Newsletter No. 230
April 6, 2006

 

Sometime in March, it appears that Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Yasuhisa Shiozaki paid an unheralded visit to Sudan. This led to a US$76 million Japanese grant to UNICEF to be used in fifteen countries, including Sudan. Shiozaki made a short comment in Khartoum:

“The trip to Sudan gave me a deep impression that UNICEF’s support to communities and families is an extremely important part of the ’peace consolidation’ process. It was encouraging to see various agencies and civil society working together for the same cause.”

This small story is just about the only report on Japan-Sudan relations that has appeared so far this year. This is a little surprising because last year there was some attention devoted to Japan’s participation in the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS). Shingetsu Newsletter Nos. 14, 48, 69, and 86 covered some aspects of this story. Lately, however, very little new information has appeared.

Below is a translation of an article that appeared in the December 2005 issue of Gaiko Forum. Although the analysis in the article is a little more shallow than I would prefer, it is, nevertheless, the only extended treatment of Japan’s recent role in Sudan that I have yet come across. If more news on this story should appear in the coming months, it may prove to be a useful text for consultation.

This English translation is provided by the Shingetsu Institute.

---

PEACE-BUILDING AND THE ROLE OF JAPAN IN SUDAN
By Toshiya Hoshino

“We are Desperately Hungry for an Intervention by the International Community”

“Welcome to ‘Reborn Sudan’”

The commanders of the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Military/Army (SPLM/A) welcomed our visit again and again by repeating that phrase in Jubbah. It was mid-July 2004 when we entered there for research about the role of PKO in Africa and the advancement of a firm peace there.

Jubbah is the place from which the Sudanese government ruled during the conflict, though it is located in the south. But now, the former government has opened their offices in this place. There is a mighty tree there in front of the main office. And there is a comfortable meeting area with simple chairs arranged around the tree.

The leader -- judged by his seat with the eldest coming first -- said “I myself have fought two wars. Now that peace has come, the young may prosper in these times.” His face was sedate.

However, the desolation of the land is obvious due to the long civil war. A young leader who will forge the future insisted, “We have now welcomed a new step and are determined to tackle the new challenges. But there is nothing in this land. We are desperately hungry for an intervention by the international community.”

A Nation Whose History Has Been Filled with Conflict

On January 9th, 2005, the northern Sudanese government and the SPLM/A entered into a comprehensive peace agreement. An interim constitution was established in July. A national unity government was also established. It was the long-awaited end of a war in this country (which has the largest land area in Africa) and had continued longer and perhaps had largest number of casualties of any other war on the continent.

It was 1956 when Sudan attained independence from Britain and Egypt. Generally, it is said that the war began because the northern government tried to impose Islamic law in 1983, and this led to conflict. In fact, the confrontation between north and south was already widespread since the British period, and there was already a substantial civil conflict in 1955. From that viewpoint, we can see that this country’s history was almost entirely one of conflict, except for 11 years from 1972 to 1983. All of this from a country which has both the White Nile and the Blue Nile, and is rich enough in resources that it should be the biggest breadbasket in Africa. But instead, more than two million people lost their lives, and more than four million became Internally Displaced Persons (IDP).

Of course, it is not only the north-south peace agreement that would release this country from conflict. Actually, another aggravated humanitarian crisis has not been solved that broke out in 2003 in Darfur, western Sudan. There, somewhere between 180,000 and 300,000 people have been killed, and 1.8 million people have become IDP, and 200,000 became refugees, due to a conflict between rebels fighting against the central government and an Arab militia. What’s worse, the eastern part of the country, where it has a border with Eritrea, is also unstable. It will be best if the enactment of the peace deal will begin to ease the recent troubles in other parts of the country. But it would all be meaningless if it only results in the Sudanese government redeploying its forces from the south to the west and the east.

For real conflict resolution to occur, various kinds of support from the international community and a partnership with the central players is indispensable. Even if the international community does intervene, it will be necessary to exercise humanitarianism and strategic thought in order to reach a positive result -- otherwise, the costs even to the international community will be great.

I am not sure whether he meant this or not, but U.N. Secretary-General Annan has said, “If we fail in Sudan, it will occupy our minds for years.”

Peace in Sudan could not have been achieved without the intervention of the international community. Unless we take hold of these weak beginnings of peace, Sudan will be deserted in the world and could easily be thrust back into its chaotic past.

In this text, I would like you to deepen your understanding of the background of the Sudanese civil war, and consider the role of Japan and the international community in seeing to its conclusion the mutual agreement of a comprehensive peace, the dispatch of UNMIS, and the consultative group in Sudan, through my on-the-spot investigation.

Terrorism, Oil, and the Commitment of the United States and China

It is difficult to intervene appropriately without understanding the reasons for the war. Even if Sudan is geographically far away from us, and it doesn't have strong historical ties with us, it still applies to us. Frankly speaking, the psychological “distance” with which we hold about Africa is quite far. However, we have to recognize that today’s rapid globalization has advanced in the face of our psychological distance. The greatest irony about Africa is that while having miserable disputes, extreme poverty, infectious diseases, and an expansion of environmental destruction, they also have a dynamic nature, are rich in oil, minerals (including precious metals), and precious stones; and they have the people and the market to expand those resources.

