Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 1

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION

by[Name]

Name

Professor’s Name

Institution

Location of Institution

Date
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 2

Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation

I. Introduction

Although there is a continuity between conflict resolution and reconciliation, they are

conceptualized as two distinct peacemaking processes whose objective is to bring together the

conflicting parties so that they establish the same level of interests and relationships (Assefa

2019). Assefa conceptualizes conflict resolution as methods and processes implemented to

facilitate the peaceful ending of conflicts and retributions. The conflicting members are often

obliged to solve their differences by actively expressing their perceptions or ideologies on behalf

of their followers. On the other hand, reconciliation is a mutual and consensual process which

cannot be applied to one party but should rather encompass both parties in a move to re-establish

good relationships between the warring parties (Imam and Abdelrahman 2018). This essay seeks

to explore the civil wars in Sudan, their resolutions and reconciliation.

Map of Sudan

Sudan is a landlocked country located in northeastern Africa and is surrounded by seven

countries, as highlighted in the map below.

 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 3

Figure1: The map of Sudan (Patey 2017)

Brief description Sudan

Sudan is one of the largest African countries, with a total surface area of 2.5M Km²

(Mugo 2016). The country enjoys a wealth of resources such as oil which has established itself

as a critical factor in its economic equation and agricultural produce as well as livestock

resources. Despite this, the country's huge population languish in poverty with a daily

expenditure of less than 1USD (Castro 2018).

According to Wahab (2018), Sudan is one of the most densely populated African

countries with an estimated population of 32 million as per the 2001 statistics. Furthermore,

Wahab argues that with 45% of the country's total population are Arabs and 55% are Africans.

Additionally, 60% are Muslims, while 40% are Christians and other religious affiliations. Even

though Sudan has more than 300 tribes, since its independence in 1956, it has failed to recognize

the importance of its diversity as a crucial component in the process of nation-building (Duany
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 4

and Duany 2018). Contrastingly, the Sudanese government continues to abuse and exploit its

diversity, deviating it from a wellspring of unity into an epicentre of divisions and violence.

History of the Sudanese conflict

Breidlid (2019) posit that the country's first internal conflict started in August 1955, a few

months prior to independence. The warring parties were the government and its rebels – the

Anyanya Movement. After independence, the conflict intensified after the central government

declined to honour its promise of granting the Southern part a Federal system of government (Ali

2018). After 16 years of civil conflicts, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia resolved the war in

1972 by bringing the two conflicting parties to terms – an agreement which granted the southern

population a regional autonomy (Knopf 2018).

Nevertheless, 11 years after signing the peace treaty, the war broke again in 1983 when

the Khartoum-based government enacted Sharia laws that greatly affected the lives of the

southern people who were majorly Christians. The second civil conflicts that were engineered

by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) were more destructive than the initial one.

As a result, approximately 2.8 million people lost their lives while close to 5 million people were

internally displaced (Mugo 2016).

II. The Conflict Parties

Core conflict parties

In 1994, the Sudanese government agreed with the SPLM to rally for peace within its

borders; furthermore, they agreed to focus on self-determination and separation of religions

 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 5

(Gebremichael, Kifle, and Kidane 2018). Nevertheless, this came after long spells of

unsuccessful negotiations until 2002 when the Machakos Protocol accomplished its first phase of

reconciliations. During this period, SPLM and the Government of Sudan (GoS) agreed to use

Intergovernmental Authority Development (IGAD) as their mediator. Sun and Zoubir (2018)

posit that during this period, the eastern parts of Sudan had been under civil wars since the 1990s

when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) initiated a military campaign against the

government. NDA, under the leadership of Beja Congress – a political affiliation that represented

the Beja community of Eastern Sudan, signed the Eastern Sudan Peace treaty in Asmara to bring

the 10-year of civil wars to an end.

