Avoiding partition

Dina Ezzat examines Egypt's recent contributions to peacemaking in Sudan

---

Egypt is becoming increasingly concerned about prospects for stability and territorial unity in Sudan. Cairo's worry is not just prompted by the political conflict between the Sudanese government and militant opposition in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. It is also stemming from cracks that are rapidly appearing in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 between Khartoum's ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and its archenemy, the militant separatist Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).

Last week Cairo executed an urgent containment mission on the NCP-SPLM/A front. President Hosni Mubarak sent Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit and General Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman for talks with Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir and SPLM/A leader Salva Kiir. Further, Abul-Gheit will arrive next week in the Libyan city of Sirt to take part in the launching of a new round of talks between the Sudanese government and some of Darfur's rebels. Others are boycotting the peace negotiations.

For Egypt, the enhancement of a fragile peace between Khartoum and the south is a priority in the facilitation of a peace deal between the Sudanese government and rebels in Darfur. Both are tough objectives to achieve.

In the case of the resumption of NCP-SPLM/A tensions, there are tough questions to address relative to the political will of both sides and the plans of influential external forces. This week, the Sudanese government turned down a French proposal for an international conference to address the fate of the CPA. Senior NCP officials characterised the idea as attempted international interference in Sudanese internal affairs and insisted that agreement could be reached with the SPLM/A.

Meanwhile, the SPLM/A has declined to allow its ministers nominated for a coalition government with the NCP to join a cabinet unless a solution is found for pending issues, especially the demarcation of north-south borders to be observed in the case of the partition of Sudan into two states in the future. Leaders of the SPLM/A insist that the oil-rich, multi-ethnic contested border region of Abiye would have to be included within the southern zone.

Signed in 2005 to end the longest civil war in Africa, and that schedules a referendum for 2011 to decide on the possible division of Sudan into two, the CPA advocates making unity appealing for residents of the south. Today the SPLM/A argues that efforts to develop the south and establish democratic relations between it and the north were not effectively pursued. SPLM/A leaders complain about attempts by the NCP government to politically marginalise the SPLM/A and their failing to withdraw Khartoum-controlled troops from southern areas taken during the years of civil war.

For its part, the NCP complains that southern leaders are already pursuing political and monetary independence, especially in relation to establishing diplomatic bureaus independent of Sudanese embassies overseas. It also complains about the slow pace of implementing the southern leaders' decision to end the deployment of SPLM/A troops in the north. The NCP voices concern that the work of a special border demarcation commission was not faithful and attempted to include more territories within the southern zone under the pretext of maintaining tribal unity.

During visits to Juba -- capital of the south -- and Khartoum last week, the delegation of Egyptian officials were not particularly surprised by the complaints they heard on both sides. The objective of the mission was, however, considered achieved when southern and northern political leaders promised Abul-Gheit and Suleiman that they would stick to the CPA and peaceful negotiations.

The broader crisis is unresolved, however. Equally unresolved is the meaning of statements made in Sudan 11 October by US Special Envoy Andrew Nastios about threats facing the north-south peace and which were followed almost immediately by a decision of the SPLM/A to pull its ministers out of the Sudanese coalition government. Egyptian officials are tight- lipped on questions related to possible US intervention.

So far, Egyptian officials say there are no plans for a second round of talks with Sudanese officials in Juba and Khartoum. They speak, however, of "determination" in following up on the issue as part of efforts to enhance the prospects of peace negotiations on Darfur. Cairo is not deaf to the separatist tone that has recently been adopted by some Darfur factions. "We respect the choices of the Sudanese people, but that the last thing we would like to see is a divided Sudan," commented one Egyptian official.

According to statements issued by the Foreign Ministry, Egypt has already decided to upgrade its contribution to development plans in Juba. It has decided to expand its diplomatic representation there. Meanwhile, Cairo is set to launch a drive to convince concerned international players of the need to uphold the territorial unity of Sudan and pressure reluctant Darfur rebels to join the Sirt peace talks.

Egypt is also approaching Darfurian factions directly. Earlier this month, during talks held in Cairo separately by Abul-Gheit and Suleiman, Egypt managed to secure the support of several but not all Darfurian factions to a vision of power and wealth sharing in a united Sudan.

"The issue of Darfur is much more complicated than that of the escalated conflict between the NCP and the SPLM," commented Iglal Raafat, an expert on Sudanese politics. "In the case of Darfur, there is no one leadership that could be addressed. This is not the case for the south," she added.

But comparisons of difficulties aside, Raafat is profoundly concerned about recent developments. "Escalation, and one fears sounds of partition, are looming on both fronts," she said.

Raafat would not immediately subscribe to complaints circulated in certain Arab, including Sudanese, official quarters about a US plan to divide Sudan into several countries. "It must be clear to the US that the scenario of division in Sudan, with its many ethnic shades, would be catastrophic for the chances of stability... It would be worse than the current quagmire in Iraq," she said.

According to Raafat, the US and other Western forces would rather pursue stability in Sudan to achieve their investment plans, especially in relation to oil fields there. She hastened to add, however, that the purpose of current political incitement that "might be conducted on the part of certain Western players" is to further weaken the Sudanese government.

The diagnosis that Raafat has for the current situation in Sudan is grounded on the failure of successive Sudanese governments, of different political orientations, to address the socio- economic inequalities prevalent in Sudan's south and west. Raafat also blames the failure of concerned diplomatic mediators -- including Egyptian -- to meet the challenges in Sudan.

"Egyptian mediation needs to be much more intense and effective than what we see now. A one-off visit to Juba and Khartoum and a self-projected image of success is not enough," Raafat argued. "Egypt has been successful in maintaining good relations with all the political players in Sudan, whether in the south, Darfur or elsewhere. Today, these good relations have to be used to bring all the conflicting parties together," Raafat argued. "This would require a daily involvement... It would be taxing, but it could ward off the scenario of partition in Sudan."