Teetering on the Brink – Continued

SUDAN PIVOTAL FOR PEACE Many observers agree the lynchpin for peace lies with the regional giant, Sudan. An end to Africa’s longest-running civil war could provoke a change in the international community’s attitude towards the region, particularly that of the US which is seen as a major player. Observers say the US could, for instance, exert more pressure on Eritrea and Ethiopia whose human rights policies have come under criticism and whose governments have been accused of prolonging tension to divert attention from problems at home. “The US doesn’t want to see countries such as Ethiopia and Eritrea weakened by a change in leadership,” one regional analyst told IRIN. “It sees the current governments as crucial to keeping out radical Islamists as part of the global war on terror, so it doesn’t concern itself too much with internal issues.” “Resolution of the Sudan issue might reduce these considerations and lead to affirmative pressure on the internal situations,” the analyst added. Prendergast of the ICG says elements in the Sudan war have been used as “pawns” by both Eritrea and Ethiopia to further their objectives against each other, but stresses that resolution of the Sudan crisis would not make war less likely between the two neighbours. “Their causes for conflict are deep-seated and have their own logic,” he notes. PEACEKEEPING Although the Sudan peace process has been driven by IGAD, it is clear the UN will have a role to play once a peace deal is signed. The involvement would be based on consent by the parties, but they have already indicated a desire for this to take place.

UNMEE peacekeepers

Chris Coleman, senior political affairs officer with the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations, says the exact nature of the operation would depend on the details of the comprehensive peace agreement signed by the Sudanese sides. And there would be cooperation on monitoring compliance with the accord with existing entities – such as the international Joint Monitoring Commission which oversees the ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains area and the IGAD-led Verification Monitoring Team which assesses the situation in the south. Experts say it is unlikely to be an UNMEE-type operation, and its responsibility would probably be limited to that of an observer mission. Given the present difficulties in the Eritrea-Ethiopia process, they say the UN would probably be shy of getting “bogged down” in the same way in Sudan. Already, there are mutterings of another Cyprus or Kashmir along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. Observers say UNMEE (UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea) is effectively “caught in the middle” of the international community’s apparent wariness in treading the delicate path between the positions of Eritrea and Ethiopia over the border issue. There have been calls for a change in UNMEE’s mandate to strengthen it to that of peace enforcement, but some UN officials believe this would be counter-productive and invite hostilities which are not there at present. “Either side could engage the UN and then blame it for inflaming the situation,” one official told IRIN. “It’s an open invitation for the escalation of violence.” Some observers, however, argue that the “deterrence” of peace enforcement could pre-empt war breaking out again over border demarcation. It is unlikely the Security Council will approve a radical mandate change, although there have already been minor adjustments – such as adding demining activities to the mandate - and there could be further small amendments to take in the transfer of territorial control once the border has been demarcated. Coleman points out that UNMEE has carried out its mandate “to the letter”. “It has established and maintained the Temporary Security Zone [demilitarised area], the armed forces of both sides have been kept apart and there have been no renewed hostilities,” he told IRIN. For Somalia, if and when a peace deal is agreed, it is likely the African Union will have the lead in any peacekeeping or observation mission. Analysts note that the UN would be unwilling to become involved in peacekeeping activities, although there would probably be a role for peace building including humanitarian and development work. Somalia’s ambassador to the UN Ahmed Abdi Hashi says peace in his country depends on whether there can be complete simultaneous disarmament throughout the nation. And he believes any mission should have a mandate to enforce peace. NOW OR NEVER Somalia and Sudan’s problems are internal political conflicts which go back years and whose peace talks are driven by the region (IGAD). Countless previous attempts at peace have failed, and observers say it is “now or never” for both countries. And nerves are jangling over the latest twists in the Eritrea-Ethiopia peace process. “Even though the Eritrea-Ethiopia process is different to the other two in that it is led by the UN and the international community, there should be more pressure by countries that are friendly to both – such as the US - to press ahead with demarcation,” one analyst said. He suggests “depoliticising” the Badme issue in particular. “The main reason for continuing the tension and the ‘war threat’ has nothing to do with the border and everything to do with the internal situation in both countries.” “If left as a political issue, border demarcation could have disastrous consequences,” he warned. Ethiopia, which currently administers Badme, argues that the issue should be looked at from a "humanitarian" point of view. It says the current ruling, which it describes as "illegal and unjust", will cause hardship for the people living in the contested territories and throw the region into turmoil. Eritrea has said there can be no dialogue until after demarcation. There are many who also believe the international community is not as fully engaged in the Somalia process as it should be. They point out that the Sudan process really took off once the US ratcheted up its involvement. “Unfortunately the international community has remained reluctant to throw its full weight behind the peace talks, to take a tough line with those who are undermining it or generally to express a unified position on preferred outcomes,” said the ICG in a report earlier this year. [2] “We suffer from the continued neglect of the international community,” Somalia’s Ahmed Abdi Hashi told IRIN. “What we need is a transparent power sharing agreement that can be enforced.” Analysts warn that failure of these “last-ditch” hopes for peace in the Horn could lead to a precarious situation in the region, ushering in renewed conflict that would not be easily contained. “If the peace processes fail, there will be a great deal of difficulty in reconstructing alternative approaches that have as good a chance of working as the present constellation,” the ICG’s John Prendergast told IRIN. “IGAD’s stewardship of the Sudan process has been stellar. The Ethiopia-Eritrea agreement is almost fully implemented – if they went back to war there would not be a likely replacement for some time,” he said. “And Somalia would also not easily find a mechanism to address Somali problems in the near future if this effort collapsed.” [1] - Peacemaking Conundrums in the Horn of Africa www.ploughshares.ca [2] - Negotiating a Blueprint for Peace in Somalia www.intl-crisis-group.org [ENDS]