A breakthrough in peaceful negotiations came at a time when the war was escalating in

the country, specifically in Darfur. In 2003, two rebel political parties Sudan Liberation

Movement (SLM) and the Justice Equality Movement (JEM) launched wars against the

government forces in Darfur. The parties argued that their primary objective was to fight for the

creation of an inclusive and democratic government that observes equity and justice (Knopf

2018). Knopf further argues that Sudan's political environment did not provide room for the

formation of political parties and associations. After the military coup in 1989, all political

parties were banned, and since then the formation of any political movement was only be

established after seeking permission from the government.

Conflict issues

According to Patey (2017), the first civil war in Sudan was fought between the Arabs

who were affiliated to the Khartoum government and the rebels who largely comprised of

Christians and other religious affiliations that occupied the southern parts of the country. Mugo

(2016) suggests that the southern rebels were fighting for an equitable share of government
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 6

resources and a balanced representation in the central government. After the succeeding

leadership failed to address these perils of factionalism, poor economic developments and ethnic

conflicts, an assembly of communists and social offices under the leadership of Colonel Gaafar

al-Nimeiry took over the lead through a coup in 1969 (Wahab 2018).

Due to pressure from the Islamists, president Nimeiry banned the southern semi-

autonomous government and consolidated all the powers in Khartoum. Furthermore, he declared

Arabic as the national language and instituted Sharia laws throughout the country even though it

was against Christian teachings. Nimeiry's decisions precipitated another civil war with the

southern people. Castro (2018) argues that until 2000, Khartoum committed crimes against

humanity, war crimes, and genocides to the people living to the South of Sudan.

Relationships between the conflicting parties

Imam and Abdelrahman (2018) argue that since the people of Southern Sudan voted to

their independence, their relationship with those to the North became frosty with massive killings

of people from either side by government troops. Both governments are experiencing wrangles

over legitimacy and monopoly over the use of governments' forces to victimize each other. As a

result of their lousy blood ties, over 120, 000 people have lost their lives and approximately 2

million people internally displaced (Gebremichael et al. 2018). The conflicts target civilians,

gender-based violence such as rape, setting people's homesteads and livestock ablaze and

widespread kidnapping.

Perceptions of the causes and nature of the conflict

According to Sun and Zoubir (2018), the war between the North and the South was

primarily geared by the desire to take control of the oil fields of Abyei. The authors argue that
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 7

until now, oil is the key player of the countries' economies – a factor that forces both countries to

engage in wars over its control. Furthermore, marginalization of some tribes and regions is

another reason why it has been difficult to stop the conflicts or even adhere to the signed peace

treaties. The ease with which the warring parties access weapons, Mugo (2016) posits that the

easier it is to access the weapons the severer the war becomes. This explains why it has been so

hard for governments to take control of their territories. Since the country gained independence,

the government of South Sudan has been subject to various challenges similar to those faced by

newly-independent states. Competition for political powers and diverse ideologies among leaders

have created a scenario whereby the communities have been regrouping within their ethnic

subscriptions to advance their cause.

The current behavior of the parties

As noted by Duany and Duany (2018), the conflict is even getting worse. The authors argue that

since South Sudan gained her independence, the Khartoum-based government has been secretly

working to destabilize the southern region and even providing military aid to carry attacks in

various parties of the region.

Leaders of the parties.

Sun and Zoubir (2018) argue that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) was

founded in 1983 under the leadership of John Garang. The objective of SPLM was to realize a

new Sudan. As a result, it launched a rebellion against the Khartoum-based government to

achieve a more secularized country. Wahab (2018) notes that SPLM drew more followers from

the southern part of the country; however, as the quest for liberation gained momentum, it

encompassed some members of the North. SPLM was established from a diverse ethnic
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 8

background. Nevertheless, the Nuer and Dinka clans were the majority in terms of sizes of their

populations. These tribes occupied the movement's prime jobs, something that triggered its

downfall.

While SPLM was fighting for the independence of her people, various challenges such

as leadership, ideological and financial constraints hampered the party's objectives. Lack of an

effective and united leadership provided proved to be the major weaknesses within the party

which later led to its split. Leadership wrangles within SPLM provided a platform for heightened

conflicts as the antagonized coalitions were faced by to main challenges –equal ethnic

representation and the course that the power was to follow (Castro 2018). These divisions

provided a platform for subsequent rivalries that marred SPLM.

