I'm working on a piece about the peace deals signed in Juba, but I wanted to say a few things about the agreement signed last night between Abdallah Hamdok and Abdelaziz al-Hilu, which is significant in many ways.
Unlike any of the signatories of the Juba deals, Al-Hilu controls substantial "liberated" territory within Sudan. A peace deal with him would therefore actually bring peace.
What was signed was a basic, preliminary political agreement, but it is important because it cements a commitment on the more general political issues that have been stumbling blocks for Al-Hilu's participation in the Juba negotiations.
The agreement came as a surprise, as Al-Hilu went on the record last week saying that prospects for peace were "dim". Clearly he has felt some pressure, directly or indirectly, as a result of the Juba peace agreement(s).
Al-Hilu formally renounces his demand for "secularism" to be enshrined in the constitution, agreeing instead to "separation of religion and state", behind which a lot more people in Sudan can get ("secularism", or "3ilmaniya" in Arabic, has strong negative connotations)
Hamdok reportedly signed the agreement without consulting the Sovereignty Council. If true, this would depart from his usual emphasis on consensus. It would be, in my view, a very positive development.
Here is Hamdok taking risks on an initiative which has the potential to benefit the country and himself politically. This is what successful politicians do. This is also the kind of behavior that can make him weigh in his interactions with the generals.
It's possible that this will lead nowhere. Hamdok's visit to Kauda in January was hailed as "historic" but didn't lead to any breakthrough. Factions in the transitional institutions may try to block further progress. Hamdok and Al-Hilu will have to beat the iron while it's hot.
Loading suggestions...