In a sense, colonialism harvested this “richness” in Africa. People in Africa were deprived of “happiness” by the East-West Cold War that followed decolonization in the 20th century. Although the U.S.-Soviet proxy wars ended at the conclusion of the Cold War, there was a paradoxical increase of the intensity of confrontations in some cases, and some governments simply failed to function. This confusion profits only the terrorists. The reason that the Africa problem accounts for 60 percent of the agenda of U.N. Security Council, and the dispatch of many United Nations PKOs, is that regaining stability in this continent is now in the common interest of the world.

As for the composition of the Sudanese Civil War, it is often said that it is a fight between Arab people -- who are usually Muslim -- in the northern part of the country, and Christians in the southern part -- or African people who believe in the traditional religions. However, Professor Hideyo Kurimoto, who has been researching many years from the viewpoint of the human literature, points out that it is wrong to understand the civil war as a conflict of religion and race. And it is also wrong to believe that the aim of the SPLM/A is the independence of the south. The subject of the civil war is the anti-government position of the SPLM/A, and the Sudanese government would fight them even if they were Arab and Muslim. Indeed, it is said that there are Arab and Muslim people among the SPLM/A.

According to Professor Kurimoto, the real reason for this civil war is that the political and economic system of Sudan is unequal, and people are marginalized, except for the ruling hierarchy. The aim of SPLM/A is to repair this structure, and to establish a new Sudan by freeing the marginalized people. If this is really true, we can easily imagine that there are two meanings of the term “Reborn Sudan.” The first meaning is a Sudan which is born as the result of the establishment of peace; and second is this aim of the rebels. Matching these two things will be a key to maintain the peace.

In any case, in the long run, the factors which might lead to peace in the Sudanese Civil War are not only the domestic ones, but also the external ones. Two events have had an extraordinary impact. The first was the 9.11 attacks in the United States. The second was the actual production of oil from Sudanese fields. The most important roles were played by the United States and China.

Generally, the United States’ policy about Sudan was extremely severe. This was because both Left and Right took a strong stance toward Human Rights and the suppression of southern Christians by the Sudanese government. With the coming of the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government put this nation on its list of terrorist-supporting states. In 1997, America had imposed economic sanctions on Sudan because of their relationships with terrorist organizations, and the problem of Human Rights. In fact, from early 1990s to 1996, Usama bin Ladin, the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist network, lived there, and even now, there is a mosque funded by Bin Ladin in the capital city, Khartoum. It is a well-known fact that the Clinton Administration launched a missile attack against facilities related to Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, when an embassy was struck by terrorism. (Actually, however, the facility that was destroyed was a pharmaceutical factory, so the Sudanese government requested an apology from the U.S.)

After 9.11, the Sudanese government declared its willingness to cooperate with the U.S. government and the international community for the elimination of terrorism, but the U.S. government did not removed Sudan from the list even then. Rather, elimination from the list was a key point in the peace negotiations that began from 2002. Concretely, Secretary of State Powell and United Nations Ambassador Danforth appealed for peace in cooperation with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). These two later joined in the signing ceremony for the peace accord held in Nairobi in January 2005.

When the Bush Administration entered its second term, Mr. Zoellick assumed the position of Deputy Secretary of State, and has already visited three times to observe the implementation of the Peace Agreement. At a conference in April, the United States donated the single-largest amount of US$1.9 billion. The U.S. also approved the national unity government as soon as it was established. And this October, they reestablished their embassy. It is clear that the United States is paying attention to the Darfur situation. Not only Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick, but also Secretary of State Rice visited there and she demanded the improvement of the country’s relations with surrounding nations (especially Eritrea) and the stabilization of the whole of Sudan. These actions are evidence that the U.S. considers Sudan to be important.

The other country which shows a positive advance in Sudan is China. The goals of China are more direct: they aim at energy and mineral resources. Actually, China is the biggest customer of their oil production, and it brings much profit to southern Darfur. Sudan is also strengthening ties with China in its capacity as a representative of non-Western nations in the U.N. Security Council. Moreover, the number of Chinese participating in PKO has rapidly increased. It now stands at about 800, but it used to be less than 100.

Japan’s Role

What role should Japan take while those countries are taking action? Before examining Japan’s role concretely, I would like to take one more look at the Sudanese peace process (especially the north-south issue).

The peace between the Sudanese government in north and the rebel forces in the south (SPLM/A) has just been agreed. So, in order not to follow a statistic that says, “half of all conflicts have a relapse within five years,” the international community needs to be united, and make a firm basis for peace. For that to happen, there are three tools that international society has prepared. The first one is, of course, the North-South Inclusive Peace Agreement itself. The second is the PKO called UNMIS. And the last is the money promised to Sudan by a donor meeting in Norway. These three tools will change the situation of Sudan in the future.