III. The Context: Global, Regional and State-Level Factors

State level

Imam and Abdelrahman (2018) argue that ethnicity remains to be a critical factor in the

politics of Sudan. The tyranny of numbers enjoyed by the Nuer and Dinka clans has become a

key factor of ascending to power. Ethnic affiliations that are grounded on historical injustices

explains the structure and composition of the warring movements in Sudan. Strict observance to

cultural beliefs and culture alongside a political system that allowed winners to dominate the

government fueled more violence. Castro (2018) argues that the prevalent consequence of

Sudan's civil wars is poor economic growth with increased poverty levels, income inequalities

and regional imbalances. After the 1989 military coup, the present government implemented
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 9

home-based liberalization programs as part of nation-building. Nevertheless, the main objectives

of the program have never been actualized.

Regional level

According to Mugo (2018), two countries played a key role in establishing political

stability in Sudan – Kenya and Ethiopia. Additionally, the countries had never been subjects to

the conflicts they were meditating. For instance, Kenya's support for SPLM had never been in

the form of military aid, and its leaders have always kept good relations with Sudan. This

explains why Kenya has been championing peace of diplomacy. Furthermore, the Kenyan

government took the lead in IGAD peace initiative, the primary mediator being Kenya which has

left other member states in the dark.

However, Wahab (2018) posit that Kenya was only acting due to its close relationship

with the U.S. government. Furthermore, the author notes that Nigeria possesses strong political

and cultural ties with Sudan. Even though the countries do not share any border, they are divided

in terms of North and South Muslim and non-Muslim fault lines. The Nigerian government tried

to reconcile the North and the South, but it was unsuccessful. In the early 1990s again, it tried to

solve the Darfur crisis, but it never materialized (Duany and Duany 2018).

The presence of Arab authorities and Arab league undoubtedly influenced the behavior

and contents of reconciliations in a way that the Sudanese government did not object to.

Ultimately, support by regional states for each other's rebel is a critical issue within their

relations and presents a threat to the implementation of peace agreements. Northern Sudan fuels

cross-border instability to the South with the aid of Ugandan forces that are based in South
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 10

Sudan. Moreover, there are factors in Eritrea and Chad that instil further destabilization in

Sudan.

Global level

Knopf (2018) argues that Arabian countries and organizations are against any

negotiations that will establish peace in Sudan, especially South Sudan. For instance, the concern

of Egypt with NIF fundamentals in 1990 was counter-balanced fearing that SPLM will take

control over the Nile headquarters. Knopf posits that Libya was in support of SPLM until the fall

of President Nimeiri. Based on the Darfur crisis, the Arabian countries seem to support, partly

for domestic gains, the government of Sudan on behalf of Arab solidarity. Despite Khartoum

rapprochement, China, Ethiopia, Russia, Belarus and Morocco continue to provide steady

support to the Sudanese government and arming its opponents (Patey 2017). Belarus has been

providing military and political support to Beja forces and is heavily linked with the Darfur

rebels groups. Similarly, Chad has been dragged into the Sudanese woes, especially the Darfur

crisis because the Chadian president ascended to power through the support of NCP employing

Darfur as a platform for launching its rebellion.

IV. Resolution of the Conflict

With the help of regional governments and pressure from the Westerners, conflict

resolutions began in early 2000. The resolutions were chaired by Intergovernmental on Authority

Development (IGAD) which were extensively supported by the U.S. government. As a result of

successful consultations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was established on 9th

January 2005 that effectively brought the conflict to a halt. However, Mugo (2018) notes that
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 11

while the international focus was being paid to end the North-South conflicts, rebellions and

subsequent genocides in Darfur were just beginning.

As a result of the CPA, a government that observed national cohesion between the NCP

and SPLM was established. This new government focused on sharing of the country's wealth,

sharing of powers, security reforms and installing Garang as the first Vice president of Sudan.

