|
|
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs |
SUDAN: Interview with Lazarus Sumbeiywo, chief mediator in the peace talks
NAIROBI, 30 May 2003 (IRIN) - Kenya's Lazarus Sumbeiywo is the chief mediator in the ongoing Sudanese peace process, held under the auspices of the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). He was appointed Kenya's special envoy to Sudan in 1997, and in July 2002 he led the warring parties into signing the Machakos Protocol - a ground-breaking agreement on the difficult issues of self-determination for the south, and separation of religion and state. In October, he oversaw the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the cessation of hostilities. Here, Sumbeiywo tells IRIN of his plans and hopes for the Sudanese peace process at this critical stage of the talks.
QUESTION: A lot of ground has been covered since the Machakos protocol in July last year. But why did it take so long to reach this stage?
ANSWER: I was in the Sudan peace process from the start up to 1998. When we came up with the DOP [Declaration of Principles in 1994], it was a diagnosis of the problem of Sudan. But the parties had assumed that it was the cure. I was not in the process in 1999 and 2000. When we came back to the process from October 2001, this time we tried to move the parties from the diagnosis to the curative stage. So we had the first technical meeting at Karen [Nairobi] from 2 to 5 May 2002 and we agreed on the agenda for the talks, except for two words - "transition" and "interim". But when we resumed, both parties were using the words interchangeably without even realising it. So we moved on, and in July, we signed the Machakos protocol.
Q: What is the role of the Machakos protocol?
A: This is a framework we established as the basis for negotiations. We follow it religiously, but it reached a stage where we broke off towards the end of last year, because of the events [elections] that were taking place in Kenya. When we resumed early this year, we started immediately with two very critical issues. The parties wanted to know what the security arrangements would be for them in order to consider the issues of power and wealth sharing. It took us 10 days to agree on the agenda for the three disputed areas [Abyei, Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile which are considered as part of the southern problem]. It took us another three days to agree on the agenda for the security arrangements. The area of wealth sharing didn't present so much of a problem. That is when I decided to look at all the issues in the conflict.
Q: At what stage are the talks currently?
A: We have completed session number five. We are going to start session number six. I don't believe in the term "round". I believe in "sessions" or "phases". During the next session, we need to have some serious people who can be included in the drafting of the final peace agreement. After that, the parties can take a copy to the principal people for approval. But session six may not be the final one. Modalities of the implementation of the agreement still need to be done. And there should be no cheating. We do not want another agreement like the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972. We want an agreement which can be guaranteed internationally, possibly by the UN, the African Union, and bilateral countries. We still need to get details on the security arrangements.
Q: During the fifth session, we noted some changes in your mediation strategy. What are the reasons for these changes?
A: When you are a driver, you will not be good enough if you continue driving in the same gear from start to finish. Otherwise, it will be monotonous. I also come from a profession [military] where two principles are very important. Flexibility and an element of surprise. You also have to be able to read the situation, the mood and make sure you do not tire your forces by engaging them in a mission that is taking you nowhere.
Q: One of the new concepts you have introduced to the talks is the "holistic" approach. What does this entail?
A: The holistic approach is about looking at everything in totality. There are many areas in which the parties have not agreed on and we have bracketed some of these issues which might be used by the parties to trade off one thing for another. But they cannot agree to trade off without knowing what is in it for them in this context. Things are very critical at this stage and some of the issues of trade off are decided at a much higher level than on the table.
Q: What is the next step?
A: The next step is to consult with the higher groups on both sides. I suspect they have their own fears and aspirations. My feeling is that if I get the big ones, we might be able to know where they have drawn their bottom line and which are the grey areas. That is why I will be visiting Sudan to consult with the key decision makers on both the government and the [rebel] SPLM [Sudan People's Liberation Movement] side.
Q: Do you think this is the right thing to do at this current stage of the peace process?
A: We are taking advantage of the mood in the country. Sudan is pregnant with peace. They really want peace. By visiting the country, I will be able to detect the best way to proceed. It will also enable me to complete the draft agreement.
Q: How far have you gone with the draft?
A: We are still developing it.
Q: You have indicated that the parties should sign the final draft by the end of June. Do you think this is a realistic deadline?
A: No, it is not me. In April, the leaders of the two parties, President [Umar Hassan] al-Bashir and [John] Garang were invited to a meeting in Nairobi. This was one of the pressure points by the Kenyan government. They were asked when they expected to sign the final ceasefire. Both of them said they were hopeful to get an agreement by the end of June. I was taking notes at the meeting and reported what the two leaders said.
But yes, the wish to finish with the talks is there. I had a programme which was ending on 28 June. It was realistic until other factors came into the scene. I understand that the SPLM/A delegation has been invited to the United States. I do not think they will make it back in time for us to finish by the end of June.
Q: When then do you expect to complete the talks?
A: My hope now is that by mid-August we should have a completed draft agreement. But it is up to the parties to decide to sign it.
Q: But there is still the issue of building trust. What are you doing to ensure that the parties respect the agreements they have already signed and those that they will sign in the future?
A: We have already started a while ago by negotiating the MOU on cessation of hostilities and getting an addendum to that. We have also facilitated the operationalisation of the verification mechanisms through the verification and monitoring teams that left for Sudan this week. We learned the hard way in the sense that every attack by one side polluted the talks.
Q: What is the difference between this new monitoring team and the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT) which is already on the ground?
A: The CPMT was basically for the protection of civilians and civilian properties. It did not stop the parties from fighting. The group going now is only going to the areas where we can monitor the activities of the parties. I think we will also achieve some confidence among the locals that someone is watching.
Q: After the adjournment of the fifth session, Sudanese opposition groups met in Cairo, Egypt to discuss the peace process. They signed a declaration which called on the peace process to move beyond the current bilateral negotiations between the government and the SPLM/A towards a "national consensus". How does this demand fit into your plan?
A: In the Machakos framework, there is a provision for inclusivity. This was done with all Sudan's political forces in mind. There is no point in signing an agreement, only to start another war because some people were left out. All parties to the conflict should be included at some point.
Q: Egypt had expressed serious reservations about the Machakos Protocol, and in particular the provisions that allowed the people of southern Sudan to determine whether they wanted to secede or remain part of Sudan. Is this still a problem?
A: No. Egypt realised that it could no longer decide for the Sudanese people. The Sudanese themselves need to make their own decisions. I have been to Egypt four times to discuss this problem with them. And they are now fully supporting us.
Q: What is your overall view on the future of peace in Sudan?
A: This thing is in the hands of the parties. The most difficult part is to create a situation which both parties can live with. But one of the parties finds these conditions unacceptable. But with international pressure, I believe they will sign an agreement by August 2003. As mediators, we will continue to be persistent and consistent with the parties. But I don't think anyone can run away from the talks now.
Theme(s): (IRIN) Conflict
[ENDS]
The material contained on this Web site comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian information unit, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. If you re-print, copy, archive or re-post any item on this site, please retain this credit and disclaimer. Quotations or extracts should include attribution to the original sources. All graphics and Images on this site may not be re-produced without the express permission of the original owner. All materials copyright © UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2003
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
