Arrow Left Arrow Right Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
Sudan’s Southern Kordofan Problem: The Next Darfur?
Sudan’s Southern Kordofan Problem: The Next Darfur?
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
Ethiopia Must Continue to Help Stabilise South Sudan
Ethiopia Must Continue to Help Stabilise South Sudan
Report 145 / Africa

Sudan’s Southern Kordofan Problem: The Next Darfur?

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended Sudan’s generation-long North-South civil war in 2005 is at risk in Southern Kordofan state, where many of the same ingredients exist that produced the vicious Darfur conflict.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

Executive Summary

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended Sudan’s generation-long North-South civil war in 2005 is at risk in Southern Kordofan state, where many of the same ingredients exist that produced the vicious Darfur conflict. Both parties to that agreement, the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), who together form the Government of National Unity in Khartoum, have been guilty of mistakes and misjudgements there as they manoeuvre for partisan advantage in advance of national elections scheduled for 2009. Any strategy for addressing the problems must recognise that time is short. Concrete progress on integration and reform is essential to address the prospect of what could be a devastating new conflict. Rapid interventions are needed, well before the national elections.

Southern Kordofan is a new state, created by the CPA, in the critical border area between North and South, a zone of ethnic interaction between Arab (mainly Misseriya and Hawazma) and indigenous African (mainly Nuba) tribes. Inadequate implementation of the CPA’s special protocol relating to the region has led to insecurity and growing dissatisfaction. Tribal reconciliation based on negotiation of a common agenda, establishment of an efficient state government administration and adherence to the CPA’s principles of power and wealth sharing have to be fostered from Khartoum and pushed forward by the international guarantors. There has been some limited recent progress, but much more is urgently needed.

The state’s inhabitants were mobilised by the opposing sides during the North/South war and despite the CPA remain deeply scarred by that conflict, polarised and fragmented along political and tribal lines. They are armed and organised and feel increasingly abandoned by their former patrons, who have not fulfilled their promises to provide peace dividends. Return of internally displaced persons (IDPs), development projects and creation of an integrated state government administration have all stalled. Hundreds of people have died in disputes over land and grazing rights, with no comprehensive or sustainable local or national response. Efforts by the NCP and SPLM to co-opt Arab and African tribes, respectively, prior to elections by politicising development policies are aggravating tensions.

Tribal and communal reconciliation to foster peaceful coexistence is a daunting but essential task. More is at stake than the prevention of a local conflict. The fate of peacebuilding in this front-line state will say much about the viability of Sudan’s entire peace process and in particular whether the CPA genuinely offers an effective framework for resolving the Darfur conflict and satisfying all those in the country who do not belong to core SPLM and NCP constituencies.

Moreover, if peacebuilding fails in the transitional areas of the 1956 North-South border, where the majority of the two armies’ troops are still concentrated, it is highly unlikely the secession option the CPA gives the South can be implemented peacefully. Though more than half the six-year transition period has already been lost, there is still time to implement key steps to calm the situation prior to national elections, which may have to be postponed to 2010. In addition to producing an integrated state administration, the NCP and the SPLM need to accelerate the integration of combatants within the Joint Integrated Units provided for by the CPA and otherwise pursue disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programs, including for the many militias. They must also immediately release the accumulated 2 per cent share of oil revenue for Southern Kordofan so major development projects can be carried out, based on an inclusive consultative process involving tribal authorities.

The Nuba are bitter at their SPLM allies, believing they did not negotiate a better deal for them in the CPA because they prioritised getting Abyei territory and its oil and an independence referendum commitment for the South. But the special protocol provides for a public consultation to be held after the elections to consider revision of the peace agreement’s terms for the new state and address unresolved issues (for example, land ownership and use). Financial aid is needed for the organisation of inter-tribal dialogue aimed at fostering reconciliation and producing a common agenda for that consultation. Discussions should be held in particular on creation of a formal state mechanism dedicated to resolving tribal disputes over land use and livestock migration (transhumance) routes, such as the Southern Sudan Peace Commission created for the Southern states, and on identifying principles for the commission that is supposed to address the deep land grievances accumulated by the Nuba, in particular since the early 1970s.

The UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) and other members of the international community have vital roles to play in the stabilisation of the new state. UNMIS should not just observe and register violent incidents, but also follow the example of the Joint Military Commission (JMC) established in the Nuba Mountains after the 2002 ceasefire agreement and become an active partner in local conflict prevention, in cooperation with the tribal authorities. If its local leadership is incapable of this, it should be replaced. Simultaneously, the CPA’s international guarantors and Sudan’s bilateral partners should press the national unity government to pay more attention to peacebuilding in the state. It is not yet too late to show the front-line populations that a new war is not the way to address their grievances.

Khartoum/Nairobi/Brussels, 21 October 2008

Commentary / Africa

Ethiopia Must Continue to Help Stabilise South Sudan

Addis Ababa can win economic and security gains if it perseveres with its impressive commitment to peace efforts in South Sudan. With its new two-year membership on the UN Security Council, Addis Ababa has the opportunity to better connect regionally-led political processes to UN action. 

Ethiopia’s commitment to peace-making in South Sudan has been critical for regional stability. It has much to gain from continuing this engagement, including a secure border and trade with a stable neighbour. But achieving lasting peace after South Sudan’s two-year-long civil war is a long-term undertaking.

Ethiopia has shown strong leadership and a level of direct involvement in peace efforts in Sudan and South Sudan that few countries can match.

The African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP) peace talks on the conflicts are held in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa led the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD, a regional body) peace process on South Sudan and is a guarantor of the August 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS). It deploys peacekeepers to the UN Mission in South Sudan and is the main contributor to the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (on the Sudan-South Sudan border). It is also expected to be the lead contributor to the 4,000-strong UN Regional Protection Force (RPF) based in Juba.

Ethiopia’s two-year membership on the UN Security Council (UNSC) should be an opportunity to better connect regionally-led political processes to UN action.

Implementing the ARCSS and the Regional Force

Following the July 2016 fighting in Juba, ARCSS has been reshaped, and the RPF and national dialogue process created to reinforce its principles. Concerted support is required from Ethiopia, fellow IGAD member states, the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC, overseeing ARCSS implementation and reporting to the IGAD heads of state) and the UN to reduce conflict under an inclusive government.

These processes, and the RPF’s role in supporting them, are fluid and interconnected. For example, a successful negotiation between the transitional government and an armed group increases the chances of successful dialogue between communities caught up in the conflict. There is now a window of opportunity to shape and provide capacity-building to efforts to make the new South Sudan transitional government more inclusive.

Given the trust deficit that exists between South Sudan’s government and opposition figures, the UN’s RPF has a role to play in helping create conditions conducive to ARCSS implementation and national dialogue.

Ethiopia’s support for talks between these parties makes it a critical partner in supporting inclusivity in Juba. For this to take place, the RPF must deploy and demonstrate its worth. In addition to JMEC, the RPF provides a direct link to Ethiopia and other IGAD leaders in their oversight of ARCSS and efforts to form a more inclusive government.

On the sidelines of the forthcoming AU summit, Ethiopia and IGAD leaders should consider what can be done to expedite RPF deployment and how it can be better tied to political engagement to support genuine efforts toward greater transitional government inclusivity.

Mutual Security and Prosperity

Ethiopia’s mediation and peacekeeping efforts also support stability at home. During Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn’s 28 October visit to Juba, he and President Kiir made assurances that they would not support rebels in either country ­– a critical restatement of a mutual understanding between the two countries.

Ethiopia’s border with South Sudan hosts cross-border communities that experience multiple, overlapping communal tensions that can lead to violence. A large Murle raid from South Sudan into the Gambella region last April required the Ethiopian army’s temporary deployment into South Sudan to secure the return of abducted children and to monitor both sides of the border. This took place during a separate period of intercommunal conflict in Gambella, which was exacerbated by the large numbers of refugees in the region.

Supporting South Sudan to reduce political and communal conflicts along their shared border – which requires effective and inclusive governance from Juba – will improve security in Gambella and reduce refugee inflows, which tend to exacerbate intercommunal tensions in the border region.

Violence and displacement are detrimental to the mutually beneficial cross-border trade that was growing fast before South Sudan’s civil war started in 2013. Stability and security can enable development rather than humanitarian crisis in the impoverished border regions and beyond.

Ethiopia should not waiver in its commitment to ensuring a peaceful South Sudan and use the many tools at its disposal – IGAD, ARCSS, JMEC, the RPF and its term since January on the UN Security Council – to support an inclusive and stable government in Juba. Successful peace-making will ensure greater stability in Ethiopia and facilitate sustained trade and economic development – which is to everyone’s benefit.