One of the key elements that were constituted in the CPA was the right to a referendum that

allowed the people of Sothern Sudan to vote whether they should remain with the central

government or establish their government. Imam and Abdelrahman (2018) state that on 9th

January 2011, the people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted against staying subjects to

the Khartoum-based government and sought for their independence. As a consequence of the

CPA, the marginalized people of Southern Sudan got their independence and became the newest

country in the world with Salva Kiir leading the country as its first president (Gebremichael et al.

2018).

Even though the people of Southern Sudan claimed their independence, there are various

issues that the CPA has not comprehensively solved. For instance, a referendum regarding the

oil-rich fields of Abyei which borders the two countries to decide if the states will share the oil-

rich area of the Khartoum-based government will continue to run the field (Patey 2017).

According to southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile – regions that border Sudan

whose people had been historically involved in the conflicts should have been given a chance to

echo their views regarding the oil fields. Regretfully, the consultations have been actualized a

vice that has left the people of southern Sudan in a limbo.

To end these ethnic conflicts between the North and the South, they should establish a

transitional authority that will help in deconstructing the myth of ethnicity as the stepping stone
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 12

to survival and rather establish a government that will public trust and confidence via efficient

management and distribution of resources, reforming the country's security personal by ensuring

territorial integrity. All these factors can be realized by effectively reforming their constitutions.

V. Conclusion

The objective of this essay was to study the conflicts that the Sudanese government has

been experiencing over the past years, how they were resolved and the protocols that were used

to reconcile the warring parties. Economic imbalance, especially the Abyei oil field and general

marginalization of people living to the South of the country and inequitable representation of

people at the central government are the main reasons for the continued conflicts. Nevertheless,

mediators such as IGAD have been tasked with reconciling the Northern and Southern people to

establish peace in the country.

 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 13

Bibliography

Ali, J.T., 2018. South Sudan Country: Post–Independence Challenges. Journal of The Iraqi

University, (40-3), pp.514-558.

Assefa, H., 2019. Mediation of Civil Wars: Approaches and Strategies--the Sudan Conflict.

Routledge.

Breidlid, A., 2019. Education and Armed Conflict in Sudan and South Sudan: The Role of

Teachers in Conflict Resolution and Peace Building. Journal of Advances in Education

Research, 4(3), p.123.

Castro, A.P., 2018. Promoting natural resource conflict management in an illiberal setting:

experiences from Central Darfur, Sudan. World Development, 109, pp.163-171.

Duany, J.A. and Duany, W., 2018. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (Splm/A): A

Systematic Crisis for South Sudan 1983–2013. AuthorHouse.

Gebremichael, M., Kifle, A.A. and Kidane, A., 2018. South Sudan Conflict Insight.

Imam, M.A. and Abdelrahman, I.Y., 2018. The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Conflict

Resolution: The Case of Darfur Region, Sudan. Social Science and Humanities Journal,

pp.500-509.

Knopf, P., 2018. South Sudan's civil war and conflict dynamics in the Red Sea. United States

Institute of Peace.

Large, D., 2016. China and South Sudan's Civil War, 2013-2015. African Studies

Quarterly, 16.
 Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation 14

Mugo, J.W., 2016. An Analysis Of Mediation As A Tool In Conflict Resolution In Africa: A

Case Study of Mediation Process In South Sudan Between December 2013-March 2015

(Doctoral dissertation, University Of Nairobi).

Patey, L.,2017. A belated boom: Uganda, Kenya, South Sudan, and prospects and risks for oil in

East Africa.

Sun, D. and Zoubir, Y., 2018. China’s participation in conflict resolution in the Middle East and

North Africa: A case of quasi-mediation diplomacy?. Journal of Contemporary China,

27(110), pp.224-243.

Wahab, A.S., 2018. The Sudanese Indigenous Model for Conflict Resolution: A case study to

examine the relevancy and the applicability of the Judiyya model in restoring peace

within the ethnic tribal communities of the Sudan.