IRIN Webspecial on the Sudan Peace Process

Appraising the Framework and Reviving the Process

"In many respects, the recent debate about planning for future peace has exposed more acutely the short-sightedness of the years when the international community only provided unconditional humanitarian assistance to Sudan," according to one aid worker in the south.

In this respect, the framework document represents a first step in drawing attention to the scale and complexity of the peace issue in Sudan.

It also provides a welcome focus on the 'total peace environment': the conditions necessary to underpin and safeguard a political peace agreement once it is reached, and promote the ongoing development of a culture of tolerance and healing essential to structural stability in Sudan.

In particular, the framework seeks to enshrine a basic principle that the Sudanese must be central to the planning process itself - a point that may appear obvious but which analysts say could easily be forgotten in the enthusiasm that would surround any peace agreement.

The draft framework document is a guide rather than a finished product: it details how the planning process should proceed and be coordinated, but the bulk of the task remains for the key actors to fulfil.

But if a peace agreement should be reached, is the framework sufficient as it stands?

"It was the intention in the planning process to undergo an intensive phase of review and validation with Sudanese counterparts, so that the necessary Sudanese ownership would be cultivated around the core issues," said a contributor to the document.

Despite reflecting the views of a growing number of humanitarian actors who wish to see a more integrated approach to peace building in Sudan, the framework process appears to have come to a halt since the first draft document was presented to the IPF in Rome, in April 2002.

Some observers claim that, at a political level, there is reluctance to promote a more inclusive (grass roots) approach to peace-building while the political peace negotiations are underway and at a delicate juncture; others say it reflects the absence of a shared understanding of what the framework represents among IPF members.

Although scenarios for a future peace agreement will alter as new developments emerge from the peace talks, it would be uneconomical not to build upon what has already been produced and work towards a common vision of what a 'just and sustainable peace' means for Sudan in the long term.

The framework is already considered to have positively influenced the programme design of the response to the Nuba Mountains ceasefire, and to have been instrumental in advancing landmine action on both sides of the conflict.

However, analysts speak of a new urgency in bringing the process back to life - and adapting it to the conditions that are emerging from the IGAD negotiations. If those talks break down, the proposed PfP process would remain just as valid and urgent, they add.

[Ends]