The geopolitical picture: unsolved crises and tensions in action

An immense country the size of Western Europe, its "head" nearly in Mediterranean North Africa, to which it is joined  by the Nile; its "body" in the Sahel; and "feet" in the heart of the continent. A land of great diversity: ethnic, cultural and religious – a country with abundant resources, whose recent history has unfortunately been marred by conflict. This is the Sudan.  

It is not easy to pinpoint the roots of a conflict in complex situations. The clash between the North (predominantly Arab and Muslim) and the South (of Negroid ethnicity and animist and Christian beliefs) can be said to have characterised the entire period since 1956, date of the country's independence. Understanding the reasons behind this may help explain why yet another conflict erupted in 2003, provoking a widespread humanitarian catastrophe.  

Those who place the blame with the successive Governments from independence to this day, maintain that the latter have always implemented a centralised policy, which in a country like Sudan, means neglecting the needs of millions of individuals living scattered throughout the country's marginal areas.  It is undeniable that to govern a country of two and a half million square kilometres is a colossal task, and that despite the best intentions of the central governments, often there was little effective control over the long chain of command between Khartoum and the outlying areas, rendering communications difficult with the peripheries.  

Sudan’s past and recent history are both marked by conflict, some quite violent. Recent changes will allow the country to build upon the dialogue established leading up to the Peace Agreement with the participation of all Sudanese society.  

For over two and a half years, the Government of the Sudan (GoS) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement / Army (SPLM/A) negotiated the end of a protracted conflict, a lengthy process punctuated by moments of tension, high expectations, and even dismay, and culminating with the successful signing of the “Comprehensive Peace  Agreement ”on the 9th January 2005 in Nairobi .  

This is not the first time that the country’s North and South reach an agreement ending long years of fierce hostilities. But never before had the two parties been poised to address and resolve all the knotty details that were at the root of the conflict: the acceptance by the GoS of the South’s right to self-determination (to be decided after a transitional period, and following a referendum by the southerners); the acceptance by the SPLM of Islamic Sharia law in the North; wealth sharing of oil revenues; and power sharing (with an SPLM quota of 28% of all central and peripheral institutions). The CPA foresees the creation of a Government of Southern Sudan, which should constitute a buffer between the central Government and the Southern States, an area where the SPLM will have the majority of the institutional seats. The Agreement includes specific clauses to widen the administrative autonomy of the three central areas of the country, including the North, an area where the SPLM defends the rights of non-Arab tribes living there, and who constitute a crux between the North and the South and thus a decisive test for the CPA.  

Never before has the international community supported the peace negotiations through providing resources and decisive action on the part of the United States, as well as active support by the IGAD partner countries, amongst which is Italy.  

The international community is now called upon to implement a crucial role in Sudan. The implementation phase of an agreement is considered the most delicate time in a post-conflict situation:  the euphoria of peace can soon vanish if concrete actions do not follow, as the "hunger" for peace dividends by populations exhausted by many years of conflict, is enormous and boundless.  

It is hoped that the questions on today’s intermediate phase should lead to tomorrow's answers. To this aim the international community has committed itself to support the peace agreement’s implementation through providing an impressive peace-force – UNMISUD, whose mission falls under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, with a mandate to supervise the implementation of the CPA. International aid for rehabilitation and development has been pledged by the main donors, in particular the European Commission, who together with the international financial institutions have launched plans involving significant financial pledges.  

Weighing heavily on the country’s immediate future and likewise on the agreements’ implementation is the Darfur issue.  

Darfur is a remote, deprived, and largely underdeveloped area. The main resource, the earth, is consumed by the advancing and unrelenting Sahara desert, and is the object of continuous dispute between sedentary farming communities and nomadic herders.  

To this already complex situation it is necessary to add, in addition to the above-mentioned factors, Government policies, and the authorities’ inattention to the needs of the regions’ populations who represent one fifth of the country. The conflict, led by rebel movements, primarily the Sudan Liberation Army SLA and the Justice and Equality Movement JEM, demanding greater representation and resources for Darfur, has provoked a massive humanitarian catastrophe.  

The international community reacted, at both the humanitarian and political levels. Under international pressure during 2004, agreements (regarding cease-fire and humanitarian aid access) were reached between the GoS and the Darfur rebels, allowing greater outreach to the humanitarian workers, but not leading to the end of the conflict, which in recent months went through a phase of deterioration. To date, according to UN figures, an estimated 1.8m persons have been classified as Internally Displaced People’s (IDP's), and 0.5m residents affected by the conflict but not displaced require humanitarian assistance. In total, this represents fully one third of Darfur’s total population.  

Much remains to be done, both on the political and the humanitarian levels, in order to find a solution to the Darfur's crises. On the humanitarian side, it will be necessary to avoid the onset of “donor fatigue”: a prolonged crisis like Darfur, risks eroding international and public attention, at the expense of new disasters.  

On the political stage, it is important to maintain international pressure on a high level, so that the attention of the international community remains focused on Sudanese events, and to avoid further punitive measures by the international community. For now, efforts should be multiplied to ensure the implementation of the agreement between the GoS and the SPLM, as this will have a positive indirect effect on the prospects of resolving the Darfur crisis, as well as increase autonomy for the peripheral areas if the country and reduce disparity between the wealthy areas and those less fortunate.  

Of primary importance is to work towards the resumption of negotiations, until today held in Abuja, between the Government and the Darfur rebel movements, and tackle the live political and economic questions at the root of the conflict.  

So as not to revert to the errors of the recent past, and keeping in mind that in the East of the country another tense situation is brewing on the borders with neighbouring Eritrea requiring due consideration at this phase, it is crucial to demonstrate goodwill and include under the blossoming of democracy, as per the Nairobi agreements, all the country political players, including the Northern opposition groups allied under the umbrella of the NDA (National Democratic Alliance).  

In conclusion, it can be said that a difficult task still awaits Sudan and the international community, difficult but feasible – a task to which Italy continues to contribute effectively, through its committed men and women who in different capacities operate in Sudan.