Summary of the Symposium on the Future of Sudan Post 2011
December 18th, 2009Symposium on the future of Sudan post 2011
Justice Africa is currently running a three year programme called ‘The Civil Project’, which aims to enhance the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and sustain peaceful dialogue, with a view to achieving an inclusive and peaceful democratic society. As a part of the Civil Project a series of public dialogue events are to be held across Sudan to allow people to interact with political parties and meet with political figures and to debate about issues affecting the future of Sudan. To support this, on the 7th of November 2009 in London we held a symposium on the future of Sudan post 2011 to give Sudanese Diaspora, academics and experts the opportunity to debate these issues. Their ideas will be fed back into debates we are holding in Sudan and into the Sudan–Sudan dialogue.
Executive Summary of the Symposium
The morning sessions consisted of panels of experts and representatives from different regions of Sudan examining the question of unity and self-determination in Sudan and its implications at the national, regional and international levels. The panel introduced a series of post 2011 scenarios based on research presented by Jair van der Lijn from the Clingendael Institute. How to create a peaceful and successful transition for the country was a focus. Topics of discussion included:
1. CPA implementation
2. Whether unity has been made attractive to the North or the South
3. The importance of mediating local conflicts
4. Decentralisation – including power and wealth sharing
5. Violence on the South and the need to address it in a separation scenario
6. The mutual interest in the preservation of a positive relationship between the north and the south in a separation scenario including upholding citizenship rights for northerners in the South and southerners in the north and having porous borders in order to allow for traditional grazing movement
7. The mutual interest for the preservation of relations for oil production and development
8. The need for accountability in government spending, including oil revenues
9. The role of the international community in the transition period
10. The need for true democracy and representation of the periphery regions
The afternoon sessions split off into 2 working groups to have open discussions on ‘Peace and Security and Democracy’ and ‘Development’. All panellists and attendees were involved in generating debates in the afternoon sessions.
The symposium was well attended by approx 120 people, of which a large number of Sudanese participants attended. We also organised for Sudanese panellists to speak, who had previously held governmental positions in Darfur and Abyei. Martin Muortat from the SPLM also joined the panel and the event was attended in the audience by other SPLM dignitaries and a number of people from the Sudanese Embassy. One of the main concerns of Sudanese participants, who attended the symposium, was that they wanted more opportunity for their voices to be heard in the UK. We are currently planning a further meeting in spring to meet this concern and we may seek funding to increase our activities with Sudanese Diaspora in the UK.
Session 1: Scenarios for the future of Sudan post 2011 – What will Sudan look like post 2011?
Chaired by Alex de Waal (Founder of Justice Africa and Program Director at the Social Science Research Council)
Jair van der Lijn
From the Clingendael Institute – a Dutch institute that researched a series of scenarios for the future of Sudan. A lot of work and research has been done pushing for elections and the referendum but not much that considers beyond these landmarks.
Within the research two Key Questions were asked:
1. Will Sudan remain united?
2. Will there be another war between the North and the South?
Workshops took place in: Khartoum, Malakal, Bor and Juba
Scenarios were plotted using this cross diagram:
United
War No War
Secession
The participants gave ‘storylines’ for each scenario.
Scenario 1: United and War: In this scenario polarisation continues which could lead to a repetition of the last Civil War.
Scenario 2: Secession and War – Border Wars: Polarisation continues, the result of the referendum is not accepted by the North.
Scenario 3: Secession and No War: Both in the North and South parties anticipate the coming result of the referendum: secession and new power balance that comes with it in the North and South. In the South this leads to fragmentation and in the North to the re-emergence of violence in the East, North and Darfur.
Scenario 4: United and No war/ CPA Hurray: No War, elections organised. Northern opposition and SPLM cooperate and this coalition wins majority and presidency. SPLM takes inclusive approach and builds coalition government as the NCP is the state and therefore SPLM needs to work with it. This scenario could lead to confederation of different states – including power and wealth sharing.
In the North most participants in workshops preferred scenario 4, in the South mostly scenario 3.
However there is a fifth scenario not considered in the chart:
Scenario 5: Stagnation: Continuation of the current status quo – no elections take place and no referendum as Juba and Khartoum want to stay in power – shared interests and with marginalised areas kept marginalised (in the North and South).
One cannot accurately predict but you can prepare. The most important aspect to look at is what is behind these scenarios?
The situation in Sudan from 2012 onwards will become more violent – even if there is no North/South war there is likely to be a war between factions in the South.
