Sudan’s Crisis: incremental versus a holistic approach

[Elisabeth Janaina]

Sudan’s Crisis: incremental versus a holistic approach



By Ahmed Hussain Adam

May 30, 2013 - The political crisis of Sudan has reached its most
precarious phase with complete paralyses of the impetus leadership
that lost its moral authority, legitimacy and human dignity. The
crisis proves vividly that the current Sudanese state is too
dysfunctional and weak to survive. The empirical evidence supports
that the status quo will never persist according to law of nature and
human experience of history; the conditions are not only ripe for
change but also the incoming leadership is eager to position Sudan to
be a productive part of international community to enhance the world
peace, security and prosperity.

The question is whether the change will be a peaceful or by force. If
the leadership of revolutionary change embraces the values of justice,
freedom and democracy, then certainly revolution can lay the
foundation for a democratic and prosperous country. In this context,
let us remember the lessons of the American Revolution. Given that the
entire Sudan is marginalized by ruling elites in Khartoum that are
detached from the rest of the country, the unfolding armed struggle of
the Sudanese people spearheaded by the revolutionaries in Darfur,
Kurdofan Blue Nile and perhaps the East of Sudan has been expanded
effectively to submerge the so-called Hamdi Triangle (the detached
ruling elites triangle). The military confrontations between the
Bashir’s regime and the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) has already
extended to Umrowaba City (around 300 kilometer to the
Capital-Khartoum) in north Kurdofan and SRF is hovering around the
main artery that link Khartoum to the West of the country.

The recent statements of the SRF’s leaders indicated that their plan
to overtake the capital is in its final stage, it is do or die.
Bashir‘s recent statement made in May 27 in which he ruled out the
option for a negotiated settlement, it seems that SRF will continue
its military operations and advancement into the Capital City
-Khartoum, in a similar way that the Justice and Equality Movements
(JEM) did in May 2008.

Relatively, the current national, regional, and international
circumstances are favoring the SRF than in May 2008. Recent reports
show that Bashir’s regime is experiencing a critical internal
power-struggle, which resulted in some serious divisions within its
core constituencies including security, military and political
ideologues. Most importantly, the recent military confrontations
demonstrated that the Sudanese army and the government’s militias are
very disillusioned and reluctant to fight. That is why President
Idriss Deby of Chad deployed his army in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan
to rescue his fellow dictator from sinking; however the load is too
heavy, it will sink both of them. It worthy to mention that the
ongoing engagement of the Chadian army in the military operations on
the side of the genocidal regime of Bashir constitutes a clear
volition of the founding provisions and principles of the United
Nations (UN). Regrettably, the international community has been mute
about it. The good side was that some elements in the Sudanese Armed
Forces refused to fight alongside with the Chadian forces against
their fellow countrymen.

It is obvious that the current phase of the military confrontations
between the regime’s forces and those of the SRF will continue, unless
there is a swift intervention by a competent, willing, and strong
third party to bring the Sudanese stakeholders together to negotiate a
national solution for the entire country.

The recent confrontation between the SRF’s forces and the regime’s
forces suggests strongly that the international incremental policies
on Sudan have failed to bring about a just, comprehensive and lasting
peace in Sudan. For the unfolding conflicts to conclude peacefully the
international community should abandon its current piece-meal strategy
and adopt a comprehensive approach towards the Sudanese conflicts or
the conflicting parties will continue the current fighting. However,
in case Iran and Hezbollah continue to involve themselves in the
conflicts, the last scenario not only leads to the collapse of the
Sudanese State but also undermines the regional and international
peace and security.

There are many valid reasons and factors which suggest the urgency of
calling for an immediate and robust international third party
intervention with a clear mandate of a holistic approach to facilitate
a comprehensive, inclusive, peaceful and democratic transition in
Sudan. The following are the main factors:

First, it is obvious that the regime cannot win these multiple wars
because the balance of power on the ground isn’t in the regime’s
favor. Furthermore, the economic and financial hardships have pushed
the populations of the urban areas to revolt against the regime and
join force with the revolutionary agents of change.

Second, the SRF founding documents, including the New Dawn Charter
(NDC) which signed by the majority of the civil opposition parties and
groups in January 5, 2013, have enshrined the peaceful democratic
change or peaceful uprising as a first option for change in Sudan.

Third, the piecemeal approach has produced many flawed agreements
which have been fueling and exacerbating the ongoing conflicts by
killing and displacing thousands of innocent civilians. For instance,
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), Darfur Peace Agreement
2006(DPA), the East Peace Agreement (EPA) and the Darfur Doha Document
for Peace in Darfur (DDPD), have failed to address the root causes of
the conflicts, realize democratic and structural transformation, and
or even to shake up the status quo. On the contrary, the regime has
exploited these agreements to advance its genocidal campaigns against
the innocent civilians.

Fourth, the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts are similar on their
national dimensions. Therefore, the ongoing conflicts cannot be
resolved without addressing the national crisis and re-structure the
center. President Thabo Mbeki (the Head of the African Union High
–Level Panel on Darfur) in his Report on the Darfur Conflict in
October 2009, he correctly defined the Conflict in Darfur when he
stated that, "the crisis in Darfur is a manifestation of the Sudan’s
inequitable distribution of wealth and power, and the Panel therefore,
defines it as “Sudan’s crisis in Darfur”.

I would suggest that there should be an internationally sponsored
process on Sudan, supported by the US and the UN Security Council,
comprising of two phases to facilitate and assist on devising an exit
strategy to end the current deadlock in Sudan. Phase one should bring
together the conflicting parties on the ground to discuss the
humanitarian assistance, security, and protection of civilians in
Darfur, South Kurdofan and Blue Nile. The protection and well-being of
the civilian populations in the conflict regions should be given the
priority. Furthermore, the conflicting parties should also discuss a
clear road map that leads to a new democratic and managed transition.

Phase two should bring together the stakeholders to a national and an
inclusive all Sudan conference to discuss a just, comprehensive and
lasting peace in Darfur, South Kurdofan and Blue Nile. The conference
also should discuss the basis of comprehensive peace including
constitution, governance, Identity, state and religion, the relation
between the peripheries and the center and strategic relationship
between Sudan and South Sudan. The proposed conference should form a
national transitional government with a clear mandate and program for
a managed transition that shall realize a lasting and comprehensive
peace all over Sudan as well as a democratic transformation in Sudan.

The US and other key players of the international community should
facilitate a new transition in Sudan. The African Union (AU) should
take the lead in building a consensus in Africa and beyond for a new
national, peaceful and managed transition in Sudan. The State of Qatar
should recognize that the Doha Peace Document is a failure which has
been inflicting a lot of suffering on the people of Darfur. Therefore,
Qatar should support the inevitable change in Sudan just like the way
it involved in Libya, Egypt and currently in Syria.

The NCP has to decide whether to be a part of the solution by allowing
a peaceful change or to continue in being a part of the problem and
bears the consequences of such intransigence. This is the only way
that a revolutionary change will be averted and a peaceful and
meaningful change will be materialized in Sudan.

Ahmed Hussain Adam is a Visiting Scholar and Co-Chair of the Two
Sudans Forum at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights (ISHR),
Columbia University in the City of New York. He can be reached at:
aa3...@columbia.edu