The Sudanese government and the country's chief armed opposition group signed three peace protocols in Kenya last week. But how long will the party in Sudan last, wonders Gamal Nkrumah At last the Sudanese are putting their heads together. Or are they? Last Wednesday, three protocols were signed between the Sudanese government and the country's largest armed opposition group, the Sudan's People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The two sides hailed the signing of the protocols as a landmark event. Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, who signed the protocols on behalf of the Sudanese government, flew back to Khartoum immediately after the signing ceremony. "We have reached the crest of the last hill in our tortuous ascent to the heights of peace. There are no more hills ahead of us," SPLA leader John Garang said after the signing ceremony. Simba Lodge, in the heart of Hell's Gate National Park, Naivasha, and surrounded by acacia forests and a freshwater lake fringed by papyrus, proved to be the perfect setting for the talks. But the devil is in the detail, and many difficult tasks lie ahead. "Both of you will need to sell your agreement to the Sudanese people and mobilise support," Norwegian Development Minister Hilde Frafjord Johnson told Taha and Garang. There was a general air of jubilation in Khartoum. Sudanese papers are ecstatic and full of expectation. The horrors of war were recounted in much detail. "We are tired of killing, displacing, tormenting, destroying and burning ... we irrigated our land with blood more than with water and we excelled in war and in killing more than in agriculture and work. We built a school and then destroyed 100 schools. We opened a hospital and destroyed 10 hospitals," the Sudanese daily Al-Rai Al-Aam lamented. The flag of the SPLA was raised in Khartoum for the first time and the city prepares to receive Garang who has not set foot in the Sudanese capital for the past 23 years. The SPLA will soon open offices in Khartoum, Juba and other Sudanese cities and undertake a special recruitment drive for enlisting northern Sudanese in its membership list. The Sudanese government and the SPLA hailed the signing of the protocols as a great step forward in the country's quest for unity and political stability. Even though the two sides will hold fresh talks on 22 June to flesh out a comprehensive peace accord, the euphoric welcome of the signing by both the Sudanese government and the SPLA belies underlying tensions. Grave doubts surrounding the implementation of the peace accords abound. A peace deal is no foregone conclusion. Many Sudanese political observers are sceptical about the nature of the Sudanese peace agreement. The chief grievance is that the views and interests of non-military political forces in the country were not taken into account, and that they are not properly represented in the new political set up. Under the new power-sharing accords, 52 per cent of federal government posts, the executive and the legislature are to be held by the Sudanese government representing northern Sudan. The Sudanese northern opposition parties are to have 14 per cent collectively. The SPLA representing the south is to have 28 per cent and other southern opposition groups collectively have six per cent. The people of the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile are to have a mere two per cent. The Sudanese government and the SPLA also reached a power-sharing agreement concerning the three regions -- 55 per cent of power to the government and 45 per cent to the SPLA, with governorship switching between North and South every 18 months. On the national level, the Sudanese government is to have 70 per cent of the executive and legislature in northern Sudan, with 10 per cent reserved for the SPLA and 20 per cent for other political forces including the Umma Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. In southern Sudan, the SPLA will have 70 per cent of the legislative, federal and local government posts, while the Sudanese government would have 10 per cent and other political parties, including non-SPLA southern groups, 20 per cent. Parliamentary, presidential and local government elections will be held during the third year after the signing of a final comprehensive peace deal widely expected to be clinched at the end of the rainy season in September. All political groups are expected to participate in these elections, which will determine the success of the implementation of the peace accords. A major concern, however, is that the new political arrangement effectively divides the country into two countries administered separately -- two different monetary systems, two diametrically-opposed legal systems, and legislatures that will inevitably reflect the conflicting ideological orientation of the government-controlled north and the SPLA-run south. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the umbrella opposition organisation grouping the SPLA and other mainly northern Sudanese opposition parties, insists that the Naivasha accords be utilised to introduce radical political reform. If not properly implemented, the peace accords will set the seal on the division of the country and impede the process of democracy both in the north and south of Sudan. "The NDA officially welcomed the signing of the three protocols as a step in the right direction. These agreements facilitate the signing of a comprehensive peace deal. But for the successful implementation of any peace agreement, there must be proper consultations and sustained dialogue with other political forces in the country -- both northern and southern," Farouk Abu Eissa, the former head of the Cairo-based Arab Lawyers Union and official spokesman for the NDA told Al- Ahram Weekly. "The agreement is restricted to the Sudanese government and the SPLA. Other political forces have been excluded and have lost out, thereby compromising the political reform process in the country. It implies that the armed groups have a bigger say in the running of the country while the non-violent political groups are marginalised. It is a dangerous precedent. It is arbitrary, unrealistic and unfair," Abu Eissa warned. "Still better than nothing," he said. "We wanted complete change." He explained that a bill of rights guaranteeing individual freedoms and protecting human rights must be promulgated and strictly adhered to. He also said that many of the current laws that dictate the terms of political participation in Sudan must now to be abrogated. The government must not monopolise power, or share it exclusively with the SPLA in the south. International observers are equally ambiguous. "These protocols, together with the previously agreed documents, provide the political framework for a comprehensive peace agreement," read a joint statement by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. The Americans were no less equivocal. "We commend both sides for their commitment to peace and urge them to move more quickly to work out details of a formal ceasefire and related security arrangements," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell. But Powell warned that, "Sudan will not be at peace until the problem of Darfur is resolved." Still, White House spokesman Scott McClellan described the signing of the protocols as a "unique opportunity for a united Sudan to cast aside the baggage of its troubled past and embark on a course of stability, prosperity and reconciliation." McClellan, however, alluded to the difficulties inherent in the implementation of the Sudanese peace accord. "We call upon the leadership of both sides to prepare their people in earnest for the commitment agreed in all of the protocols which are the keys to lasting peace and preserving the unity of Sudan," McClellan added. The Sudanese peace talks took place under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD), a regional organisation which groups seven East African countries, including Sudan. But Western powers spearheaded by the United States and including countries like Britain, Italy, Switzerland and Norway have been instrumental in persuading the Sudanese government and the SPLA to sign both the Naivasha and the Machakos protocols. Under the Machakos protocols signed in Kenya in July 2002 by the SPLA and the Sudanese government, the southern Sudanese will enjoy a six-year period of self- rule before deciding in a referendum whether to secede or remain part of Sudan. Under the Naivasha protocols, Khartoum would be subjected to Sharia law during the interim period -- reluctantly conceded by the SPLA. There are an estimated two million southern Sudanese in Khartoum, mainly displaced people living in deplorable conditions in makeshift camps and shantytowns surrounding the city. Most of these people are non-Muslim, but in the past they have been victims of controversial Sharia laws such as the amputation of limbs for theft and public lashings for drinking alcohol and for indecent behaviour. Human rights activists suspect that they have been victimised because they are poor and powerless. These people provide the backbone of political support for the SPLA in the north of the country. "A redefinition of the Sudanese government's powers and the inclusion of non-armed opposition groups in the decision-making process is the only guarantee to political stability in Sudan," Abu Eissa said. The Naivasha protocols, however, do not deal with the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan's war-torn province of Darfur where some two million people need urgent relief assistance.