Working towards a non-violent future must entail:
1.Scenario 4, CPA Hurray is worth pursuing, but one has to be prepared for if one fails.
2.Organisation of elections is essential as it’s the only way of bringing peaceful change to the Khartoum government. In addition failure to run the elections ends in certainty that there will be violence.
3.Outside mediation is essential
4.Broadening time horizons – all parties have to talk about post 2011, we have to talk about the future and how Sudan should look.
The future of Sudan being successful or unsuccessful will be to a large extent be determined by whether the South has a stable, cooperative and confident leadership.
Hafiz Mohamed (Justice Africa Director and Coordinator of Sudan Programmes):
Since 1953 Sudan has failed to have a permanent Constitution and centre – periphery balance. A united Sudan was missed in 1985; the northern peripheries are suffering as well so it is not just the responsibility of the south to make unity attractive. Making unity attractive has failed as a result of Northern Elites obstructing the democratic transformation as set out in the CPA. In 1988 the setting up of the constitution was stopped by the Coup d’ état which then led to war – the constitution was stopped which resulted in resorting to violence.
Northern elites have stopped the democratic transformation set out in the CPA. Given the way the CPA has been implemented can the elections be free and fair?
Finances: almost 40% of finances are outside budgetary processes.
We need Sudan post 2011 proposals.
Alex de Waal:
There was extraordinary pessimism about unity in a recent meeting in Khartoum involving the NCP and SPLM unity.
Peter Woodward (Department of politics at the University of Reading):
1953-1956 transition. There are other people who have considered the future of Sudan post 2011 – Mansour Khalid proposed three broad scenarios:
1.Continuation
2. Soft landing – two workable systems in separation
3. Hard landing – return to violence
How the present transition goes will affect the future and to what degree the roadmap (CPA) is followed. Referring to the progress since 2005; wealth sharing has yet to be achieved. The elections could lead to the one state, two systems scenarios.
Sara Pantuliano (Research Fellow and Programme Leader at the Overseas Development Institute):
Looking to post 2011 is a useful exercise as it pushes us to think beyond what has become ‘doomsday’. The referendum is thought of as the end of a process. While it is undoubtedly a fundamental landmark, it should also be seen as a step in a transition, however significant this step is. In this regard, it is important to consider the role that international actors can play to facilitate a constructive and peaceful post-2011 transition.
All the scenarios presented have one common denominator – local conflict (particularly at the border but also in the peripheries). The ‘Stagnation scenario’ seems to me the most likely, but this scenario is also characterised by local conflicts. It is imperative to look at ways of addressing these conflicts and preventing further escalation, particularly as they are very easily manipulated politically.
Elections: Elections can exacerbate tensions and in the context of Sudan it is likely that they will not lead to a transformative outcome (for example, look at Afghanistan). However elections also play an important role in people’s imagery around the CPA and they also serve a technical purpose as the process of popular consultation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile cannot be held without prior local elections. Creative thinking is needed to inform how elections can go ahead given the lack of civic education and preparedness of the political parties.
International Support: Currently there is a very expensive peace keeping mission which is ineffective, risk averse and has failed to provide adequate support to the recovery process post-conflict. The post-CPA transition was based on the naive assumption that there would be a functioning government in the South and Three Areas able to rapidly take on the task of delivering services and public goods. Today in many areas of Southern Sudan there is a lower level of access to basic services than there was during the war. The post-war transition in Southern Sudan was never going to be easy, but the expectations of what could be achieved in the short space of the Interim Period were clearly too high. Having these kinds of discussions in preparation for the post-2011 transition will hopefully help set more realistic objectives and timetables for the next phase.
Questions/Comments:
What are the reasons for such pessimism?
Lack of institutions, a constitution etc is discrimination against unity.
Why not two states?
Pervasive local conflict – is this not a reflection of the status quo?
Is Peace in two states not possible – too dark a picture
Is it a deliberate over simplification East – West as entities rather than peripheries – wouldn’t their existence as peripheries affect all the scenarios?
Don’t you think that in 2011 there will be interest to separate without violence?
All scenarios greatly connected to CPA – CPA mostly implemented apart from a few issues of contention. It’s not just the responsibility of the North and \South. To what extent did the UN intervention change the situation? – Other factors other than SPLM and NCP.
NCP almost by force of habit making CPA go in there favour otherwise would act in violence – what structures could be put in place to stop this underlying threat.
Alex: What about the suggestion of delay?
Oil in the South but pumped through the north – meaning North and South can both block it – Is this not a factor that could lead to understanding and cooperation?/ a source of stability?
