I thought I had done some careful analysis. I was happy when the UN and the AU laid out UN resolution 2046 (Please read my previous posts if you need to catch up). I still think peace is with reach.
Now I am having second thoughts about a central premise I have held, and I am asking for your feed back. It's about leadership.
I have made the case for peace based on a status quo assumption. Differences would be resolved withing the 2046 framework, then the internal difficulties in Sudan and South Sudan would resolve. I'm not naive enough to assume that it would be resolved soon or 'cleanly' - there's a lot of anger there. But my premise was that in the absence of war, we might start to see peace (peace is much more than the simple absence of war).
Now, as to Salva Kiir in South Sudan, I don't think he is well acquainted with peaceful nation-building. He is a hardened soldier having led the South Sudanese to liberation after years of war. He is also not above the dirty tricks played along the Sudanese border that have caused so much friction. The attack on Heglig was pure aggression even if provoked. Nonetheless, if I may judge him from another continent, I see someone who really wants to get his country to a place of stability, prosperity, and, yes, peace. It's an extremely tall order, and he may have flaws, but I can honestly reach out in my heart to wish him well.
Omar el-Bashir is who I'm worried about. I have councilled that one should not condemn either side in a dispute in lieu of negotiation. But what if I am wrong about Bashir? What is to be done then?
There are credible reports that the Sudanese air force is bombing South Sudan as talks in Addis Ababa are taking place. There are reports that his forces have not completely left Abyei as per res 2046. He has already been accused of heinous crimes in the Darfur crisis. Finally, I am now hearing that refugees have been reaching South Sudan from the Kordofan region speaking of slaughter, and starvation tactics. The ugly accusation of starving blacks out of regions in favor of Arab races (or is it along religious lines? - it's nearly impossible to tell) sounds too familiar to the Darfur story - murky, confusing suspicions of ethnic/tribal/religious murder are too credible to think that a Bashir-led Sudan and peaceful coexistence of the multicultural nation is anything but a long shot.
The people of Sudan are not evil. Whole millions of people are, I am convinced, incapable of evil. But are they manipulated by a regime with a terrible agenda? If so, how are they stopped? Is there an Arab Spring ready for Bashir? And will it play like Egypt or Syria if it starts?
When I started my series of posts on the Sudan crisis, Syria was the bigger tragedy. I chose not to write about Syria though, in part because I thought that Assad was too far down the path of war. I reasoned that the Sudan crisis could yield peace. With all of the discredit heaped on him, Bashir could be negotiated with. We weren't headed for inevitable war, and there was a path to peace. Kofi Annan had more faith in Syria than I did. He went to Damascus with an olive branch. Mr. Annan is a truly great man and a man who has worked hard, and often successfully for peace. In Syria, it is becoming clear that he was wrong.
I am miniscule compared to the great Kofi Anan. I write a blog in suburban America that occassionally reaches further than my circle of friends. But I try to see the way forward. I thought I saw a peaceful future in Sudan and South Sudan. It's too early to despair. But, what if I am wrong?
