Peace

Human Rights

Economic Justice

What is QCEA?

Structure & Staff

Contact Us

Take Action

Subscriptions and Membership

Donate

Study Tours

Internships

Around Europe

Briefing Papers

Occasional Papers and other publications

Ordering Printed Copies

History

Meeting Rooms Available

The Implementation of the Peace Agreement in the Sudan

Report of a Seminar at the European Parliament on 7 November 2005
Hosted by the Intergroup on Peace Initiatives and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

In his introduction, Johan Van Hecke, in thanking all participants for coming to the seminar, stressed the importance of the Sudan’ Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by reflecting that ‘Sudan’s north-south war has lasted most of the nearly five decades since independence in 1956. The war was about central power and the country’s natural resources, water and oil. It was aggravated by racial differences, and by religious division between the Muslim north and the Christian South.’

He further reflected on the major changes this peace agreement brings, turning Sudan into a secular state and giving the South a great deal of autonomy.

He also reminded the participants that Sudan would not see sustainable peace without peace in Darfur. But, he further pointed out that at the same time, ‘the CPA could serve as a blueprint for addressing the Darfur issue. Only when the population of Darfur will also have some benefits on the level of power sharing, there can be a structural solution for Darfur.’

The first speaker, Bernaba Benjamin, Sudanese SPLM Minister of State – Ministry of International Cooperation gave an outline of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which has 6 main sections covering the following:

The Makachos Protocol (which includes the separation of State and religion, limits the application of Sharia law to the Islamic North of the country, establishes an Interim Government of National Unity for 6 years and provides for the issue of self-determination/independence of South Sudan to be resolved at the end of that period.
Power Sharing
Wealth Sharing
Resolution of the Abyei Conflict
Resolution of the Conflict in Two States of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
Security Arrangements

The text can be found at http://www.issafrica.org/AF/profiles/Sudan/darfur/compax/

The second speaker, H.E. Dr. Ali Yousif Ahmed, Ambassador of Sudan to the EU, in his contribution to the debate acknowledged that lasting peace must be just peace. He said that as a life-long diplomat his dream was always of peace in Sudan.

With reference to Darfur, he underlined that the CPA was one of the instruments which would allow peace in Darfur to be achieved.

He paid tribute to the EU for being one of the first international actors to support the CPA by agreeing a Country Strategy Paper in January 2005, only a few days after the signing of the CPA.

In the discussion which followed there was reference, however, to the financial resources which have been identified for Sudan were so slow in coming through. There was a clear call not to hold back funding for Sudan because of the situation in Darfur. This was seen as counter-productive as it would remove some of the incentives of sustaining peace in those parts of Sudan covered by the CPA which in turn would lead to less likelihood of establishing peace in Darfur.

There was also reference to the brain drain suffered by Sudan and the need to develop civil society and administrative capacity in such a way as to attract back Sudanese citizens now living in other parts of the world. To an extent, this is a question of making a return home attractive to people who have become used to western life-styles and incomes.

Carl Schlyter opened the panel by asking: ‘How can people have more to lose by using a weapon than by supporting peace’.

Gosia Lachut, Desk Officer in the Directorate General for Development for the Sudan began by reflecting on the fact that cooperation between the EU and Sudan had been suspended until the CPA had been agreed and that the Country Strategy Paper (for the period 2005 to 2007 was agreed very quickly after the agreement of the CPA. The full text of the Country Strategy Paper is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/print/sd_csp_en.pdf#zoom=100. The cooperation between the EU and Sudan places significant emphasis on the implementation of the CPA and on the issue of Dafur.

Ms Lachut also pointed to the fact that Sudan is a country rich in culture, religion, and ethnicity but it is also a country rich in oil and water. This also provides potential for building a long-lasting peace.

Christina Manahl from the Council of the European Union Task Force Africa was clear that the Government of National Unity has a very clear responsibility with regard to Darfur. Whilst the EU is currently supporting the AU peace keeping mission in Darfur, it has to be recognised that this is not a long term solution and that a long term solution must come from within Sudan.

He went on to say that it was important for Sudan to be seen both internally and externally as one country at the intersection of the African and Arab world and not a country in 2 parts. In this context, the CPA must be seen as an immense achievement.

He finally went on to stress the international community’s responsibility to assist on a political, development and humanitarian level in ensuring lasting peace in Sudan.

Alba Lamberti of the International Crisis Group (ICG) took a less optimistic view of the peace process in Sudan. She said that ICG’s assessment was that the implementation was slow and lacked sustained international engagement from key partners including the EU. She identified 3 key challenges:

• The strength and weaknesses of the 2 main parties and their capacity and political will to move forward
• The need to nationalise the CPA. As it stands, it is a good deal for Southern Sudan and it is a good deal for parts of Northern Sudan but it leaves out other parts of the country. If that is not addressed this could fuel other conflicts.
• The lack of enforcement mechanisms in the CPA itself, which in turn leads to very slow implementation.

Some of the key problems include the lack of political will of the NCP for whom the CPA represents a loss of power, potentially of national unity and control over the southern Sudan resources. And whilst the SPLA/SPLM has made major changes in its own approach, this reflects the fact that they must have the greatest interest in making the CPA work. The CPA continues to be threatened by militias and by disagreements over oil issues – some of which relate to the definition of the border between North and South Sudan.

Further information on the ICG analysis of the situation in Sudan can be found at http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1230&l=1

Finally, Paul Taylor from UN Habitat gave a snapshot of the situation on the ground. He indicated that there were 4 million people displaced in Sudan. 40% of this population is in Khartoum. There are 1.8 million people in unauthorised settlement. Some of these are being demolished and some 250 000 people are already affected by this programme. They are being moved to more remote areas without shelter. The demolition includes infrastructure such as schools.

There is an assumption that most of those internally displaced people who are from the South but now in the North want to return. However, many of them were born in the North and are used to an urban lifestyle. Moving back to a more rural life in the South where they may have no access to land or housing is not necessarily and easy or even feasible option. Some lack the resources to go back south even if they want to. A recent International Organisation for Migration (IOM) survey showed that 56% of those surveyed did not want to go back at all or not yet.

There is also a major logistics problem with so many internally displaced people on the move. Many are the young, the old, the poor and those with large families. Local authorities in the areas to which they are returning don’t have the capacity to reintegrate them not least because there is a long tradition of centralised planning with local authorities lacking capacity to plan or act.

The MEPs present expressed their commitment to continue the dialogue and to continue to give support to the implementation of the CPA and to long term sustainable peace in Sudan.

Return to top of page

Return to the Intergroup Main Page