In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Sudan: The Elusive Quest for Peace
  • Jok Madut Jok
Ruth Iyob, Gilbert Khadiagala. Sudan: The Elusive Quest for Peace. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2006. 224 pp. Maps. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $15.95. Paper.

Throughout Sudan’s conflicts, the battle for peace has been as intense as the military confrontations themselves. Gathering Sudanese around the table, agreeing on an agenda, and persuading multiple factions to adopt a unified negotiating platform have all posed extreme difficulties to the mediators, and have surely added to the protraction of the Sudan’s civil conflicts. There is a long tradition within the academy of using similar modes of analysis to discuss both war-making and peace-making, a tradition [End Page 153] embraced by Ruth Iyob and Gilbert Khadiagala in Sudan: The Elusive Quest for Peace.

This is a timely, if disappointing, book. Timely because it was written during the negotiations over a settlement ending Sudan’s north–south conflict and during the escalation of another conflict in Darfur. This timing allowed the authors to explore the relations between the promise of peace in southern Sudan and the growing conflict in Darfur. To this effect, the authors accomplished their stated goal of “addressing the weight of history on the present” (13). With its burdensome legacy of colonial history, Sudan’s history of religious encounters adds to its complex issue of national identity. Its long history of enslavement of Southerners by Northerners and a half century of brutal military confrontation only underscore the racial divides and the protracted conflicts that have accompanied the divide. Therefore any approach to peace is delicate, as historically contingent and politically contested.

As this book shows, among the most important diplomatic responses to conflict in the Sudan were those guided by the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a coalition of governments attempting to broker a peace deal from 1995. Separate initiatives include those by Nigeria, Norway, the U.S., Libya, and Egypt. However, as this book shows, a number of IGAD nations had diplomatic problems among themselves; these simply extended a state of no war/no peace that ultimately ended with the signing of a tenuous north–south peace deal in 2005. This book provides the necessary context for anyone wishing to understand why Sudan’s conflicts have dragged on for so long. What it does not show, however, is how the Sudanese people variously regarded the possibility of a long-term solution, the difficulties mediators encountered in approaching the Sudanese, and what the Sudanese found problematic about how various foreign mediators behaved. A deeper treatment of these matters, including the perspectives of multiple groups of Sudanese, would have significantly strengthened the book’s analysis.

Instead, the authors strive to maintain an image of neutrality in explaining the viewpoints of parties to the north–south conflict, sometimes at the expense of the facts. The problem with attempting neutrality on an issue as divisive as Sudan’s conflict is that one ends up saying nothing concrete. Chronic conflict requires levels of analysis different from narrowly based mediating initiatives. Diplomatic relations between mediators’ home countries and Sudan have shaped how far Sudanese officials feel they can trust the mediators and cause suspicions toward the mediators on the part of the warring parties. The Khartoum government, for example, found unacceptable such concepts as “human rights” and “democracy” in a context in which it was itself committing day-to-day acts of extreme brutality. Likewise, as mediators pushed harder for Western democratic ideals, the Southern negotiators began to have false hopes of foreign intervention, possibly in the form of military aid; therefore they delayed negotiating with any sense [End Page 154] of urgency. This situation has recurred most recently with respect to unsuccessful peace talks focusing on Darfur. In such situations it is not enough to blame the negotiating parties. Rather, the crucial questions that needed to be asked are: In whose interests were various peace negotiating positions and approaches being formulated? For what purposes were they invoked? How did these concepts become the sole means of calibrating commitment or indifference to a peace process? Where does the responsibility of a mediator for ensuring success begin (or end)?

Like many books about...

pdf

Share