In regard to the North-South Inclusive Peace Agreement, this “inclusiveness” is to found in the agreement to a permanent ceasefire, having a six-year phrase-in period, establishing a national unity government within those six years, arranging the creation of a new army, sharing power and wealth, and the general construction of “Reborn Sudan.” Six years from now, in 2011, a referendum will be held in the southern part of the country which will decide whether they remain inside a united Sudan or become independent.

UNMIS was the set up based on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1590. It consists of approximately 10,000 military observers and an appropriate number of civilians (including civilian police officers). Their mission is to implement support for the Inclusive Peace Agreement, promote the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons, carry out mine-clearing operations, give technical advice, insure the human rights of repatriated refugees, and generally to protect the weak.

It was rainy season in July that our investigation group visited there. The PKO in the south was advancing their work in providing military inspections, as well as other activities regarding transportation, constructing new facilities, mine-clearing, and medical treatment. The training of civilian police had already begun. As we can see from this, the PKO is carrying out activities aimed at mid- to long-term goals relating to “peace-building,” although it is generally understood to be only for “peacekeeping.”

The Sudan donors’ meeting was held by more than sixty countries and regional organizations from April 11-12, 2005. It was the first conference at which both central players joined as a united team, named “JNTT.” US$45 million in total was pledged to support the process for three years. This amount actually exceeded the US$41 million that U.N. General Secretary Annan had requested, and it showed how much attention the international community was paying to Sudan.

Japan should be evaluated highly in regard to those three tools. First, Japan has twice engaged in dialogue on Human Rights with the Sudanese government. This should be well noted, because as in the case of the Cambodian peace, it is important to take initiative in peace processes to build relationships of trust. Afterwards, Japan can play a helpful role in reconstruction support and peace building. From a political point of view, it is an important fact that Japan has positively joined the discussion about Sudan as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

Second, Japan decided to freely provide four-wheel drive vehicles, land-mine detection equipment, and large-scale tents to UNMIS in July. On October 19th, the ceremony for the delivery of these goods was held in Mombasa, Kenya. They were provided for African troops that have joined in UNMIS. It was the first time, based on Japan’s International Peacekeeping Law, to give goods to directly to a PKO. And what’s more, at the head office in Khartoum, a MOFA officer was placed in charge of analysis. He has worked there since October.

Third, for financial support, Japan has donated US$100 million in ODA for mine-clearing, food aid, support for returning refugees, and so on. Financial aid to Sudan, where there are Human Rights problems in addition to the civil war, was attended with many difficulties. Nevertheless, Japan has continued its support by limiting it to emergency and humanitarian situations, as has been the case since 1992. After the provision of financial aid, Japan will use those systems to give support through NGOs and international organizations. Such patient efforts are very important in building relationships of trust with partner countries.

The discussion in the conference was about the needs for the next three years. Of course, Japan can be considered as a country which has responded to the financial requests, and it will be also be important to consider how Japan might give financial support during the six-year phrase-in period in order to provide timely support for peace and stability.

Support to Regain “Happiness”

Among the points of debate about the Japanese contribution, the issue of an SDF dispatch is important. Actually, the possibility of joining in Sudan’s PKO was reported several times during the past ten months. The points of contention for those who have a negative view regard mainly the specific duties, the nature of troops’ activities (their main responsibilities and the question of weapons), their ability to do what is necessary (can they respond to the external and domestic situation and requests for some kind of action?), and the stability of the dispatch region itself (for example, what about the south?). There is no space to argue about details of the legal issues here, but these points are certainly not new. They have been debated in various forms about every SDF dispatch for ten years and more. Isn’t it time to prepare the way for a “general law” to govern these kinds of matters?

In addition to that kind of discussion, we cannot ignore considering how we should tackle the present problem of “Sudan” in detail. As I wrote earlier, more than 60% of the problems that are discussed in the U.N. Security Council relate to African issues, and it is directly connected to how we see PKO dispatches that we consider Africa. In other words, even now there is no question whether the highest priority is Asia or Africa, as this has already been resolved.

In fact, it cannot be denied that we have a psychological distance in addition to physical distance from Africa’s conflicts because its political culture and norms of society are quite different. And it is true that we sometimes become confused when we see people acting prideful even though they cannot make a living without aid. However, the Self-Defense Force personnel’s efforts should be reevaluated once more as was done twelve years ago. SDF officers achieved their mission in Mozambique though communication technology was not yet so advanced, and support systems were not established well enough. From now, we will need to consider the improvement of support systems and the scale of troop dispatches or workers to command centers.

As globalization advances rapidly, the problems of terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction have accelerated and spread. We are living in the world where we cannot deny the connection of Africa’s issues to terrorist attacks. Of course, it means that economic benefits must be spread and diplomatic infrastructures strengthened; but also it has the strategic meaning of a guarantee of security from developed countries, including Japan. At the same time, to support Africans who have been deprived of their “happiness,” a simple but often ignored matter would be to shorten our “distance” from them, I believe.

This is what the author felt during the short time that I came into contact with the people there, and it brought me close to the answer of the question: “Why is support for peace building needed?”