The duality of Sudan's internal turmoil that includes hostilities in Darfur and maintaining the north-south peace process, requires intense international focus and commitment not just for the individual regions but for the country as a whole. Such an undertaking must be revisited to ensure Sudanese humanitarian and security interests are dealt with in an equitable manner utilizing the resources of the International Community. Given recent passing of Vice President John Garang and the potential for renewed violence in areas that just days before this tragedy were calm, it is apparent that Sudan suffers from a fragmented and inconsistent approach on the part of its international partners. The twin arenas of humanitarian aid and internal security vie for much of the resources provided by the International Community. However, inconsistent application of these resources combined with two separate diplomatic fronts seemingly complicates Sudan’s search for a viable peace throughout the country.

For much of the history of the two conflicts, and under the aegis of the United Nations, humanitarian aid has focused on developing access to those populations denied adequate food and medical resources as a result of conflict. However noble these efforts, there remains the possibility that strategic interests of nations associated with the aid effort may have deliberately or inadvertently contributed to ongoing instability as opposed to helping resolve Sudan’s internal problems. Such interests may actually contribute to the continuation of conflict in Darfur and, what is currently viewed as a tenuous north-south peace process. In fact, some observers point out that parochial economic and security interests of neighboring states combined with hegemonic interests of states external to the region may actually contribute to the dire humanitarian and security issues facing Sudan. From Darfur, where nearly two million people reside in camps for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP), to South Sudan where concerns over the Lord’s Resistance Army and other armed groups remain, the problems are not being adequately addressed by the International Community in a collective manner for purposes of taking on Sudan’s problems as a whole.

It can be argued that there is a much larger and longer term issue at stake other than feeding and caring for those who have become victims of Sudan’s conflicts. The issue in its most basic form is the resolution of security concerns stemming from political agendas of multiple parties from all the indigenous areas of Sudan. In short, the question has to be asked that with all the aid and support provided by the international community, how can Sudan’s conflicts be addressed in a meaningful and comprehensive manner under the umbrella of the newly formed Government of National Unity and with the support of the International Community? The answer might be found in a collective approach to humanitarian and security concerns utilizing the equitable distribution of international resources throughout Sudan. Currently, the myriad initiatives undertaken by international organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, African Union, Arab League, and the bilateral efforts of individual nations, serve to dilute the prospects for Sudanese stability.

As an example, the conflict in Darfur has been overshadowed by the north-south process that resulted in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 9 January 2005. To be candid, those Parties in Darfur who are not signatory to the CPA have an axe to grind with respect to their interests being looked after in meaningful manner. It is still too early in the process to predict how the CPA will impact on Darfur, but combining the Abuja Process with ongoing efforts that resulted in the CPA may be a way ahead. And, it should become a Sudanese process from the standpoint of where and how the Parties engage themselves in a deliberate diplomatic process. In other words, with the establishment of the Government of National Unity, every effort should be made to combine the north-south process with that of a durable search for peace in Darfur. Continuing along a path of multiple axis, as currently driven by various actors from the International Community, only serves to detract from the development of a comprehensive strategy necessary for achieving stability throughout Sudan.

Sudan must be looked at as one country. Dividing the country into regions and managing the conflicts of those regions independently serves no useful purpose to the country as a whole. Ongoing conflict in Darfur will most certainly threaten the prospects of a sustained peace in the South. In this regard, Partner nations providing the resourcing of military peacekeeping forces and humanitarian assistance should establish protocols calling for the equal distribution of humanitarian and security related efforts throughout Sudan. Sudan’s humanitarian security issues must be addressed from the standpoint of one complete national security program designed to promote unity throughout the country as opposed to focusing on special interests put forth by various entities whose objectives are self serving vice that of the country as a whole. So how should the International Community proceed?

Adekeye Adebajo, in his article Collective Security and Humanitarian Intervention offers five factors for successful humanitarian interventions. “First, the willingness of internal parties to disarm and accept electoral results; second, the development of an effective strategy to deal with potential “spoilers”; third, the absence of conflict-fuelling economic resources in war zones; fourth, the cooperation of regional players in peace processes; and finally, the cessation of military and financial support to local clients by external actors and their provision of financial and diplomatic support to peace processes.” Adebajo is careful to point out that these factors in themselves do not necessarily determine how successful a humanitarian intervention will be, but they must be kept in mind when developing a strategy for engaging all humanitarian security concerns associated with a specific country.

When considering a collective approach to Sudan’s ongoing security situation the above factors seem to point towards a set of objectives that the international community can establish in support of a comprehensive strategy for the entire country. These objectives should be established based on the needs of Sudan and without regard to “institutional prerogatives or national prestige” referred to in the April 2005 Policy Briefing, A New Sudan Action Plan, by the International Crisis Group. In this article, ICG proposes five objectives that could serve as a baseline for a future collective security efforts in Sudan. These objectives include: “Protect civilians and relief supplies in Darfur; Implement accountability in Darfur; Build a Darfur peace process; Implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between Khartoum and the SPLM; and finally, Prevent new conflict in Sudan.”

Using these objectives as an integrated baseline could provide momentum for the new government in Khartoum to work with its international partners in a comprehensive manner rather than creating a perception that the situation in Darfur is somehow less important than that of the south. To achieve this end, the Abuja Process administered by the African Union should be integrated into a collective effort similar to the Naivasha Process that resulted in the north-south Comprehensive Peace Agreement. But Abuja must be taken a step further and become integrated into the ongoing domestic political processes of Sudan itself, not just administered by the AU with support from the International Community. By combining ongoing Sudanese processes and support from the International Community, the conditions can be set for the development of a comprehensive strategy addressing humanitarian, security, and economic concerns throughout Sudan. Only through a concerted collective effort focusing on Sudan as a whole, will the International Community provide the impetus for establishing stability for the entire Sudan. Such a step would not only benefit the Sudanese, but the entire region of East Africa as a stable Sudan would offset negative influences associated with other conflicts in the region. I thank you