North and South bridge gaps?

Finally, there’s some good news coming out of the Sudan. Sudan’s Arab-dominated government has entered a power sharing arrangement with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, a predominantly Christian opposition group. The new arrangement was reached with support from the African Union and the United States. Under the arrangement SPLM leader John Garang will be vice-president. However, all other political posts remain in Arab Sudanese hands, effectively maintaining the status quo. The constitution has also been changed. The changes have widely been reported as enabling greater political and religious freedoms. A state of emergency, which, amongst other things, outlawed opposition political parties, has finally been revoked after some 6 years. Despite these welcome developments, Amnesty International has been critical of the new constitution, claiming it provides “sweeping immunity for high level officials.” As ever, there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Reports of violence continue to surface in Darfur. Robert Zoellick, Condoleezza Rice’s deputy at the State Department, is currently touring Darfur, where he noted that the situation there “is still very terrible.”

Any move towards a more inclusive, pluralist political system in Sudan should be celebrated. But considered analysis of the country must not be avoided either. For instance, could the Sudan Government’s current interest in a political solution have something to do with pressure from the International Community, including the United States? The United States, in turn, appears to be under pressure from Christian groups to look strong on Sudan, a Muslim-dominated nation which has directly on indirectly been harassing the ethnic populations of Darfur which are predominantly Christian. Therefore, will things really change for the better merely by virtue of the major players being seen to be doing something about the human rights situation in Sudan?

Speaking of which, the Sudanese Government has also set up a special court to prosecute those who have committed crimes in Darfur. The court, which has yet to begin, has been roundly condemned by outside observers as a piecemeal, politically motivated solution which will not seek to prosecute those most responsible for committing crimes in Darfur. The creation of the court appears to be in response to a referral by the United Nations Security Council to the International Criminal Court of 51 Sudanese accused of committing war crimes in Darfur. Prior to the referral, a commission set up by the UN handed down a report which concluded that the Sudanese Government was responsible for crimes in Darfur. Interestingly, the commission report did not find evidence of genocide, as had previously been claimed by the United States. Since making those claims, even the United States now appears reluctant to call the crimes in Darfur genocide.

Whether things will actually change much for those on the ground (read – predominantly Christian and animist minority groups in the country’s south) remains to be seen. I’ve deliberately sidesteps geopolitics here, but there is certainly more to consider on the outside world’s involvement in the region.