Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Last week, representatives of the government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement signed a peace agreement to end Africa's longest-running civil war. More than 2 million have died and 4 million have been displaced because of the fighting. War has intermittently ravaged the country since its independence from the U.K. in 1956, due to northern Arab and Islamic dominance of the southern, black Christian and animist population. The current war began in 1983 when the Islamic government began imposing Shari'ah law in the south.

U.S. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger, Special Advisor for Sudan Policy, was in Naivasha for the signing ceremony last week. We spoke to him about the difficulty of the peace process and its future implementation

What does the peace treaty entail?

The Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army signed three protocols last week, which effectively concludes their substantive negotiations. They still have quite a few details to work out over the next couple of months before they sign the final peace accord. In Naivasha, they signed three agreements, one on power sharing, one on the disputed area of Abyei, and one on the disputed areas of Nuba and Southern Blue Nile.

Previously they had signed a protocol on security arrangements, a protocol on wealth sharing, and of course the Machakos protocol [which allowed for self-determination in the south]. Those six protocols together constitute a resolution of all the outstanding issues.

Last October, Secretary of State Colin Powell

said

We've been pushing [the two sides] very hard, and we've been saying things like that to try and keep the momentum and to urge them to move ahead. We knew it would be very difficult because there have been profound differences in this negotiation. They have come a long way. They had to sort out what percentage of power sharing the SPLM [Sudan People's Liberation Movement] would get in the north and what percentage the government would get in the south. These are very difficult issues. They made arrangements on power sharing for the Nuba and Southern Blue Nile. They have the issue of the status of Shari'ah and the capital [Khartoum] in the north, how the presidency would be structured, dozens of profoundly difficult issues.

You just came back from Sudan. What is the mood in the country?

I think the mood is very upbeat. Both the Sudanese government team and the SPLM team are extremely positive about what happened. There's an excellent rapport between Vice President [Ali Osman] Taha and SPLM Chairman [John] Garang, and they have indicated they want to work in partnership to finish the details of the negotiation and then to implement the peace accords over the next six and a half years.

So there's a very upbeat feeling that they really are on the road to peace and stability, finally.

Sounds like that rapport is important in order to implement the agreement so that it will be acceptable to the people of Sudan.

It's extremely important because the two sides need to feel that they are in a form of partnership to carry out this peace process implementation. That's the only way it can work. I think in the course of the negotiations they've overcome a lot of the mistrust and lack of confidence that was there. Obviously they're still quite suspicious of one another, and there's still a very long, bitter history between them. But I think they have built a degree of confidence through the negotiations, and they view themselves as partners in this implementation process. That will be absolutely crucial.

next page... |  1 of 3

May (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48