The Case of the Sudan: A Comparison between the CPA and the DPA

In this paper I have tried to highlight the motivations, limits and leverage of international community s intervention in the Sudan civil wars, linking the western intervention in both North/South and Darfur conflict with the post-9/11 event and the War on Terror. Whilst in the case of North/South war, the western intervention helped the parties to reach a feasible agreement, the DPA brought more damages than good. Indeed, when in July 2002 the Machakos Protocol was signed the North/South conflict was a mature civil war: the rebels were represented by only one movement and leader and both parties were ready to compromise. When the international community pushed for a negotiated settlement in Darfur the time was not right because the parties were divided and not interested in peace. Moreover, the debate over whether or not define the violence in Darfur as genocide distracted the attention of the international community from peace. Finally, the international community appeared to be interested in signing an agreement on Darfur mostly to allow the government to accept the presence of UN troops on the ground and that was another mistake of its mediation effort.

Autorentext

Born in Rome in February 1973, she got a Master Degree in Political Science at the University of Rome in 1997 and a MA in War in the Modern World at King's College in 2011. She joined the Italian diplomatic service in 2001 and she served in Khartoum, Yangon and Kabul. Promoted Counsellor in 2012, she is currently working in Rome.