Sudan: a flawed peace process leading to a flawed peace

Abstract

Peace is more than the cessation of military hostilities, more than simple political stability. Peace is the presence of justice and peace building entails addressing factors and forces that stand as impediments to the realisation of all human rights.1 The hopes and aspirations of the Sudanese people hang on the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)2 peace process and there are increasing doubts whether it can deliver lasting peace, much less democracy and justice. It is too early to give up on the process, but not too late to analyse and critique it, in the hope that this will encourage debate and stimulate the Sudanese to take control of the process from self-proclaimed leaders and an ‘international community’ which has not encouraged broad participation. This is all the more important because there is every indication that the flaws discussed below will be repeated in trying to resolve the conflict in Darfur. The following points are articulated in the pages that follow: (1) most Sudanese in both the north and south have been denied access to the IGAD peace process; (2) this process has been dominated by a handful of Western states led by the US which have injected their own interests into the process; (3) democracy and justice do not figure highly among their concerns; (4) the peace protocols that have been signed do not adequately address fundamental issues of power sharing, equity, and human rights; (5) the security agreements reached thus far, and the instruments they establish, lack accountability, transparency and professionalism; and (6) given the weaknesses of the peace process, the belligerents are indicating by their actions, if not their words, that they are not discounting the possibility of returning to war.