Don't Neglect the "Modern Forces"

By Imatong Ali

Sudan is a painful reminder of the horrors which afflict many countries in Africa. This one country encompasses the killing fields of war, the tragedy of famine, the senseless violence of religious zealots and the percolating social crisis of a collapsed economy. Since the Islamic fundamentalist military coup of 1989 there has been a continual flow of reports of genocide, widespread violations of human rights and the harboring of international terrorists on the part of the regime. Sudan has become synonymous with ominous news. Therefore, the cease-fire arranged by former President Jimmy Carter last March was greeted with enormous relief.

Yet those who are familiar with Sudan remain skeptical. The government has used similar cease-fires in the past to rearm and redeploy its troops, leading to a further escalation of the conflict and greater suffering. Recent reports say the government has contracted a Middle East arms dealer to provide $100 million of ammunition, while Al-Hayat reports the U.S. State Department is concerned over a new agreement on military cooperation between Sudan and Iran. Such bulletins do not allow for much optimism.

Peace prospects appear even gloomier when one considers the fate of the IGADD initiative, which has been stalemated as a result of the regime's intransigence. Khartoum already is looking for new allies and has announced that regime strongman Hassan al-Turabi is seeking Scandinavian and Dutch mediation of the conflict.

Talks vs. Negotiations

The Khartoum government has finely honed its tactics of talking without actually negotiating. It manipulated the IGADD just as it took advantage of previous talks in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, using the "negotiations" as a cover for its military operations. Sudanese commentator Bona Malwal was right to warn against the "Abujanization" of the IGADD talks.

The regime will continue to capitalize on the international yearning for peace talks, so long as they remain just "talks." Once the discussions touch on substantive issues, however, and real negotiations begin, the process will come to a halt. After all, the government loses nothing by exploiting international goodwill and interest in peace. On the contrary, the exercise brings good press and buys more time.

Imagining a political settlement under the current government is difficult. The regime is as bizarre as it is extremist. One presidential proclamation ordered a committee study of the use of djinn ("genies") in the national development plan, while other official statements have detailed how divine intervention guided monkeys to clear land mines in front of advancing government militia troops! The National Islamic Front regime has transformed the conflict into a religious struggle to establish a theocratic state, which rules out compromise. From the regime's perspective, the conflict is more than a conventional war; it is a religious duty, a jihad, which cannot be negotiated with human beings—least of all with "infidels."

To assume the government is totally uninterested in peace would be cynical. Successive Sudanese regimes, including the current one, have desired an end to the conflict. Their dilemma has been that each wanted a settlement on its own terms. Rather than making the political compromises that peace entails, Sudanese regimes have preferred to incur the high costs of war. While every new government since 1964, whether civilian or military, has claimed to advance the cause of peace, no faction of the ruling elite has dared disturb the status quo, in spite of the obvious need to end the conflict.

War is not, and never has been, the cause of the conflict in the Sudan. Rather, it is the manifestation of ideological, social, racial, cultural and economic relations which produce injustice and inequality. No lasting settlement can be reached without addressing the injustices underlying the war. Such efforts have been made in the past, but were quickly blocked by those elements which benefit from maintaining the status quo. In this sense, peace is a threat to the dominant political actors in the country.

The Role of the "Modern Forces"

While the south has used arms to effect change, forces in the north have used different means to put pressure on the ruling elites. Popular opposition in northern Sudan galvanized around trade unions and their experience using civil disobedience tactics like strikes, demonstrations and public rallies. By the 1960s the unions had established links with professional associations, women's groups and students to bolster resistance to the dominant traditional elite and their sectarian political parties. This broad alliance came to be known as the "modern forces."

The military regimes of 1958-64 and 1969-85 survived all the armed coup attempts directed against them, yet neither could withstand national strikes fomented by the modern forces. Both of these uprisings were triggered by the failure of the military regimes to end the bloodshed in the south.

After both the 1964 and the 1985 uprisings, the modern forces initiated searches for an end to the civil war. In 1965 they succeeded in convening the multi-factional Khartoum Round Table Conference, and since 1985 they have maintained dialogue with the SPLA/SPLM. These efforts produced the most comprehensive blueprint for peace in Sudan, the 1986 Koka Dam Declaration, which outlined the conditions necessary to open substantive negotiations and end the war.

The traditional sectarian elite continued to stonewall various peace initiatives, however, and in 1988 the modern forces took steps to create a new governmental coalition clearly committed to peace. Threatened by such moves, Islamist elements in the military seized power in June 1989. One of the junta's first actions was to purge thousands of trade unionists, professionals and army and police officers.

It is unfortunate that the modern forces are ignored by observers outside Sudan, despite their political record and experience. The sectarian elite now in opposition will not provide resources to those challenging their traditional hegemony, of course, yet the modern alliance remains a potent force for change in Sudan. The December 1994 creation of the Sudanese Allied Forces (SAF), made up of seasoned activists from the army, police, trade unions and professional, women's and students' groups, is significant. The SAF, led by Brigadier Abdelaziz Khalid, maintains contact with the SPLA and the two largest traditional northern parties (now in opposition), the Umma Party and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

The U.S. Role

The United States provides generous humanitarian relief and is leading international efforts for peace, democracy and human rights in the Sudan. The U.S. Congress has maintained an active interest by holding hearings and passing several strong resolutions. American NGOs have contributed effectively in a wide range of activities, at times taking great risks. Sudanese gratitude and appreciation of this support is truly immense.

There is a need for greater coordination of efforts to maximize the returns from the existing resources, however. It is essential that the present level of international pressure be maintained, possibly even intensified, and certainly not reduced. Any easing of pressure will have disastrous effects for the forces of peace and stability not only in Sudan, but throughout the Horn and into Central, East and North Africa, possibly even extending across the Red Sea. The government and its fellow travelers outside Sudan will misconstrue such a relaxation in efforts as a victory for their cause, and they will become even more dismissive of human rights and basic democratic principles.

One step which would greatly empower the peace movement inside the Sudan would be the breaking of the government's embargo on outside information and news of developments in the peace process. This could easily be accomplished by broadcasting relevant newspaper articles, congressional and U.N. resolutions and other material via short-wave radio.

Friends of Sudan must ask themselves one simple question: Is the objective of their efforts to arrive at a political settlement, or is it to realize lasting peace? The answer will affect not only the peoples of the Sudan, but of the wider region as well.

Imatong Ali is the pseudonym of a trade unionist from Sudan.