Responses:
Jair van der Lijn:
Most of the International Community is in favour of unity, although there may be some that will support a separate South. Without international support wouldn’t the situation be worse?
Regarding pessimism on the South and violence – this was based on input from the workshops – the south is much divided, it is currently united by a common enemy but what will happen post secession?
If the CPA was implemented as much as possible this would be the nearest we could come to the peaceful scenario.
Delay could stimulate violence
Oil – makes stagnation scenario more likely – there will be parties that do not wealth share.
Hafiz Mohamed:
The challenge is not to bring peace it is to sustain it once established – the point of discussion is to come out with a common agenda to move forward. Engage all Sudanese in thinking about the future. Many preparing to go back to war – in South Kordofan.
I strongly disagree that most of the CPA has been implemented – for example there has been no reformation of the National Intelligence and Security Act which will hinder freedom of expression and the elections.
Peter Woodward:
One country, two systems? Eritrea/ Ethiopia could result in no benefits for either country. Separation is no easy answer for South Sudan; it would be a land locked state, just as Ethiopia is a land locked state.
Sara Pantuliano:
Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, there is a set of governance and development challenges both in the North and in the South that the NCP and the SPLM need to address or local conflicts and broader tensions will continue to escalate in the country.
Alex de Waal:
An EU representative, in response to a southerner asking him about separation said: “Six borders, six problems”.
Session 2: Sudan scenario post 2011: Unity/Separation
Chaired by Richard Dowden (Director of the Royal African Society)
Hafiz Mohamed:
Post separation – Southerners in the North to have citizens rights, tribal rights established so that nomads can move peacefully during drought. Northern tribes cross the border in many places other than Abyei. If citizens’ rights are kept maybe the future could be Unity.
South is a weak government and Kordofan and Darfur would be against the centre in the North. Government of Sudan must properly share power; people sent to the peripheries are people that represent the centre. We need real local democracy.
To try to stop the South and force Unity will not benefit the South or the North. In a secession scenario the North may be dismantled – East, Darfur being separate.
Peter Woodward:
At the moment it is a one party state – must shift to a more encompassing government.
Challenges:
1. Creating an inclusive government
2. Rebuilding administration (sovereign federation)
DPA – Darfur as one or three states? – This is the kind of participatory discussion which is needed.
Security Issues: Dominance of security by an ineffective army. Policing must be a priority – local engaging of policing which is part of the decentralising, federalising process. The government must decentralise economically and politically. Establishing security will lead to a growth in Development.
Other Countries must be considered: Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt.
Ibrahim Ahmed Ibrahim:
It’s not easy to talk about Darfur separately. Failure of CPA is that it is not a comprehensive agreement. Abuja agreement is a step towards peace, but the NCP are not serious on all signed agreements, they have no interest in their implementation.
Reasons for signing:
1. Darfur war
2. East War
3. US Sanctions
4. To stay in power for another 6 years
The CPA should include all political parties in Darfur and the East to bring sustainable peace.
The 2 Scenarios are Unity and Separation and 80% want separation. History says that unity is not attractive.
Salva Kiir lacks influence as the decisions on the removal of the NGOs and the ICC shows. Also Salva Kiir is rarely present on International visits.
We need to talk about the Abuja agreement.
Douglas Johnson (Expert on the history of Sudan and a member of the Abyei Boundary Commission):
Prophecies are like curses, they are made to avert what they predict. My prediction: If things keep going the way they are we are all going to die.
Just as separation is theoretical ‘Attractive Unity’ is theoretical as we have never had real unity over the period of independence and it has not brought anything positive.
Danforth Report in 2002 proposed a solution which wouldn’t work because it ignored Blue Nile and the borders.
Pastoralists are fighting their way south to enjoy pastures – South could allow for movement. There are conflicts in the South – some are being manipulated by Khartoum and some are very contextual.
Jonglei Violence was a direct result of what happened in Jonglei in the civil war. If leaders of South Sudan don’t see it as a security issue but a political issue there could be reconciliation.
Reconciliation hasn’t really happened in the South, SPLM need to admit its importance. Salva Kiir has apologised for SPLA conduct in the past – a lot more of this on a larger scale could stop this violence.
Southerners are united by a common enemy; even if SPLA are not liked locally SPLA guarantees the referendum. There will be a post SPLM South (just as in South Africa there is a post ANC) old liberation movements don’t move into democratic government leadership very easily.
The last Civil War was started by colonels and captains – the next civil war is likely to be started by the colonels and captains in the army now.
