Seven Questions: Violence in Sudan

FP: Who was John Garang and why was he so valuable to the Sudanese peace agreement signed earlier this year?

Eric Reeves: John Garang was a visionary, charismatic, and pragmatic leader from southern Sudan. He was the force behind the peace agreement, between Sudans warring northern and southern factions, signed in January 2005. He was the southerner who had the best chance of making this peace agreement work. He was criticized by many in his Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM), including his successor, Salva Kiir, for not pushing for immediate southern independence. That would never have worked and Garang knew that. His pragmatic realism is the only reason there is a peace agreement.

FP: What can we expect from Salva Kiir?

ER: Salva Kiir is primarily a military man. He is Garangs designated successor, but hes not well known. He has very little experience with diplomacy and politics. He is more inclined to push for an independent southern Sudan. Kiir is going to be severely tested by the National Islamic Front, which dominates the new government in Khartoum. His secessionist credentials will follow him, and he will be considered with great suspicion by those in power.

FP: Whats the history of this conflict, and what were the terms of the peace agreement?

ER: The conflict between the primarily Arab Muslim north and primarily Christian south arguably began in 1955, the year before independence was achieved. There was an 11-year uneasy peace in the 1970s and early 1980s that broke down under Gaafar al-Nimeiri, the former military ruler of Sudan, because of his imposition of sharia [Islamic law] and his efforts to redraw the north-south boundaries. From 1983 through 2002, this conflict claimed well over 2 million lives and displaced well over 4 million people.

The peace deal addresses issues of north-south power sharing, national governance, sharing of oil revenues, boundary disputes, and sharia. It also has security arrangements that call for jointly deployed units of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army and the regular Khartoum army, but it also calls for the withdrawal of Khartoums regular forces from southern Sudan on a scheduled timetable. Thats essential. Without a strong security arrangement, the peace deal had no chance of being ratified.

FP: How does this conflict relate to Darfur? Is north-south peace necessary to achieve peace in Darfur?

ER: Yes. If war were to resume in southern Sudan, all the leverage the international community now has with Khartoum would disappear. Khartoum has repeatedly said, in effect, If you press us too hard on Darfur, we will scuttle the north-south peace agreement. If there is no longer a north-south peace agreement, theres no longer an incentive for them to respect humanitarian access issues, or to continue whatever military restraint theyve shown so far in Darfur. The international community has shown with Darfur that [it] will not intervene, even in the midst of massive, genocidal destruction. That is not lost on the National Islamic Front in Khartoum.

FP: Over 100 people were killed in Khartoum after John Garangs death, and there were news reports of armed vigilante groups wreaking havoc in the streets. Who are these guys?

ER: There has been resentment in various quarters of the Arab north for the huge population influx of southernersprobably 2 million or so in Khartoum and its suburbs. This resentment was dramatically heightened by the fact that many southerners in the Khartoum area rioted in the immediate wake of John Garangs death. The response in turn by the Arab population was to turn the tables on the southern Sudanese population and single them out for vastly disproportionate attacks.

The U.S. government and other governments need to bring real pressure to bear on Khartoum to deploy all necessary security forces to keep this under control. I believe this is happening now behind the scenes.

FP: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just visited Sudan. What did she achieve while she was there?

ER: She sandwiched a visit to Sudan between a trip to Senegal and a trip to the Middle East. When she was in Senegalthis escaped most peoples attentionthe foreign minister of Senegal said, in effect, The current situation in Darfur is totally unacceptable. The African Union has failed; it has not prevented genocide. We have not made good on our promises. He said this with Condoleezza Rice standing by his side, which is notable. It is true, of course. Hes the first African Union leader to say as much. In March, Condoleezza Rice was asked by the Washington Post how many troops it would take to stop genocide in Darfur, and she repeatedly said, I dont know. Rice knows that there is a much better answer than that. Her reason for not answering is that any honest assessment of the security needs in Darfur makes it clear that the current deployment of African Union troops is inadequate.

FP: What should the United States and the international community be doing?

ER: In Darfur, international humanitarian intervention to stop genocide with all necessary military support is required. We are pretending as though the African Union force can do this. It cannot.

When I was in Sudan in January 2003 and speaking with John Garang and military commanders, everyone I talked to said [that] if war comes again, it will be the most violent phase of the civil war to date. That is saying something extraordinary given the levels of human destruction weve seen there in the last 20 years. It is an incredibly fragile situation.

Eric Reeves is a full-time researcher and analyst of Sudan. He is currently on leave from his position as professor of English language and literature at Smith College.