Paper Example on Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement

Introduction

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was agreement ratified by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. The rapport, also known as the Naivasha Agreement was reached on January 9, 2005.It came as a historical milestone for Sudan in ending twenty-two years of prolonged and costly civil war which had led to enormous loss of lives, property and devastated the country's economy. The Comprehensive agreement addressed some sensitive issues which included judicial reforms, disarmament measures, integration, and reforms on the electoral system. Demobilization and disarmament in Sudan proved to be very challenging because the accord did not exactly provide the number of combatants to be disarmed, demobilized and integrated back to the society. The agreement, however, provided a basis in which the issues could be addressed by establishing an Interim Disarmament, demobilization and re-integration Program before an establishment of a full-scale approach. According to Sudan Comprehensive agreement, 2005, more than 30,000 combatants were subjected to the demobilization process and were accordingly placed under numerous re-integration establishments. The peace agreement was showing great potentials in combating security concerns in Sudan. This was evident by the registration of more than 10, 0000 individuals according to a UNDP, (2013) who had been demobilized by year end in 2011.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

However, during the years since the CPA was agreed upon, security agencies continued to deter opposition from developing. Security agencies have continually taken part in suppressing political and civil rights of citizens.

Power-Sharing

In conducting a successful negotiation, rules governing power-sharing have to put in place especially in disputes which involve civil wars. Application of power-sharing can in a big way help to manage conflicting groups in democratic societies that are deeply divided (Hartzell and Hoddie, 2003).In the environment of peace negotiations, the need by the warring parties to protect their interests come before anything else. Power sharing thus comes handy in addressing those challenges by ensuring that each party gets fair access and share of state powers. If power sharing is overlooked, there is a chance of it becoming one-sided making a country run the risk of making one group more advantages than the other and consequently acts as a ripe ground for conflicts.

Power sharing agreements is more prevalent in the political environment; however, other factors may give rise to such kind of arrangements. Such scenario is specifically pointed out in the case of Sudan which had been marred by perennial insecurity. It is characterized by the strong urge to secure and safeguard the interests of a group. It must be noted that for a fair and equitable power-sharing deal free of suspicion, the institutions undertaking the activity must be fully capable of conducting it with keenness on neutrality. Ideally, both the mediators and the opposing groups need to agree on power-sharing measures that will not foresee a likelihood of armed conflict. Access to economic resources and knowledge of individuals who operate the economy is also a key element in the path to peace stability particularly if one group has a long history of marginalization (Hartzell and Hoddie, 2003).To understand the whole aspect of power sharing, it is worth noting that powers sharing is usually categorized as a divided variable which can either be present or absent within a country's institutions regardless of making evaluations of several specifications mentioned in an agreement.

In addition, the overall number of power-sharing dimensions highlighted, the more probable that peace among conflicting groups will last (Hartzell and Hoddie, 2003).Therefore, the agreement should have a cumulative effect on the concern parties with regards to security. This is achievable for instance if institutions such as the military are not under the influence of a single group who might take advantage of it to interfere with the prevailing balance of power. In the same way, economic power-sharing gives each party equal chances and financial muscles required to genuinely compete in an election.

Power sharing aspects have been applied in some peace agreements and have proved to be a means of achieving sustainable and durable peace agreements. The case of Sudan helps to provide an insight of how the method can be of used to address deep-rooted conflicts. The issues raised by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) had to do with the institutional overhaul that would assure them of their ability to engage in a political process without government interference (GUARAK, 2011). After the peace accord had been signed, the SPLM, through power-sharing got involved in the running of government in the country. Wealth sharing was a very crucial factor which needed to be addressed by the CPA for Sudan. Without income, it is impossible for any government to function. Southern Sudan was to remain be dependent on its natural resources, which is the oil revenue that was already in line to cover its finances and run governmental functions (Brosche, 2007). The joint mission in 2005 estimated with regards to the government budget that half of the revenue achieved from oil in southern Sudan be allocated to the regional government under CPA to the amount of U.S. $1.2 billion in 2005.South Sudan was in dire need of the pledged oil revenues to enable them to build the rule of law in their territory. Depriving it of such resources would be detrimental to their ability to deliver promises and consequently affect the viability of the government.

