|
In this lecture I argue that the
Machakos and Naivasha (May 2002-January 2005) were informed, in addition
to some important changes in regional and international arenas, by three
historical and ideological realities, which engendered the problem in
Southern Sudan, throughout the past fifty years:
-
The ‘Old Sudan’
-
The ‘Two Sudans’
-
The ‘New Sudan’
However, the Machakos and
Nairvasha road maps had introduced contradictory methods for the
resolution of the Sudanese conflict, which might have long-term negative
repercussions and serious challenges, when the time comes for the
implementation of the agreement:
-
The
first issue is whether the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)
and the National Congress (NC) will be committed to democracy and
the secularism of national politics as viable options for the
post-interim period’s political, economic and judiciary permanent
arrangements between the South and the North and the role of the
other political forces in the country during the interim period.
-
The second
contentious issue is that of the unity of the country, and what this
means, in terms of post-interim period permanent arrangements,
especially in relation to power and wealth sharing between the
centre and regions, including the South.
-
Then
there is the issue of self-determination, and the impact it will
have on national politics, especially during the post-interim period
permanent arrangements (constitutionally and politically) should the
South opt to secede from the rest of the country.
-
The political map of
Northern Sudan, like that of the South is very complex and diverse
(with various groups competing with one another). Unlike the South,
however, the political forces of the North, while they differ on the
‘type’ and the levels of reforms to be introduced in post-war Sudan,
are in total agreement on the necessity to maintain the unity of the
country.
-
The external actors,
which are involved in the agreement, include the neighbouring
countries to Sudan. The current IGAD member states (Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Kenya, Djibouti and Uganda) have their own interests and
internal problems. Some of them, such as Uganda and Ethiopia, have
signed security and economic cooperation agreements with the
National Congress government, while maintaining good relations with
the SPLM. The US, UK, Norway, Egypt, Libya and other Asian and
European countries also have vital interests in the Sudanese oil
industry.
Complete text as presented at the
lecture in PDF format
|
