BY: James Lomole

In reconciliation, the perpetrator must recognize his/her guilt. Must confess and repent, and request for forgiveness, and lastly, take the decision to turn away from his/her misdeeds and rectify them. This, in a way, imports the notion of spiritual reconciliation. From here, it spills over to personal reconciliation, then to the social, and from the spiritual and the social, to ecological reconciliation. Because inner and outer peace are interrelated. That is to say, a person’s ability to make peace is enhanced by that individual’s ability to be in peace with herself/himself. What I am saying here is that, reconciliation is, in fact, conflict resolution; that peace cannot be achieved in a society without conflict resolution; that, there is no peace without reconciliation; and finally that, this peace begins with the self (the individual).

When we propose or intend to carry on a project such as of reconciliation in the Sudan, it is always wise to know and understand Sudan’s history, the background to the Sudan conflict, and the trauma suffered by the victim group, before indulging in such program. This is of paramount importance because, truth and honesty are inalienable elements of reconciliation, and these have to be exercised by both sides to the conflict. But experience has shown that, in the Sudan, the unsaid truth and dishonesty are the factors that govern all political matters and decisions. Consequently, so many agreements were dishonored.

The Sudan we are talking about lies south of Egypt. It stretches to the boundaries of Abyssinia and Uganda. These lands were known as Cush in the Old Testament. The ancient Egyptians called it Nubia, and in the Graeco-Roman world it was known as Lower Ethiopia. Browning tells us          

Cush. The region now known as N. Sudan and called Ethiopia (So NRSV in 2  

       Kgs. 19: 9) by classical authors. Moses married a wife from Cush (Num. 12:

       1), much to the indignation of his sister. Its inhabitants often visited Palestine

       (Acts 8: 27) [2].

Ethiopia. The area of N. Africa in the Nile Valley, part of the kingdom

            known in Egyptian as Nubia and in the OT as Cush (Gen. 10: 6) [3].  

When the Muslim Arabs conquered Nubia, they called it ‘Bilad-es-Sudan’, meaning, the land of the blacks, in the Arabic language, from which came the name of the present-day Sudan.

In the year 638 CE, Egypt fell into the hands of the Muslim Arabs. The Nubian kingdoms, resisted the Muslim Arabs onslaught. But with repeated and continued attacks on their northern borders, they abdicated and in the year 641CE, signed a treaty with their Muslim Arabs neighbors. The treaty stipulated, inter alia, that the Nubian kings supply an annual tribute of 360 slaves to the Muslim governor at Aswan. This treaty was fully honored and respected by the Nubian kings, but not by the Muslim Arabs. It was in force for 600 years within which, the Muslim Arabs carried away thousands of Nubians as slaves.

From the 14^th. to the second half of the 16^th. centuries, the Muslim Arabs conquered the Sudan and settled. They raided the country for slaves, ivory and livestock. In fact, in the early 1800s, the British explorer, Sir Samuel Baker, who was given the task of suppressing the slave trade and slave raiding in Sudan found that, the Sudan was actually leased out by the government in Khartoum, to slave-raiders who were dubbed as ‘merchants.’[4] After the independence of the Sudan in 1956, the same slave-raider, slave-trader and slave-master became the ruler in the country, and always and until today, insisting on the creation of a theocratic Islamic state in the Sudan. A move resisted by South Sudanese to this day. The national governments were more repressive, more oppressive and more brutal than the colonialists. As ‘abeed’, the Arabic word for slaves, South Sudanese and all other African Sudanese are relegated to 4^th. class citizens in their own country and land.

When the Muslim Arabs conquered the Sudan, they encountered Christianity and other indigenous religions. To them, all these were profane except the sword and Allah’s book, the Qur’an. They then converted people to Islam by means of the sword. The converts were compelled to shed their indigenous names. These invaders actually inaugurated the era of slave raids in the Sudan and the rest of black Africa. The religious element played a significant role in the rift between the Muslim Arabs and the followers of other religions in the Sudan.

We must remember that, the conflict in the Sudan was on for decades of carnage and social disintegration of enduring nature. The indigenous culture of Sudan is today imperiled as never before, in the name of a religion that takes upon itself to be the holiest of the holies. I am not saying that, there is no need for the preservation of religious values. But, I think that, to dismiss the negative effects of foreign religions or values on our cultural values means recognizing the irrationality of the destructiveness on behalf of any values, cultural, religious, ideological, or race-authenticated, that intervened and obscured or eroded those multiple anteriorities of whatever kind, from which our being once took its definition. Even in our own time, a culture is being raped, as if the Sudan, and indeed, the whole of Africa, has regressed to the battlefronts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. These are the lessons and warnings we learn from the Sudanese conflict.