I do not see how there can be no referendum and this is how the international community will be involved.
What is the future of two Sudan’s? There are ways in which the two states can have relations. North/South will still be next to each other, they will have to make a relationship and it will probably be based on a series of treaties and treaties can lead to negotiation.
Martin Muortat (Chairman of SPLM UK and Ireland):
Change in the Centre to make unity attractive? Have things changed? Is there any reason to keep unity? SPLM wanted to create an inclusive Sudan, encompassing all ethnic identities. United Sudan failed due to economic marginalisation. Southerners feel they are second class citizens.
Promises have been unfulfilled. Games around the CPA and obstacles created to slow implementation (Percentages negotiations around the referendum for example).
The message sent to the common man and woman is that things haven’t changed. Marginalisation has continued. The cultural dimension of marginalisation particularly in the TV and Media in which there is no representation of the South. There is more representation of ethnic “minorities” in the UK Media and Southerners are not a “minority” in number in Sudan. The Media should not be appropriated it should be neutral.
SPLM are not the people to make unity attractive. Unity should be made attractive by the North and the Northern partners need to be more positive about it.
Dr Zachariah Bol Deng (a physician and son of Deng Majok):
If South remains as one country there would be a struggle to make democracy work. For the elections to democratically take place good governance would have to be properly scrutinized and no bad governance would be allowed. International influence could help the South in capacity building, development and good governance. Unity could have been made attractive and inclusive, but without this the South will succeed.
The South will unite if they succeed. Violence between the tribes is only skin deep –politicians who are encouraging the violence will not survive in government. Tribes of borders would rather live traditionally than fight –it is imperative to have a porous border. Oil revenues should be used to fuel agriculture and integrated rural development, delivery needs to respond to peoples needs. It would be in the interest of the South and the North to be friendly, peaceful neighbours, peace is prerequisite to development and the eradication of poverty.
Questions/Comments:
Representation of Women?
IDPs should be able to represent themselves
What about Northerners in the South and Southerners in the North?
What about a representative of the NCP?
CPA seen as a transformative process
What did the international community do to make unity attractive?
Luka Biong Deng (Minister in the Office of the President, Government of Southern Sudan Member of the SPLM National Liberation Council):
Building of awareness is key, need to engage the public and respond. Need to look positively as feeling of fear in itself can create instability. Need to maintain peace and stability.
Post referendum: we are talking about the people and the CPA. South Sudan are going to make a judgement as to what extent has the CPA been implemented?
2011 Cornerstone – What type of secession are we going to have? We can make South Sudan an example of a separation that has been implemented peacefully with the international community. The problem with the unity envisaged in the CPA is that the two parties have very different ideas of unity that directly oppose; neither side has found a way to make their unity attractive to the other. We shouldn’t be talking about making unity attractive but making what we already have attractive.
Break Out Sessions
Working Group: Development
Comments and Discussion:
Dr. Taj el Sir Mahjoub (NCP):
The government have a responsibility for National planning – which is why they have a 5 year plan. Contrary to this morning chances for Sudan moving towards unity are great. The main discussion point is How to make unity attractive?
Two Round table discussion groups took place. All governors were represented and the focus was on the Development issues which could make unity attractive.
The International community has hampered progress in developments by not sticking to commitments such as Peace dividends and quick impact programmes. I was in charge of all Donor Files.
CPA has created a number of institutions and commitments – the government must achieve these commitments.
Alex de Waal:
This kind of discussion is important to consider human and policy dimensions of development. The anticipation of the failure of the CPA is problematic; rehearsing the explanation for failure is not going to move us forward which could lead to Secession by default rather than design.
In Northern Sudan:
7.4% Government funds spent on education
7.7% spent on health
31% Security and defence
Based on a federal system, like the Nigerian system where most of the money comes from the centre because of oil – decentralisation needs to be situated. There has been a genuine attempt to implement the CPA. However bargaining over money has affected this.
If there is to be conflict price inflation in the cost of loyalty is unsustainable. If there is no way of keeping control of hyperinflation the North and South could become ungovernable. Defence spending can come down and money can be spent on things like health and education.
Wendy Fenton (Humanitarian Practice Network Coordinator for the Overseas Development Institute):
All Multi Donor Trust Fund spending information is available on internet on the MDTF and UNMIS websites. There is detailed information on CPA implementation in the monthly CPA Monitor, also available on the UN website.
8 Key result areas in the 5 year plan. NGOs in Southern Sudan are working with the civil administration to develop health and education institutions. The MDTF hasn’t delivered services as expected.
