Hope, Skepticism Greet Historic Peace Accord in Sudan
|
WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 10 (OneWorld) - Although Sunday's signing in Kenya of a final peace accord marks a formal end to 21 years of war between the government of Sudan and southern rebels, human rights groups and other observers are growing more worried about the continued violence in the western region of Darfur.
They are also concerned that both major parties to the peace accord, the National Islamic Front (NIF) government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLA/M), may not fully comply, even though a ceasefire negotiated in 2002 has held up remarkably well since then. "A major cause of the conflicts that have shattered the lives of so many Sudanese has been injustice and marginalization," said Kolawole Olaniyan, director Amnesty International's Africa Program. "Unless these basic human rights concerns are seriously addressed, it will be difficult to have a lasting peace." "The signing of this peace deal could mark a historic moment for Sudan by bringing to an end decades of violence and devastation in Africa's largest country," said Washington-based Africa Action in response to the signing. "But this peace agreement does not cover the ongoing conflict in Darfur, western Sudan, where the Sudanese government continues to wage a campaign of genocide against civilians from three ethnic groups," the group stated. Indeed, on the eve of the signing--which was witnessed by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell among many other dignitaries--UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, warned that the situation in Darfur was deteriorating. Between 70,000 and 300,000 mostly African Muslims are estimated to have died over the past two years, violence is still spreading throughout the region despite the presence of about 1,000 African Union (AU) monitoring force. The Khartoum-SPLA/M conflict, which is believed to have killed more than two million people since 1983, pitted an Arab- and Muslim-dominated government against an African population consisting mainly of Christians and animists. The war, which began after the government decreed that Islamic law should apply to the entire country, centered in areas where Khartoum sold oil concessions to foreign companies. The Darfur conflict, on the other hand, has pitted the government and Arab militias--the Janjaweed--allied with it, against two rebel groups consisting mainly of three African ethnic groups who are also Muslim. The counter-insurgency campaign waged by Khartoum and the militias has been directed primarily against the settled African population. More than 1.6 million Africans have been forced from their homes, either across the border into Chad, or into camps controlled by the government, or into remote areas inaccessible to relief groups. Last July, the U.S. Congress approved a resolution accusing the Khartoum regime of "genocide," a characterization officially endorsed by the Bush administration two months later. The UN Security Council has passed two resolutions calling on all sides to cease hostilities, for the government to disarm the Janjaweed, and to authorize an AU observer mission of up to 3500 troops. It also sent a special mission to determine whether war crimes are being committed. The mission is expected to make a preliminary report this month, the Bush administration has suggested that the report may lead to a push to impose economic sanctions against Khartoum if it does not comply with earlier resolutions. Annan reported Friday that government forces, after suspending joint operations with the Janjaweed last summer, had resumed them in December. Washington--which, along with Britain, Norway, and neighboring African states played a mediating role in the peace talks--has been pressing for a final agreement before hostilities broke out in Darfur, in part because the government is seen as an important potential ally in the "war on terrorism." Khartoum offered safe haven to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. The U.S. has also argued that a final north-south accord will create greater pressure on Khartoum to settle in Darfur and, with other restive minorities around the country that have been alienated by the NIF's fundamentalism and Arab chauvinism. At the same time, the Bush administration has said it will not normalize relations with Khartoum unless it halts the violence in Darfur. Under the agreement signed Sunday, earnings from Sudan's growing oil production are to be split 50:50 between Khartoum and the south. The south will also be granted autonomy, including exemption from Islamic law, for six years during which time it may hold a referendum on secession. SPLM leaders will also take senior positions in the government. The accord, however, does not cover the rights of other minority groups in Sudan, including groups in Darfur. Powell himself indicated some skepticism about the accord's future after the signing. "This is a promising day for the people of Sudan, but only if today's promises are kept," he said. That skepticism is widely shared by other observers, who stressed that the agreement at this point was simply a document whose potential remains to be fulfilled. "But most indicators point towards a different outcome," according to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG). "The government is signing partially to deflect pressure over Darfur. It is likely to use resulting goodwill to increase attacks there and undermine opposition elsewhere in the country." "The government's objective is to maintain power," said John Prendergast, the ICG's special adviser on Sudan who served in the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton. "Supporters of the peace deal need to understand it pursues contradictory approaches in different regions with different opposition elements to confuse outsiders and defuse criticism." That analysis was echoed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) which called the final accord "an important step," but pointed to the ongoing scorched-earth campaign of "ethnic cleansing" by the government and its allies in Darfur as reason for skepticism that the government was truly committed to providing security for all Sudanese. "Even as the Naivasha agreement (named for the Kenyan town where the negotiations have taken place) is being celebrated in the South, people are being raped and burned out of their homes in Darfur," said Peter Takirambudde, director of HRW's Africa program. "The Security Council must clearly send Sudan the message that there will be no impunity for crimes of this magnitude." Africa Action--a grassroots group which led the anti-apartheid campaign in the U.S.--also stressed that Washington must focus on Darfur. "The U.S. must not allow itself to be diverted by the north-south deal," said Africa Action director Salih Booker. "It must concern itself with the fate of all of the marginalized people of Sudan, otherwise peace will continue to elude Africa's largest nation." |
Printable version
Back to top
