Confusing, and disturbing

Colum Lynch reports yesterday that Sudan seems to be pursuing peace in one province even as it opts for war in another.  Khartoum has agreed to the deployment of Ethiopian peacekeepers in the disputed border region of Abyei, where the Sudanese army, provoked by an attack on a convoy by South Sudanese forces last month, has displaced something like 100,000 people.  Now, in Southern Kordofan, a province in the North, the Sudanese forces have started attacking forces loyal to South Sudan, apparently fearing that they might seek to secede from the North to join the South.

This has roused the American organizations that follow Sudan to issue a manifesto calling for a tough response to what they regard as primarily the North’s provocations.  The list of challenges they cite is impressive:

1. A peaceful and principled resolution to the crisis on the North-South border, including Abyei, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile
2. Peaceful resolution of other outstanding separation issues that could lead to a resumption of North-South war, including border demarcation, oil wealth sharing, and citizenship status
3. An end to the crisis in Darfur and a comprehensive peace agreed to by all parties
4. Security for all people in the Republic of South Sudan, including protection from militia violence, and responsible and accountable Southern security services
5. Tangible and measurable steps toward democratic governance in the North and the South
6. Accountability for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide

The solutions suggested mainly involve ratcheting up pressure on the Khartoum, by removing “carrots” and brandishing new “sticks,” as well as helping Juba (the capital of South Sudan) stabilize its territory.

None of that is objectionable, as Khartoum has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith and Juba unquestionably needs help, but you’ve got to wonder whether it is going to work.  The problem is that there are too many problems.  Virtually none of those described here in January have been solved.  When everything is a priority nothing is a priority.

In practice, the urgent prevails over the important.  Khartoum is making the border issues urgent, perhaps even with a view to using them as an excuse not to recognize newly independent South Sudan when July 9 comes.  It could get a lot worse if southerners start being expelled from around Khartoum, where several million took refuge during the civil war, or if the North cuts off export of the South’s oil.  While a full-scale resumption of the civil war seems unlikely–the North has no intention of risking its army once again in the far reaches of the South–independence day may well not be peaceful.

What can be done about all this?  Not a whole lot, if you think only military instruments will work.  But UN-appointed mediator Thabo Mbeki is trying diplomacy, with support from the Americans, Norwegians, British and other interested internationals.  Khartoum seems determined:  not to prevent the South’s independence, but to reassert its authority over territory in the North where there are southern sympathizers and to claim as much of Abyei, which produces oil, as possible.  The South has been correctly focused on making independence as smooth as possible, though it seems to be having trouble ensuring that its troops and militias don’t provoke the North.

The agreement on Abyei is a positive development, as is South Sudan’s impending independence.  But a lot of what is going on in Sudan today is confusing, and disturbing.

PS:  A U.S. Institute of Peace paper argues for a more comprehensive, holistic approach focused on reform in the North.  I’m afraid the North’s armed forces may be answering that appeal in Southern Kordofan.  Not much room for reform when you are killing and displacing your own population.