Harry Verhoeven (Researching Agriculture and Water in Sudan at Oxford University):
There is a strong emphasis on a particular kind of agriculture – commercial rather than traditional. The Vision of development is still very top down, we need to think about what development should constitute and to whom? This could inform a move to a new model of development in Sudan.
Development is closely related to violence.
Spending in the South since the conclusion of the civil war?
Wendy Fenton:
Discussions on education did take place in the run up to CPA signing and NGOs contributed to these. For example Save the Children worked with the SPLM civil administration, the de facto government before the peace agreement was signed, to develop an Accelerated Learning Programme (condensed curriculum, flexible hours, linked to the formal system) for demobilized child soldiers, girls who could not attend school regularly and other out of school children. The programme was developed with local education authorities on the ground in Bahr el Ghazal. This programme and approach was later incorporated into the GoSS’s education policies and plans. National Education succeeded in the South.
Comments:
Inclusion for disabled children is not solely a problem of resources also cultural stigma, teacher training and there is no representation for disabled people.
Education – we need an overhaul of the existing system to make it inclusive
Health – need to consider traditional methods
Agricultural production – need to discuss on the ground – look at who is the auteur of these policies – Government? Donors? Are they importing a model?
Comment from Khadiga Hussien (Sudanese Mothers for Peace):
Development not just what the government should do – should promote the skills of people in the remote parts so they feel they are benefiting from their own sweat.
There should be promotion of traditional ways of developing and attention drawn to civil society organisations – Seek areas that will bring people together.
Comments:
Any education system should have a focus on tolerance and acceptance of others.
Healthcare in rural areas is dire – the government spent 30% on security? – Security of whom?
There have been no public discussions around secession because the CPA is supposed to make unity attractive. However various donors are positioning themselves and as a result consolidated donor support is no longer available. Donors paid less attention because of needed focus on Darfur and an underlying attitude that the work was done as the agreement had been signed.
Education reflecting different areas – practise their own curriculum and own dialogues and religions. There are fears for the loss of culture. Need international support for locals to promote their own issues and culture.
Peace and Security Working Group:
Language and advocating the need for caution, Secession should be looked at positively too.
Government and National Bodies need to be improved.
There needs to be clarity about what the US and other international communities are supporting – this directly affects Donors supporting development.
Arms: How they are carried and removed – there is a need to push forward new ideas, possibly decommissioning rather than disarmament. Arms race also needs to be tackled, need to discuss how?
Need to look at other multiethnic part Muslim communities which have successfully transformed. Justice should not be ignored for reconciliation.
Need to consider from the human perspective of individuals – better to address issues such as Land Rights that feed into everyday security.
International Community: There is a need for UNMIS’s and UNAMID’s role to evolve to prevent future violence.
Democracy:
The lack of information on the way to the election was highlighted – which is the feelings of people in London therefore people in Sudan probably have even less access to information. Questions of where people can register – in EU countries but not Uganda and Kenya that also have very high Sudanese populations.
Response of donor community whether they have space to work.
A holistic approach to development is needed that includes human rights and democracy.
Commissions under the CPA:
What happened to the monitory arm of the CPA? What happened to Land Rights, Human rights? The forced removal of communities to make space for investors in Land is an example (Dams).
Comments and Questions:
Political parties and access to resources – particularly in the media in the South. The North has a vibrant media environment despite the controls. Information on the elections is not available in the south.
Could we make two republics based on the EU model?
If separate the borders need to be porous.
Oil: More details are needed for a greater understanding of it’s expiration date particularly as the GOSS is 95 – 98% dependant on oil revenues.
Also need more details on the referendum law
Discrimination of CPA and donors and media results in the environment on the ground not being open enough – NCP and SPLM need to truly invest in civic and peace education.
People should look at the Rift Valley Institute – History of Elections Report.
Closing Remarks – John Ryle (Research Associate at the Centre for African Studies and Chair of the Rift Valley Institute):
This is the kind of long Process of discussion that doesn’t come to a conclusion but needs to continue. There are short, mid and long term goals.
Short term: Elections – 12 ballots, very difficult to understand registration.
Need to understand the referendum as a fixed point.
Learn from the experience of the coming elections – rigorously monitor the election now and feed observations into the running of the referendum.
Long Term: Dr. Taj el Sir Mahjoub book was called “Expectations of the Dawn”- just how long do we wait for ‘dawn’? The process of reconciliation should be for all not just the South.
These discussions should continue to support the transition.
