The People: 

Sudan is divided into three main groups. 

¨      The northerners live mainly near the Nile river above 12 degrees of latitude.  They consist of Arab and Nubian groups, Muslim (majority Sunni), and speak Arabic. 

¨      The westerners live mostly in central Sudan and are Muslim.  They emigrated primarily in the 20^th century from West Africa.

¨      The southerners are Nilotic and Sudanic people, who have traditional religious beliefs or are Christian.  The majority of southerners speak Nilotic languages.  Ethnic groups in the south are the Dinka, Nuer, Shiluk, Bari, and the non-Nilotic Azande.

Brief Background:

From 1899-1955 Sudan was under joint British-Egyptian rule, making Sudan a British colony.  In 1956 Sudan became independent, but soon there after broke into a 16-year civil war when the south’s demands for autonomy were rejected.  As Lonely Planet describes, “Ever since, war in the south, flirtations with democracy and military coups have been regular features of the Sudanese political landscape” (“Sudan,” 2007, p. 1).

Sudan North/South Civil War

The north/south Sudan conflict is Africa’s longest-running civil war.  In short, the conflict is between the Muslim north and Christians about south’s independence.  According to BBC, 1.5 million people have died as a result of the conflict (“Q&A Peace,” 2005). 

In 1969 Colonel Jafar Numayri took power of Sudan for 16 years and signed Addis Ababa Agreement to grant the south a measure of autonomy.  From 1972-1983, was the only time Sudan was not enduring a civil war.

But in 1983, war started again.  After pressure from Islamic parties, President Numayri declared the introduction of Sharia, Islamic Law, even in areas where the majority is not Muslim.  The non-Muslim southern population, upset over the lost of their autonomy and Islamic Law, resumed hostilities almost immediately.  Army commander John Garang formed the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/A) which took control of the majority of south Sudan. 

African Christians and rebel groups in the south accuse the government of favoring Arabs and oppose the introduction to Islamic Law.  The SPLA, however, has never clearly stated if they are fighting for independence for the south within Sudan, or outright independence (“Q&A Peace,” 2005).

Darfur Conflict

Darfur is a western, impoverished province of Sudan.  The Darfur conflict is not directly related to the north south civil war.  Tensions have always exists between mostly black African farmers and mostly Arab herders.  They compete over the land because it is the key to money and power. 

Although the rebel black Africans are Muslim, they are non-Arabs.  Like in the south, rebel groups say the government discriminates against non-Arabs.

The United Nations has accused Sudan’s government and the pro-government Arab militias of war crimes against Darfur’s black African population.  In September 2004, the United States called the Darfur conflict a genocide, while the UN still have not used the term.

The conflict began in 2003 when rebel groups started attacking government targets.  In retaliation, the government organized “self-defense militias.”  The government, however, denies any ties with Janjaweed, a pro-government rebel group.  The two main rebel groups are the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem).  These groups disagreed with the May 2006 peace deal with the government and have now merged into the National Redemption Front.  

Two million people have fled their homes.  Many of them say the government aircraft bomb villages and afterwards the Arab Janjaweed follow to slaughter, rape, and steal (“Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur,” 2006, p. 1)

East Sudan Conflict

Around 2005, a third conflict arose in Sudan.  Some say the north-eastern region of Sudan is on the verge of becoming another Darfur conflict.

As in Darfur and the south, Beja and Rashaida communities say the government is discriminating against them in favor of the Arabs.  The government also has strengthen Islam in the area.

According to BBC analyst Julie Flint, the eastern rebels are using guerrilla “hit and run” tactics such as in Darfur.  The government has Arab groups using a “scorched earth policy” (“Q&A: Sudan’s eastern,” 2005, p. 1).  There is concern that a government backlash could result in similar violent results as in Darfur.

Lord Resistance Army (LRA)

The Lord Resistance Army has been fighting Ugandan President Museveni in north Uganda and southern Sudan for the past 20 years.  The LRA want to replace the Uganda constitution with the Bible’s Ten Commandments.  The LRA is known for their brutality in both Uganda and Sudan and for abducting thousands of children and turning them into soldiers (Allen, 2006, p. 1). 

What is the CPA?

The comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) was a ceasefire between the government of Sudan (GOS) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). This peace framework was put together through the process of negotiation by both sides to end a 21-year old civil war that has torn Sudan apart. The goal of this peace process was to establish protocols and agreements that both sides can agree upon and govern themselves peacefully according to these protocols.  The CPA was held in both Naivasha, and Nairobi, Kenya where it was mediated by members of the international community. The comprehensive peace agreement is made up of nine protocols and agreements signed by Sudan Government and SPLM/A.

Who was involved?

The comprehensive peace agreement involved negotiations where both sides were in sessions makings decisions about how to end the civil war between the north and south. The North and South began peace negotiations in 2002 and started to progress quickly by reaching terms by the year 2004. Disagreements between the two sides delayed the negotiation process until January 9, 2005, the day that the peace deal was finalized with a signing ceremony.  Both governments had representatives in Nairobi to establish the peace agreement. These representatives were Dr. John Garang De Mabior, chairman of the SPLM/A, First Vice President Ali Osman Mohammed Taha, from the Government of Sudan, U.S. Special Envoy Senator John Danforth, and Lt. Gen. Lazaro K. Sumbeiywo, who is an ambassador and a Kenyan Special Envoy for the Sudan Peace Process. The interest of both the north and south was well represented in this negotiation because it was vital that both sides come to an agreement.

