," noted Danforth. Danforth, no stranger to Sudanese affairs and a frequent flyer to East Africa, was for a long time the US presidential envoy on Sudan. A tall and imposing man, he masterminded the ongoing reconciliation between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), the country's most powerful and influential armed opposition group. The south Sudan-based SPLA and the Islamist government in Khartoum are more or less at opposite poles of the country's political spectrum. Nevertheless, and with considerable pressure brought to bear on the two sides to conclude a comprehensive peace deal, both the regime and the SPLA accepted the broad outlines of the so-called Naivasha protocols that will govern the sharing of power and wealth between northern and southern Sudan. In the wake of this breakthrough, other disgruntled Sudanese parties, such as the armed opposition groups in Darfur, have made it known that they want to emulate the SPLA's strategy and clinch a similar deal to the one now being finalised between Khartoum and the SPLA. The two sides are currently negotiating the modalities for the implementation of the Naivasha protocols and working on the finishing touches of what is widely regarded as a blueprint for comprehensive political reform. Danforth's intervention was instrumental in arriving at the formulae used to resolve prickly issues such as power and wealth-sharing. And there is much speculation that similar methods could well bear fruit in Darfur and other troubled parts of the country. Visiting the Kenyan capital, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced that the Nairobi meeting would "add weight and impetus to the search for peace in Darfur". He added that Naivasha offers a good basis on which to build a new political dispensation for Sudan as a whole. The Naivasha process, Annan concluded, "will also serve as a basis and a catalyst for the resolution of existing [Sudanese] conflicts." "The only way to avert [the Darfur] tragedy is to expedite the Naivasha process," SPLA leader John Garang concurred. Meanwhile, UN special envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk disclosed that some 7,000 UN troops would be deployed in southern Sudan after the Sudanese government and the SPLA sign a final peace deal. Pronk said that the UN troops will be there to ensure that the two parties respect the terms of the peace agreement. There is some confusion as to whether the UN troops will be deployed mainly along the border separating northern from southern Sudan, or throughout the whole of the war- battered region, an area the size of France, Germany and Italy combined. Still, top international diplomats and officials appear to be optimistic about the outcome of the Sudanese peace deal. "The signing of the peace agreement in the south constitutes a primary key to reaching a comprehensive peace all over Sudan," Pronk said in Khartoum. Human rights organisations, meanwhile, feel let down by what they perceive to be the international community's weakness in tackling events in Darfur. "This resolution is far weaker on Darfur than previous ones, which included deadlines for improving the situation in Darfur and threats of sanctions if they failed to do so," warned Jemera Rone of Human Rights Watch. "I am afraid the government of Sudan will take this as a blank cheque to continue its persecution of civilians in Darfur." "It failed to put words into action," James Dyson of Amnesty International concurred. "It doesn't give any signal to Khartoum that it has to stop arming the Janjaweed militia." The so-called Janjaweed militias operating in war-torn Darfur were originally armed and financed by the Sudanese government in an attempt to quell the armed insurrection by the region's indigenous ethnic groups. Western governments and international human rights organisations have long accused the Janjaweed of instigating violence and instituting a reign of terror in which hapless villagers are systematically tortured, raped and murdered. Fighting intensified this week in parts of Darfur, leading to a disruption of humanitarian relief aid and the exodus of a new wave of refugees. Representatives of the Sudanese government and the two main armed opposition groups in Darfur are now preparing themselves for the resumption of peace talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja. Talks between regime on the one hand, and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) on the other, have long been stalled as both sides refuse to soften their positions on security issues. The Abuja peace talks are sponsored by the African Union (AU), the continental body which groups together 53 states. And a 4,500-strong AU force in Darfur is already making its mark on the battle-ridden region. This week, an AU helicopter rescued humanitarian workers who were desperately trying to flee before an outbreak of fighting. Members of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), Sudan's largest umbrella opposition organisation grouping mainly northern Sudanese political parties and the SPLA, flew to Nairobi as observers. "We are cautiously optimistic," Al-Shafie Khedr, a leading member of the NDA, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "But we will only be truly impressed when a comprehensive Sudanese political settlement is achieved in which Sudan will be a fully- fledged democratic state where all Sudanese people are free to express themselves without fear and have the right to campaign for and associate with any political party of their choice." Farouk Abu Eissa, former head of the Arab Lawyers Union and official spokesman for the NDA, said that while most Sudanese welcomed the enhanced prospects of peace in southern Sudan with open arms, they would also like to see the peace process extended to the rest of the country, and especially Darfur. "More international pressure must be exerted on the Sudanese government," the Cairo-based Abu Eissa told the Weekly. "The Nairobi meeting may be a landmark, but where do we go from there?" he added. Other Sudanese political figures were even more forthright in their criticisms of the Nairobi meeting. "There is nothing new about the Nairobi meeting," Ali Al-Haj, secretary- general of the opposition Islamist Popular Congress Party (PCP), once closely aligned with the Sudanese government, told the Weekly. Now based in Bonn, Germany, Al-Haj is the effective leader of the PCP abroad. He said that to secure lasting peace in Sudan, it will be necessary for all political forces in the country to participate fully in the political process. "Nobody should be left out," he said. "At the moment, key Sudanese political figures, such as PCP leader Hassan Al-Turabi, are still languishing in jail."