Also, major concerns raised by SPLM were an inclusion of its forces in the state security. This, to them, would help eliminate the despotic tendencies which the ruling party previously enjoyed. The institutions created to ensure the power-sharing deal was successful played a major role as at the end of it all, it was agreed that the ruling party would no more have absolute control over the security apparatus. Notably, according to GUARAK, (2011), to achieve long-term peace and stability, power-sharing arrangements should be specified and with no ambiguity at all so that in the event of one party disregarding the accord, the other can protect itself.

Gender Inclusion in the Negotiations

Sudan's CPA was not inclusive enough to accommodate gender equality in coming up with the agreement. The negotiations resulted in peace agreements that barely acknowledge the security concern of the women (Ellerby, 2013).It is barely laid out on the accord on the roles played by women in fostering security and peace. This is contributed heavily by cultural practices and perceptions in the country. Practices such as forced and arranged marriages have curtailed the empowerment and advancement of women in the country. HOLMARSDOTTIR (2013) notes that these practices have limited the chances that women have to continue their education and thus making them unable to participate in political and professional careers effectively.

Reality indicates that there was not even a notable involvement of women during the negotiation leading up to the CPA in Sudan. The women have been stereotyped as vulnerable and not viewed as having any matter whatsoever that needed to be present during the discussion. Peace building therefore for Sudanese women seems to be a double-edged sword. Because of the non-inclusion of their agendas, the women did not get the security of what was supposed to make the vulnerable since their recognition on the agenda was limited (Ellerby, 2013).The United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, initiative on 'Women, Peace, and Security' (WPS), was highly accepted in October 2000 and was seen as a milestone agreement, which recognized the importance of women before, during and after a conflict. It acknowledges the vital role played by women towards nurturing peace and stability as well as actively participating in a country's development goals. However, it is clear, that this is not reflected in Sudan's CPA.

The limited engagement of women in peace processes may be perceived to mean women have no legitimacy in peace processes and peace building. Despite the commitment made by the CPA and the GoS to do away with violence against women, their rights are still widely denied and violated in many parts of Sudan. Women have limited access to justice mechanism because of discrimination as well as the socio-economic and cultural hindrances. After signing of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement and preceding the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), a reconstruction process was witnessed in Sudan. Although not free from conflict, reconstructive policies have been passed to maintain peace in many parts of the country. According to a research done Ellerby, (2013), women have extra ordinary capabilities to work with civil societies and their active participation in many activities will certainly bring about positive impact in as far as sustainable peace is concerned. This is backed by the fact that women involvement in running affairs is most likely to reduce the number of conflicts internally (GUARAK, 2011). Women are thus viewed as mediators in a time of conflicts and extreme disagreements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the challenges of civilians getting access to arms continue to pose a great threat to sustainable development and peaceful co-existence among the people of Sudan. The measures applied so far have had little impact on the reduction of firearm possession and this has made it possible to rebel against the government. It is the core function of the government to provide security for all its citizens and ensure that they do not live in fear of their security or having the feeling of marginalization. The program of disarmament did not investigate and identify the factors which led to the possession of arms in the first place. In the light of the process of disarmament process, there is a need for inclusivity in the discussion on how to stamp out penetration of arms in the country. The disarmament process should also be voluntary and systematic to ensure the firearms do not land in the wrong hands. If this method is applied, the process will be peaceful and will guarantee a trustworthy relationship between government and its citizens.

References

Brosche, J (2007). CPA New Sudan, Old Sudan or Two Sudans? [online] Accessed on 17th February 2018. Available at: https://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/66/c_66686-l_1-k_cpa_new_sudan_brosche_080305.pdf

Comprehensive Peace Agreement between The Government of the Republic of the Sudan, [online] Accessed on 15th February 2018. Available at: https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/sites/default/files/accords/SudanCPA.pdf

GUARAK, M. A. M. (2011). Integration and fragmentation of the Sudan: an African renaissance. Bloomington, IN, Author House.

Hartzell C and Hoddie M 2003. Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management [online] Accessed on 18th January 2018.

HOLMARSDOTTIR, H. B. (2013). Gendered voices: reflections on gender and education in South Africa and Sudan. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10687672.

Human Rights Watch, 2006. The Impact of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the New Government of National Unity on Southern Sudan [online] Accessed on 15th February 2018. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/africa/sudan0306/sudan0306.pdf

UNDP, 2013. South Sudan Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Commission (SSDDRC) and United Nations Development Programme [online] Accessed 15th February 2018. Available at: https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/7636