The negotiation between the north and south involved a small amount of dialogue and a debate at the same time. There were times where both sides couldn’t reach an agreement on an issue such as wealth sharing which was a problem. Sharing oil revenues was one of the issues that both north and south struggled to reach an agreement about how to divide the oil wealth evenly.  The oil is found in the south and it is the major wealth that Sudan has as its natural resource.  The CPA granted southern Sudan six years of self-rule, after which the south will vote in a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan or secede.  In addition, south Sudan will be exempt from Sharia Law. The agreements in this ceasefire were power sharing, wealth sharing, security, energy, health, transportation and other vital parts of government structure.

Dialogue Work and Peace Stability in Sudan

Importance of CPA

The CPA is vital in bringing peace and stability to Sudan as a whole. In order for Sudan to achieve stability and peace, the comprehensive peace agreement needs to be implemented successfully because it is a document that holds protocols and agreements between the North and South. These documents will possibly bring an end to other conflicts occurring inside of Sudan. Ambassador Tom Vraalsen stated that the CPA was a blueprint for all four conflicts in Sudan (T. Vraalsen, personal communication, January 25, 2007). All conflicts in Sudan depend on the effectiveness and the success of the CPA. The second importance of the comprehensive peace agreement is, it allows for the reconstruction and the developmental stage in Sudan to begin. The international community has provided funds and aids to use toward the reconstruction and the developmental process. The CPA also insures the safety and security of the Sudanese people especially in the regions where the people have been oppressed.

Is the CPA working?

The CPA is the first step, not the last, in establishing peace. At the signing of the peace agreement, Dr. Garang encouraged every Sudanese citizen to join forces in collaboration to implement the comprehensive peace agreement. The lost of Dr. Garang brought challenges of the CPA being implemented effectively. Dr. Garang didn’t leave a well-qualify successor who is familiar with his works. Currently the CPA is being slowly implemented with fears that it might fall apart because both governments haven’t put in much effort to implement it at a speedy pace to avoid failure.

CPA Conclusion

The comprehensive peace agreement was a peace deal signed between the government of Sudan and SPLM/A government. Vice-President Ali Osman negotiated this agreement for the Sudan government and Dr. John Garang, the chairman of South Sudan government represented SPLM/A.  This landmark deal was established to end a 21-year old civil war that has torn Sudan apart and have displaced millions of Sudanese all over the world. The CPA is important in bringing stability to Sudan and for future development of infrastructures.

Darfur

The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) was signed in May 2006 with help from the African Union.  The Sudanese government backed the deal, but only one of the three rebel groups signed the agreement.  Although the government agreed to disarm the Janjaweed in the agreement, there is little evidence that it is taken place.  The other two rebel groups that did not sign the DPA split into eight other opposition forces.  This opposition even after the signing of the DPA has led to increased violence.  Ambassador Tom Eric Vraalsen credits the failure of the agreement to the lack of agreement from all rebel groups (T. Vraalsen, personal communication, January 25, 2007).  So in general, peace stability and dialogue has not been established in Darfur.

According to Ambassador Vraalsen the eastern rebel groups are a weak force as of right now (T. Vraalsen, personal communication, January 25, 2007).  The government set up a body to discuss the rebels’ demands, but the body only consists of pro-government representatives, not rebel leaders.  In general dialogue and peace stability has not taken place in East Sudan.

Lord Resistance Army

Peace talks between the LRA and the government in Uganda began in July 2006.  Recently the LRA has said they will not continue discussing peace if they are in south Sudan’s capital, Juba.  The south Sudanese President Salva Kiir also recently said the LRA group was not welcome in Sudan anymore.  LRA asked Kenya or South Africa to be considered as venues and new mediators.  The peace talks are going slow.  After six months in Juba, they have only reached item two on their agenda (“Uganda’s rebels,” 2007).  Meanwhile violence continues throughout this region.

Ambassador Tom Eric Vraalsen's Viewpoint and Our Personal Refelctions

We had the opportunity to meet with Ambassador Tom Eric Vraalsen on January 25, 2007 at Pacific Lutheran University. Vraalsen has worked to bring peace to Sudan for the past twenty years. He stressed the complexity of all four conflicts in Sudan. Sudanese are not just fighting over one issue—it is intergraded conflicts about religion, ethnicity, land use, governmental control, oil rights, and more.

Vraalsen emphasized the importance of dialogue, but said after Sudan’s fifty years of fighting there is no trust and confidence in each other. When asked about the specific dialogue practices in Sudan, he simply answered, “there is no dialogue.” He believes that dialogue practices are fundamental in establishing and upholding peace agreements, but he feels many opposing leaders do not want to talk or even establish peace.

Vraalsen puts much of his hope in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan. He feels that if the CPA failed, all hope for the near future for other agreements would also fall through. As Vraalsen said, “it’s not good news.” He in convinced that we need to work on Sudan peace with all four conflicts. It’s impossible to establish peace in one area without having stability in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, Vraalsen says he knows that everyday is a new day and has passion for his work in Sudan (T. Vraalsen, personal communication, January 25, 2007).

After studying the four Sudan conflicts and dialogue practices, we believe more effort should go into organizing dialogue between conflicting parties. As Vraalsen explained, dialogue is not happening and as we see with the Darfur agreement, the government and all rebels groups must agree to the agreement or it will fail. In the Balkan conflicts, dialogue is used not only at the national government level, but also with the public and everyday citizens. Nansen Dialogue centers bring in groups of teachers, local leaders, business professionals and other individuals to participate in dialogue at a lower level. As a result, the public is questioning its government, which assists with peace talks between the national leaders. Even if the CPA was fully established, dialogue practices would still be effective in the area to help communities be put back together.

The Sudan conflicts will not be solved overnight. Even then, the peace agreements are the first phases towards establishing peace. We may not see stability in our lifetimes, but we must always have hope for the region. Every step towards peace is an accomplishment.