The International
Community Expected Role in Sudan
By Abdulrahman
Alghali*
There are many
international relations' academic theories. Since the fall of bipolarity system
and its symbol Berlin Wall, a lot of literature was written: from Fukuyama's The
End of History, to S. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, to Eisuke
Sakakibara's intelligent article The End of Progressivism.
Whatever the motives of
countries and international and regional organizations, there are now a set of
governing norms and values in international relations. National and regional
stability, respect of human rights, the countries' mutual interests and the
global safety and security issues are at the top. Furthermore, huge conceptual
developments took place: the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine eroded the
concept of state sovereignty. Likewise did the sever human rights abuses and
intra- state conflicts to the concepts of sovereignty and international peace
and security.
Sudan case seems to be
unique in the international response patterns. Since its coming in 1989, the
so- called Islamic regime in Sudan broke all the norms, nationally, regionally
and internationally. At national level, the regime step to power by power,
committed unprecedented violence against all its own population sectors
vertically and horizontally :harassment of political opponents, religious persecution
of non-Muslims and raging holly war against them, oppression of women,
ethnocentrism policies against non- Arabs, scorched land policies, counter-
insurgency tactics and the resulted inter-tribal wars and so on.
Regionally,
destabilization attempts and intervention in the internal affairs of all its
neighbors, e.g. Mubarak of Egypt assassination attempt in 1995, the attempts to
overthrow regimes of Eretria, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya and so on. The gathering of
extremists and the safe heaven offered to them.
The poisonous fruits of
those policies are: more than quarter a million dead in Darfur, 3 million
displaced and smaller numbers of mortality and IDPs in the two regions (Nuba
Mountains and South Blue Nile). Under this regime Sudan attains the best scores
in the fields of failed states, corruption and human rights violations.
This record qualified
the regime to receive more than 60 UNSC resolutions under chapter 7, ICC indictments
and regional and individual countries sanctions. All the above mentioned
international responses were and are welcomed by people of Sudan, but I would
like here to focus on the empty side of the bottle.
For a long time this
regime has invested successfully on the fears and rapacity of some
international powerful actors. For instance its relations with China, Russia
and Iran are well known. For its U.S relations, the regime gave the U.S
administration indispensible support on its counter- terrorism campaign. They
provided the American security institutions with valuable information about the
militant Islamic movements and sometimes they penetrated – as some skepticals
believe – and spied those movements for the sake of that cooperation. On the
other hand the administration(s) rewarded the regime and did many services for
it. They pressured the Chadian government to reconcile with Sudan and to
abandon supporting Darfurian armed movements. They pressured the latter to sign
Abuja agreement and later they pressured some of them to sign Doha agreement.
Now they are pressuring the non- signatories to join the agreement. Also they
pressured government of South Sudan to reach agreements with Sudan and to pay
more than 3 U.S billion $ as a compensation of cessation. They pressured GOSS
to stop supporting the S.R.F.
Many of these efforts may be done in good will and
faith, but they were done in the absence of a holistic approach and within a
tactical context. The U.S declared policy towards Sudan is that U.S support
regime reform not regime change ( Princeton Lyman, US Special Envoy to Sudan Asharq
Al-Awsat newspaper, Saturday, 3 Dec,
2011). The regime received happily these sings as green light to continue its
oppressive policies internally using all means; indiscriminate aerial
bombardment, use of irregular unruly militias in wars zones, shooting
demonstrators, extra- judiciary imprisonment for opponents. Regionally, it
continued its old riotous policies: Intervention in domestic affairs of its
neighbors (Egypt and Libya), the involvement in arm trafficking to war areas in
the region and so on. They enjoy the rhetoric condemnations because they serve
double functions to the regime: since they are verbal they can make no harm,
and on the other side they portrait the regime as patriotic and independent
regime for the internal public opinion. Power is the ideology of the regime not
Islam!
Now, to many Sudanese the genuineness and seriousness of the
international community about Sudan is hanging in the balance.
·
The
UN 3 months plan signed by former UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Anan and the
GOS (July 2004), the role of UNAMID specially after the frank and shocking
criticism of Ms. Aicha Elbasri the former spokesperson
of the mission (Foreign Policy, April 9, 2014), the 3 months ultimatum
of the UNSC resolution 2046 and many disappointing incidents had questioned
both effectiveness and credibility of the international community's policies
towards the regime.
Nobody in Sudan asks others to do his job, but in order to
stop civil wars and human rights violations, to realize peace and stability in
the region, to counter extremism, to achieve democratization and citizenship
equality in Sudan and to re- gain Sudan to international community the
international community should do the following:
·
Stop
messaging negative signal to the regime that regime change means chaos. There
are so many successful examples of peaceful negotiated transition.
·
State
that Sudanese problem is a typical third world type of intra-state conflict
with the same root causes: the question of identity, the equitable share of
wealth and the equality in power sharing and balanced participation. None of
these issues can be resolved in the absence of Democracy. Despotic regime while
denying other cultures cannot recognize cultural diversity. It always insists
in its central exclusive identity and tries to impose it forcefully.
Dictatorship by its nature can neither fulfill the conditions of
decentralization especially devolution of power to the peripheries nor the
recognition of political plurality. Therefore the settlement via a
comprehensive inclusive negotiated process should link peace to
democratization.
·
Due
to the confidence gap between the Sudanese parties and partners, there is a
need to international and regional facilitators, observers and guarantors to
help Sudanese to help themselves.
·
The
national dialogue should be run in an atmosphere of freedom so all issues could
be frankly discussed without red lines or taboos.
·
Ultimately
the dialogue should result in a comprehensive agreement bypassing the former
unilateral partial and failed agreements to be implemented by a new inclusive,
nationally accepted transitional government. The national government should
tasked with the following:
·
Implementation
of the agreement
·
Conduction
of national election
The international community should cooperate in some of
post- conflict issues on top of them come Sudan debt, transitional justice,
reconstruction and developmental aid. Clear and credible commitments to these
issues are needed.
Paris declaration between civil opposition and the armed
opposition and Addis Ababa agreements between the forces of Paris declaration
and the internal dialogue delegation witnessed by the AUHIP mediation, have
opened a great window of opportunity. In
the past many chances were squandered by both the Sudanese regime and the
international mediators. The international community should play its expected
role to preserve this chance.
A peaceful pluralistic democratic Sudan does harm to nobody
and will not jeopardize any one's legitimate and just interests.
* Ex-Deputy Secretary
General
Sudanese Umma National
Party
Algali602003@yahoo.com
