Divergence of negotiating positions

Oddly enough, officials in the ruling Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) are still publicly expressing their feelings on the impossibility of reaching an agreement, despite being currently engaged in negotiations.

These feelings are openly announced in press statements, accompanied by the usual escalatory rhetoric which naturally creates an unfavorable climate for talks and constructive dialogue, and deepens the mutual lack of confidence which dominated previous negotiations, going back before the secession of South Sudan and the signing of the CPA agreement.

News dailies reported yesterday that the negotiating stances of the two parties have diverged, and that the talks have adjourned without success in bridging the widening gap.

News reports also quoted informed sources from the NCP as accusing SPLM-N secretary-general, Yassir Arman of hindering the talks by insisting on focusing negotiation on items related to humanitarian issues in the two states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, while the government says that negotiations, even at this early stage, should include security and political files.

Meanwhile, the SPLM-N said in a statement that the NCP insisted on linking humanitarian issues to political terms which they strongly reject.

The escalation revolves around these traded accusations and the prevalent lack of trust which undermines the possibility of dialogue and disserves the interests and livelihoods of ordinary citizens in the two regions and further renders them part of this raging struggle for which each side feels the other is solely responsible.

The solution lies in broadening the circle of the talks by engaging the participation of parties that are absent from the decision-making process. This is a national issue that should be dealt with within a national framework, to avoid repetition of the CPA scenario.

Input from other parties is of crucial importance at this stage, because it extricates the issues from the narrow confines of a bilateral confrontation to a broader perspective of comprehensive solutions based on involving all political parties.

Because of the rigidity of their positions, those in charge of this file are part of the problem and therefore cannot be part of the solution.

 If the present situation persists, the escalation scenario will continue and the negotiated solution will remain out of reach.