Weblog nr 10
January 17, 2006
One year after its signing in Nairobi on 9 January 2005 the peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Southern Liberation Movement SPLM is on track. In Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan, very well attended festivities took place to commemorate the event. I could not participate, because I had to travel the same evening to New York for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. I had hoped to be able to attend similar festivities in Khartoum, but to my disappointment they had been called off. There was one exception, a music festival for college students, organised by the UN. We listened to two singers, Emmanuel Jal and Abdelhabir Salem. Abdelhabir Salem is a well known Northern Sudanese artist, singing folk songs and songs about actual themes. Emmanuel Jal is a former child soldier from the South who went to England as a refugee, where he has become famous as a rap singer. It was his first performance in Sudan and the audience was thrilled. In particular the peace duets by Emmanuel and Abdelhabir, who had never met each other before but were able to sing and improvise together, each in his own style, were a beautiful example of the dream behind the peace agreement: two systems, one country.
Will that spirit prevail? In my address to the Security Council I gave a cautious answer: on both sides people want peace to stay, but on either side people are suspicious that the other side is not serious. On neither side there is an effort to bridge the confidence gap. On the contrary, the leaders in both Khartoum and in Juba seem allow a drifting apart of the North and the South. There is no fighting and the drifting apart is not irreversible. However, if the present trend continues the unity of Sudan will not be considered the most attractive option in the referendum of 2011, when the people in the South will have to choose between unity or separation. Their right to choose for separation is enshrined in the peace agreement. It will have to be guaranteed by the international community. However, will we be able to keep the peace if if they exercise that right?
I fear for a return to war. In the meantime we will have to redouble our efforts to stop the war in West Sudan. In Darfur the peace strategy has failed. In my address to the Security Council I said that so far we had not done more than picking up the pieces and muddling through. Not everybody appreciated this judgement, but we should not deny the facts. Three years after the beginning of the war in Darfur more than two million people live in camps without any perspective on a meaningful life. Outside these camps the terror and the killings continue. The peace talks that should bring an end to this are stalemated. For this reason I asked for a reconsideration of the strategy.
Such a reconsideration took place last week in Addis Ababa. On 12 January the Peace and Security Council of the African Union decided to support a transition of the African Union peace mission Darfur towards the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council has yet to react. But in their meeting on 13 January most members of the Security Council seemed to be willing to consider this option very seriously. Many questions will have to be addressed. The African Union peace force has done its utmost to contain the violence, but it was too small and it lacked the resources to be fully effective. Is there any guarantee that a UN force will be big and strong enough to be more sucessful? What should be the mandate of such a force: chapter 6 - that means with the agreement of the parties - or chapter 7, which implies an effort to enforce peace from outside? Will Sudan accept such a force? The first reaction from Khartoum was negative. Will that also be its final reaction, or will the Sudanese authorities conclude that in the present circumstances this may be the only way to reach peace? Are all parties seriously interested in peace?
Photo: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
We are yet far from a political breakthrough. In the coming weeks much diplomatic and political wisdom and skills will be required, in New York, Addis, Khartoum, Juba, Abuja and in the capitals of the member countries of the Security Council and the countries which will be asked to contribute troops. The outcome of this political debate is uncertain. But it is already positive that the character of that debate has changed, last week. Nobody can close the eyes anymore or lean backwards. All parties concerned, within Sudan as well as outside, will have to make a choice: to continue business as usual or to change the strategy.
I am writing this in Washington, where I discussed with US government officials at the State Department, the White House and the National Security Council the contribution of the United States to the work of the United Nations and the African Union in Sudan. Tomorrow I will fly to Brussels for similar discussions with NATO. I keep arguing: the important question is not who is in charge, the AU or the UN, but what is done on the ground to guarantee peace? It is high time to translate words, criticisms and promises into effective action."
Will that spirit prevail? In my address to the Security Council I gave a cautious answer: on both sides people want peace to stay, but on either side people are suspicious that the other side is not serious. On neither side there is an effort to bridge the confidence gap. On the contrary, the leaders in both Khartoum and in Juba seem allow a drifting apart of the North and the South. There is no fighting and the drifting apart is not irreversible. However, if the present trend continues the unity of Sudan will not be considered the most attractive option in the referendum of 2011, when the people in the South will have to choose between unity or separation. Their right to choose for separation is enshrined in the peace agreement. It will have to be guaranteed by the international community. However, will we be able to keep the peace if if they exercise that right?
I fear for a return to war. In the meantime we will have to redouble our efforts to stop the war in West Sudan. In Darfur the peace strategy has failed. In my address to the Security Council I said that so far we had not done more than picking up the pieces and muddling through. Not everybody appreciated this judgement, but we should not deny the facts. Three years after the beginning of the war in Darfur more than two million people live in camps without any perspective on a meaningful life. Outside these camps the terror and the killings continue. The peace talks that should bring an end to this are stalemated. For this reason I asked for a reconsideration of the strategy.
Such a reconsideration took place last week in Addis Ababa. On 12 January the Peace and Security Council of the African Union decided to support a transition of the African Union peace mission Darfur towards the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council has yet to react. But in their meeting on 13 January most members of the Security Council seemed to be willing to consider this option very seriously. Many questions will have to be addressed. The African Union peace force has done its utmost to contain the violence, but it was too small and it lacked the resources to be fully effective. Is there any guarantee that a UN force will be big and strong enough to be more sucessful? What should be the mandate of such a force: chapter 6 - that means with the agreement of the parties - or chapter 7, which implies an effort to enforce peace from outside? Will Sudan accept such a force? The first reaction from Khartoum was negative. Will that also be its final reaction, or will the Sudanese authorities conclude that in the present circumstances this may be the only way to reach peace? Are all parties seriously interested in peace?
AMIS forces in Darfur
Photo: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
We are yet far from a political breakthrough. In the coming weeks much diplomatic and political wisdom and skills will be required, in New York, Addis, Khartoum, Juba, Abuja and in the capitals of the member countries of the Security Council and the countries which will be asked to contribute troops. The outcome of this political debate is uncertain. But it is already positive that the character of that debate has changed, last week. Nobody can close the eyes anymore or lean backwards. All parties concerned, within Sudan as well as outside, will have to make a choice: to continue business as usual or to change the strategy.
I am writing this in Washington, where I discussed with US government officials at the State Department, the White House and the National Security Council the contribution of the United States to the work of the United Nations and the African Union in Sudan. Tomorrow I will fly to Brussels for similar discussions with NATO. I keep arguing: the important question is not who is in charge, the AU or the UN, but what is done on the ground to guarantee peace? It is high time to translate words, criticisms and promises into effective action."