For twenty-two long years, January 9, 2005, was the day Sudanese, and particularly, South Sudanese, and in fact, all the peace-loving community worldwide, waited for. Twenty-two long years of bitterness and suffering, within which, more than two million people, mostly children and women, lost their lives. Thousands by the bullet. Many died by air raids and bombings carried out by the Muslim Arab army. Many arrested and tortured to death in detention (ghost) houses and prison cells. Many amputated, maimed and mutilated by either the army, or the Arab militias, or by anti-personnel mines and booby-traps planted and set up by the army. Many more died of forced starvation and hunger, still many more died of curable and preventable diseases. Villages erased to the ground. Young men and women abducted and physically abused. The women were raped. 75% of them gang-raped. Many carried away into slavery and some are still slaves in the hands of the Muslim Arabs to this day. Families broken and separated beyond repair. Many of these families waited patiently for January 9, 2005, expecting to see their loved ones. But alas, they were not there, in fact, not to be seen until kingdom come. The cultural and social fabric is broken beyond imagination.

That was the suffering and the trauma the Sudanese people underwent and endured for twenty-two years. A suffering inflicted on them, by those who live with them as citizens of one and the same nation. Now after those twenty-two years of bitter suffering, the day came – January 9, 2005 – the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed. Between the South and the north, there is peace. At least, the guns are silent. But considering the history and the magnitude of the conflict and the suffering this war inflicted on the Sudanese people, and recognizing its religious, racial, economic, political, social and ideological overtones, we must ask the following questions:

1. Given the above analysis and recognition of the issues involved, can the project of reconciliation take root in the Sudan, first between the South Sudanese and the northern Sudanese Muslim Arabs? And then between the northern Sudanese Muslim Arabs and the other Sudanese Africans of the marginalized areas?
2. Is it possible that one day, this project of reconciliation, will be sufficient enough  for a slave-raider to drag himself onto a forum and, with the South African model as a guide, confess to his crimes and be granted absolution by the victim group?
3. If we use the South African model in the Sudanese situation, and we have already said that truth is an essential element of reconciliation, are certain aspects of the proceedings not in themselves a tarnishing of the quality of truth and its imperatives and, thus, a condonation of impunity?
4. For how else can we construe an advance project of remission of sins in the immediate context of the unfinished business of such criminality?

To my mind, the example of South Africa is not one that we can recommend for embarking on a process that will redress yet the ongoing assaults against humanity in the Sudan. If the fabric of the Sudanese society, which has been ruptured by conflict and violence were to be healed, then I think, truth alone, is not enough to guarantee reconciliation in the Sudan. For the simple reason that, truth has little to do with crime and punishment, but rather with inventiveness, i.e. devising a social formula that would minister to the wrongs on the one hand, and chasten those who deviate from the humane communal order on the other, even in times of stress, and only then, can truth heal.

Given the micro-dynamics and complexity of the Sudanese situation, I would want to believe that, abdication of memory of acts of commission or omission of responsibility, affects the future conduct of power in any form. Consequently, any failure to adopt a recognition of such a principle, simply results in the enthronement of a political culture that knows no boundaries, and that is the culture of impunity. If we neglect such a course, this will definitely be interpreted as vindication of crime, which in some unexpected day, may germinate the long dormant seeds of hatred and resentment in the victim group.

We have already said that, reconciliation entails confession and repentance on the side of the perpetrator; that, the perpetrator must request forgiveness and lastly; that, the perpetrator must take a drastic decision to turn away from his/her sins and rectify his/her misdeeds. In the Sudan situation, given the fact that the religious and the moral elements are highly visible, and we also know that, forgiveness is a value that is far more humanly exacting than vengeance. So, will this understanding truly reconcile the Muslim Arabs of north Sudan and the Africans of South Sudan, and can it be extended to reconcile the Muslim Arabs and the Africans of the Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile, and Darfur? I am inclined toward the negative, because a key element and a vital ingredient is missing in this crucible of harmonization, and that ingredient is the moral one. This element is glaring enough, though it is nebulous to assess. It is nebulous because we can only observe that, an expression of remorse has been made. The question is, is it genuinely made? Of course, as humans, we cannot tell, because “even the devil himself does not know the intent of man”.

It is great that, the issue of national reconciliation is embodied in the CPA. Chapter II: Power Sharing, Part I, Section 1.7 states that: “The parties agree to initiate a comprehensive process of national reconciliation and healing throughout the country as part of the peace building process. Its mechanisms and forms shall be worked out by the Government of National Unity”. If national reconciliation is to succeed in the Sudan, we must hold the parties to honestly and truthfully adhere to this provision and to implement CPA wholly. Because, successful implementation of the CPA means successful national reconciliation program. The trouble is that, the CPA as whole is at the declivity of collapse, due to the NCP, stalling on it.

Under same Chapter, Part II, Section 2.5.9 stipulates: “The Government of National Unity shall implement an information campaign throughout Sudan in all national languages in Sudan to popularize the Peace Agreement, and to foster national unity, reconciliation and mutual understanding”. This looks a very good starting point. And according to the CPA, a national reconciliation and healing process was supposed to have been started immediately after the adoption of the Interim National Constitution two years ago. The executing body of this process is the presidency. The funding source is the Government of National Unity (GONU). The procedure, process and criteria of executing the reconciliation project, is through media, educational institutions, conferences and campaigns involving political parties, civil society organizations, religious and tribal leaders, etc. So far, nothing of the sort is happening on the ground. Instead, there is serious neglect and undermining of the CPA, especially on the side of the NCP. There is serious lack of trust between the parties to the Agreement, and already there are accusations by the SPLM that, the NCP is not serious in implementing the CPA. With these current developments, I am afraid the national reconciliation project may not succeed in the Sudan, without the parties being pressurized by the international community to implement the CPA to the letter.

