Encouraging move to end strife

The Machakos Protocol signed in Nairobi last week between the Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), established a framework to end the country's 19-year-old civil war which has torn apart northern and southern Sudan. Under the terms of the agreement, the people of the south will have to decide after six years in a referendum whether they want to stay as part of Sudan or form an independent state. The accord also includes a clause concerning the relation between the state and religion, while the SPLA demands the separation of the state and religion. The two sides are expected to meet next month to finalise the agreement and discuss other crucial issues such as a cease-fire, power sharing and the sharing of oil revenues.

The following is a review of the Arab press' discussion of the recent developments in Sudan.

Hopefully, Sudan will be saved from the infernal cycle of war and violence thanks to the agreement signed in Nairobi, writes Al Bayan in its editorial comment. Indeed, it is time to stop the bleeding of the Sudanese people, who have been suffering from the serious political and economic crisis arising out of the clash between the Sudanese government and the SPLA, under the leadership of John Garen, since 1983, or even further back, when former president, Ja'far Al Numairi, imposed Islamic Sharia in the mainly Christian south. The situation was further aggravated by the covetousness of foreign powers and political interference in Sudanese internal affairs, adds Al Bayan.

The success of the inter-Sudanese talks in Nairobi, with the participation of members of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) - which includes Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Uganda and Somalia - was the culmination of the efforts of the U.S. and the UN, says Al Bayan.

This agreement constitutes a turning point in the future of Sudan.

It should not lead to the partition of the country into two separate entities. The majority of Sudanese reject the idea of the separation or division of their country, with the continuous migration from the south to the capital clear evidence of such sentiments.

That is why they should work together to implement the accord in order to build a better future for the coming generation, shunning war and conflict, concludes Al Bayan.

Both Arabs and Africans welcomed with enthusiasm the accord signed between Sudan's rivals, writes Al Jazeera (Saudi Arabia) in its editorial comment. Sudan has always been the focus of interest for Arabs and Africans, who view the accord as a way out from one of the longest African wars.

In fact, the agreement paves the way for the re-establishment of peace through the signing of a cease-fire, which will put an end to a war that has depleted the country's resources for more than two decades, especially in the southern part of the country known for its rich natural resources, adds Al Jazeera.

The government and the SPLA should both try to safeguard the achievements of this accord and avoid succumbing to the cycle of violence, repeating the mistakes of the previous agreements which failed because the parties revoked their commitment towards fulfilling the terms of the accord.

After experiencing peace, the Sudanese will become more attached to the idea of the unity of their country, because Sudan will remain stronger if it conserves its unity as one political and social entity, concludes Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, the accord should be considered more a declaration of principles than a detailed agreement, writes Ahmad Al Rab'ee in Asharq Al Awsat (UK-based). It needs serious Arab involvement in order to be implemented. Yet, until now, not a single Arab country has shown interest in the agreement which emerged from an African initiative, says Al Rab'ee.

Furthermore, the accord, as it has been published, contains many ambiguous points which raise a number of unanswered questions. The agreement is more a series of ideas and options that have not matured sufficiently than a real accord. That is why Arab intervention is needed even if it seems a little late, in order to help the two sides reach an agreement that satisfies all the parties and rescues Sudan from the long drawn out war that has caused the death of more than two million people and the displacement of more than four million, adds Al Rab'ee.

Fortunately, the Sudanese issue has been internationalised with the participation of the U.S. and other parties, which have contributed to the reaching of an agreement. Otherwise, it would just have been moved from one Arab capital to another without any success, says Al Rab'ee.

In essence, the Sudanese crisis is an amalgam of many factors such as narrow-mindedness, factional conflict, international interference, religious fanaticism and, finally, the interference of the army in public life.

All these factors together have contributed to the destruction of the country and to the migration of its qualified citizens, putting the country on top of the list of the poorest and most under-developed countries.

Sudan deserves the attention of its fellow Arabs. It is not right that Arab countries remain passive observers while the international community is concerned about ending the conflict, concludes Al Rab'ee.

The Sudanese agreement, as it was announced from Nairobi, does not look like an accord between two parties in the same country but an agreement between two distinct countries, writes Abdulwahab Badrakhan in Al Hayat (UK-based). The U.S. has practically imposed the Machakos Protocol at a time when the parties concerned were on the point of announcing the failure of the talks.

However, the most difficult part is still to come, with the final negotiations that will discuss all the details of the accord, adds Badrakhan.

The agreement is very important but what really counts are its contents and how it is applied. Only time will determine the real intentions of the parties and their willingness to end a conflict which has lasted for decades, says Badrakhan.

The SPLA's goal has always been the partition of the country, with the current agreement which stipulates the holding of a referendum in the south nothing but the legitimisation of the idea of a confederation. The result of such a referendum leaves no doubt about the preference of the people in the south, which will certainly vote for the partition, adds Badrakhan.

But what is most confusing about the Machakos Protocol is that it does not deal with issues such as democracy and elections. Yet the success of any agreement is only guaranteed by popular support.

This explains the failure of several accords which have been imposed without the support of the masses, such as the Addis Ababa agreement signed in 1972 between Numairi and the Anania I movement to which John Gareng belonged.

The American Guarantee has been crucial for the reaching of the current accord, but it cannot be the guarantor of its success in the future.

Through this agreement, President Omar Al Bashir has bought time to remain in power for an additional six years, which constitutes the transitional period for the application of the accord.

For his part, John Garang has finally obtai