IRIN Webspecial on the Sudan Peace Process

Few people anticipated that so much progress would have been made in such a short time through the revitalised Sudanese peace talks taking place in Kenya under the auspices of the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

Both protagonists and observers were surprised by the swift arrival of the first Machakos Protocol, signed in the Kenyan town hosting the talks on 20 July. The prospect of a comprehensive peace settlement being achieved sooner rather than later is now being taken more seriously.

However, regional analysts say the situation requires vigilance, careful planning and responsiveness on the parts of all the actors, since past experiences around the world should remind us that the period of fragile peace immediately after a prolonged conflict is particularly vulnerable to renewed violence.

Long-term Sudan watchers argue that special efforts will be required to ensure stability and the consolidation of peace - for many years after any peace agreement - because of the specific historical attributes of Sudan’s protracted crisis. But how prepared is anyone for this?

Until now, the parties to the Sudanese conflict have been locked into a narrow vision based on waging war. In response, the international community has tended to focus almost exclusively on providing humanitarian assistance to those affected by the crisis.

The war had led to something of a political stalemate, and was in grave danger of being ‘normalised’ as one of the intractable crises of the African continent, according to observers.

However, some forward-looking initiatives have being taking place in recent years, including the Integrated Planning for Peace framework, which warrants explanation and renewed attention.

IGAD Partners Forum [IPF] Planning Process

Following a hint that an unexpected peace deal might suddenly be brokered in Sudan in 1999, a number of governments reflected on how ill-prepared the international community was for such an eventuality.

In particular, western partner governments to IGAD - the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF) - commissioned the design of a framework to assist the international community in planning for a future peace. This assignment commenced in 2000 and was completed in March 2002.

Over two years, the work evolved to include not just technical plans; it also proposed a process of active engagement with the Sudanese in order to anticipate the challenges of the future and prepare for a holistic, just and permanent peace.

The framework document was drawn from two main sources:

First, a series of technical research projects was commissioned on selected themes believed to be critical in a post-conflict period, including: landmines, demobilisation, internally displaced people (IDPs), land access and tenure, food security and information/data stock-taking. These stand-alone reports are expected to be of considerable interest to sector specialists working in Sudan.

Secondly, a comprehensive grass-roots consultation on future peace was undertaken with representative groups from war-affected areas controlled by the Sudanese government, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and Sudan People’s Democratic Front (SPDF).

The latter process proved remarkably insightful and the results influenced the final outcome. Two reports - one from the government-controlled areas and the other from the southern opposition areas - document the consultation process and provide a range of perspectives and recommendations relevant to achieving peace and managing relations in the period after a peace agreement.

The amalgamation of these sources with additional inputs from government, SPLM representatives and IPF members in the region shaped the first outline of the planning framework.

Integrated Planning for Peace [PfP] Framework

The planning document offers an appraisal of the technical studies and draws on grass-roots perspectives to present a central theme upon which the framework is built: that, given the historical background to Sudan’s conflict, and the consequences of being at war for 36 out of 46 years of independence, the challenges of attaining a just and enduring peace are complex and wide ranging.

As a result, it maintains, peace and stability will only be achieved through an holistic and democratic process that embraces the civilian population at the grass roots with leaders at the policy level (and not exclusively the leaders alone); and through the attainment of long-term strategic objectives for social change, and not just of short-term technical tasks.

Peace building is presented as a process that should start now - before a political settlement is even reached - and focus on the long-term needs and capacities needed to transform a culture of war to a culture of peace.

The document assesses different dimensions needed to achieve a sustainable peace - from peace-making process at the political level (through IGAD, for instance) to peace-building at the grass-roots level and additional tasks necessary for the consolidation of a future peace - and argues that a coordinated approach should be established to link these activities.

The planning section, in particular, examines some of the characteristics associated with a transition period by highlighting future scenarios and anticipated threats to peace. It presents a range of themes and issues that need to be addressed, and suggests principles for engagement.

The document recommends the establishment of working groups organised around priority themes and includes a set of summary papers (based on the technical research) on issues the working groups could usefully address. It contains recommendations for immediate and post-conflict follow-up action on landmines, refugees and IDPs, demobilisation, land access and food security.

Part IIÊ