Previously, we said that, the Muslim Arabs of north Sudan are the culprits. Because they used their political, economic and military might to oppress the Sudanese Africans. They killed and forced others to convert to their religion. The questions that come to mind immediately are; Are they genuinely, and  truthfully and honestly, willing to recognize their guilt. Are they willing to confess, repent and truly and honestly ask for forgiveness, and take that daring decision to turn away from their sins and rectify their misdeeds? We also said the South Sudanese and other African Sudanese suffered beyond any measure, in the hands of the Muslim Arabs of north Sudan. We must not forget that, reconciliation demands that the victim group must be ready to genuinely, and truthfully, and honestly forgive the perpetrator. On May 10, 1994, President Nelson Mandela’s inauguration day, Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote this:

A poignant moment on that day was when Nelson Mandela arrived….. and various heads of the security forces…saluted him, and then escorted him as the head of state. It was poignant because a few years previously he had been their prisoner and would have been considered a terrorist to have been hunted down……. He invited his jailer to attend his inauguration as an honored guest, ….. showing his breathtaking magnanimity and willingness to forgive. …. This man, who had been vilified and hunted down as a dangerous fugitive and incarcerated for nearly three decades, would soon be transformed into the embodiment of forgiveness and reconciliation.

We see here that, the initiative for forgiveness and reconciliation came from the victim. The victim succumbs to transformation that turns and makes him/her an instrument of forgiveness and reconciliation. The questions we ask are; Are the leaders of South Sudan, and all the other marginalized areas of Sudan, prepared and willing, genuinely, and truthfully, and honestly to take such an unusual and bold move to forgive their torturers, just as President Nelson Mandela did? Are they ready to succumb to that transformation, that will turn and make them instruments of forgiveness and reconciliation? We need to find the answers to all these questions, because the answers will lead us to find a way of effecting reconciliation in the Sudan.

This is not to say that, we cannot succeed in effecting reconciliation in the Sudan. But rather, I am cautioning that, any attempt to reconcile the culprit and the victim groups in the Sudan will never succeed without the full, truthful and honest willingness and participation of both parties to the conflict. First and foremost, reconciliation will not be possible without full knowledge and understanding of the micro-dynamics and the complexities of the Sudanese situation. In this context, it is my considered opinion that, reconciliation will not take root in the Sudan, when it is used merely as a political slogan to achieve a short-lived political agenda for any political expediency. I also believe that without the participation of the Churches in this reconciliation process, nothing will be achieved. It is only when we involve the local Churches to take a leading role in this reconciliation project, that a meaningful and realistic reconciliation process will take root in the Sudan.

On the ethnic, or tribal, or community levels, there are causes of tensions and conflict. Cattle-raiding is common among the cattle rearing tribes of South Sudan, resulting in protracted tribal feuds. At the community level, traditional norms are sources of conflict, e.g. the traditional notion of age groups. Marrying before initiation to adulthood can create a conflict between the older and the younger age groups. Generation gap, where the older generation loses authority over the younger generation, because the former has become out-fashioned, so its lifestyle becomes incompatible with current events, is yet another source of conflict, etc, etc. During the war, all these differences and situations were exploited thus pitting tribes against each other to this day.

At this level, we do not need to use the South African model or experience as a guide. Because research has shown that, there are sufficient traditional methods that can be used effectively at a given time, and in a given place, and in a particular situation and circumstances. These methods were used very successfully in resolving ethnic, tribal and even political conflicts in the following countries:

Burundi: Basically an ethnic conflict, yet it was highly politicized.

Kenya: The Rift Valley Crisis an ethnic conflict with some political overtones.

Sierra Leone: Where the conflict was really a political one, the Church used traditional methods

                           effectively to resolve it.

Sudan: Traditional methods were used to end the tribal conflict between the Nuers and the Dinkas of

              Upper Nile region.

What I am saying here is that, in the Sudan, there are ethnic conflicts and tribal feuds that occur from time to time. Traditional methods of conflict resolution and reconciliation have been used successfully. Therefore, reconciliation can be easily effected at this level.

Works Visited      

1.      The Author’s Research Work: Peace And Justice In East Africa:  (2001)  Maryknoll Institute of African Studies, Nairobi Kenya.

2.      The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), 2005.

3.      Pierre L. van den Berghe: Race And Ethnicity in Africa (1996).

4.      Louis-Marie: Voices From Africa: Conflict, Peacekeeping and Reconstruction (1997).

5.      Desmond Tutu: No Future Without Forgiveness, (1999) Doubleday Publishers, New York.

6.      Wole Soyinka: The Burden Of Memory: The Muse Of Forgiveness, (1999) Oxford University Press, New York.