AU Darfur Panel Report: Will Justice for some and political reform for others suffice for Sudan?
Under the auspices of an African solution to the intractable Darfur conflict, with the African Union (AU) preparing to take on a more robust role in monitoring Sudan’s future, lurks the reality of a half-cast proposition of justice and reconciliation.
Paula Roque, researcher, African Security Analysis Programme, ISS Pretoria
Under the auspices of an African solution to the intractable Darfur
conflict, with the African Union (AU) preparing to take on a more
robust role in monitoring Sudan’s future, lurks the reality of a
half-cast proposition of justice and reconciliation. While the AU Panel
on Darfur (AUPD) presents a remarkable roadmap for the stabilization of
Darfur and a comprehensive package of transitional justice mechanisms,
it prescribes a national political solution and confines justice to
only one region of Sudan. If, as the report states, the greater problem
of Sudan relates to the State and policies resulting from narrow elite
interests, which has catalyzed conflicts all over the country, then
justice and peace cannot be negotiated bilaterally as was done in the
South, East and Darfur. Pursuing justice, reconciliation and peace is a
transformational process that should not be attempted in a piecemeal
fashion, but in a holistic manner within a national framework.
The process of political liberalization, the construction of an
accountable, equalitarian and democratic society needs to be
accompanied by a genuine national and government- endorsed
reconciliation and justice process. Only then will it become apparent
that political calculations, concerted efforts towards state denial,
the sanitization of armed movements as liberation groups, elite
bargaining and impunity, distorted institutions, and divisive social
engineering projects have been set aside and the nation begins
inaugurating an era of transformation. What is needed is a sense of
common purpose and a defined future. Even if Sudan becomes two separate
countries in 2011, for the purpose of internal stability, cohesion,
and security, issues around reconciliation, justice, land and
citizenship need to be prioritized.
This is a much needed debate as Sudan’s political storm is growing
and will gain further momentum with two major events, perhaps bringing
to a climax the political developments since independence. On the
horizon are national elections in April 2010 and the self-determination
referendum for the South in January 2011. It is in this highly tense
context that the AU panel report - mandated to evaluate the Darfur
crisis and propose a set of solutions to address the issues of justice,
peace and reconciliation in Sudan’s western region – is being received
in the country.
Within the current context several are the challenges towards the
implementation of the AUDP report recommendations, the most immediate
one relating to the issue of timing. If there is an attempt to
implement the AUDP before the elections then only 4 months remain;
after the elections there will be a new ruling composition to negotiate
with and if results are accepted and the process successful all
national attention will be turned towards the referendum in January
2011. After the referendum the country could be facing its biggest
crisis yet and attempts to stabilize Darfur may fail with other events
catalyzing problematic developments in the entire country.
While the establishment of a Global Political Agreement is
fundamental for any long-term stability in Darfur, the peace process
will face many difficulties, including the fragmentation of the rebel
groups and absence of well-formulated negotiating positions. The
roadmap proposed by the AUDP towards a framework agreement will mean
addressing the needs, values and interests expressed by the rebels,
civil society, the IDP and refugee population, and other stakeholders.
However, if the GPA results in a power-sharing agreement then this
could contradict the process of competitive democratic elections of
April next year.
One of the main recommendations of the AUDP report is the
establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which will
prove to be just as problematic as many judicial proceedings given the
lack of institutions, leadership, and accepted narratives at a national
level. The objective of a truth commission is to get as much as
possible a record of people’s perceptions, stories, myths, and
experiences throughout the years of conflict aimed at creating a
national record of the past to counter any process of state denial or
historical distortions. This is especially problematic in identity
conflicts, and is especially difficult in a country like Sudan that
still faces a national identity crisis and the polarization of
identities that has led to contrasting visions of what Sudan should look
like. In addition, the commission’s findings could also provide for
evidence to be used against potential perpetrators in criminal
proceedings.
An important aspect of the integrated justice package are
traditional justice mechanisms for Darfur, which could take the form of
the Judiyya that is facilitated by elders and reparations are
paid through blood money. However, dealing with certain crimes,
especially those related to sexual violence, at a local level is not
ideal. In addition, many of these traditional structures have been
tainted and manipulated by years of brutal conflict, through cooptation
and politicization, which would make the impartiality and credibility
questionable.
The quest for justice among displaced and destitute communities
comes in many forms , but one main requisite is social and economic
justice. This recommendation is very important but it would have to be
tied to a return and resettlement process, to land security and
legislation, and to the disarmament and stabilization of all areas.
These are prerequisites for any process that would work towards social
improvements and more sustainable livelihoods.
However, the most problematic recommendations relate to the need for
Legal Reform and the establishment of a Hybrid Court that would allow
non-nationals to participate in the judicial process. However, without
the adoption of necessary legislation to allow for foreign judges then
the creation of a hybrid tribunal becomes impossible. Equally, without
the reform of certain laws and the removal of immunities (as stated in
the National Security Forces Act) prosecuting individuals in the armed
forces is equally difficult.
While the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 initiated the
transformation of Sudan, with remarkable challenges being overcome by
the National Congress Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement,
the country is still facing an uncertain future. Discussions for
post-referendum arrangements are only beginning even as attempts to
make unity have all but been abandoned. In the remaining 16 months of
the CPA, the Sudanese leadership needs to proceed with moderation, and
the belief in the possibility of a peaceful, negotiated and consensual
outcome in January 2011. However, this will not be enough. Sudan needs
more time for the transformation to occur, internally or as two
separate sovereign entities, with a second transition being an option.
Within this second stage of transformation Sudan’s future will depend
not only on lessons from the past but on how it chooses to address and
deal with the past.
