How Does Drumming Lead to Peace in Sudan?

Like many of you, some of my favorite times were spent admiring the peace drummers in Sproul Plaza at Berkeley, California, in the 2000s. It was the same place where the Free Speech Movement was kicked off in the 1960s. One can hear those drums bouncing off the University of California halls, ricocheting across the street off Cafe Strada, and then landing muffled in the cedar forests above campus. It did sound like peace, amplified.

But lately, with Save Darfur and Sudan365's effort to rejuvenate the call for peace in Sudan through a global drumming campaign on January 9th, I wondered whether many of the participants have found clarity on how to turn a fun night with friends and highs around the world into peace-building and security policy change in the back rooms of rural councils and the Sudanese government.

Let's face it, the Sudanese national security elite and assorted local militias, after five decades of war, not only don't give a shit about our drumming, solidarity, and speeches, they also don't give a shit about U.S. Special Envoy Scott Gration bringing direct orders from President Obama to apply smart sanctions against Sudan.

In fact, the best outcome to rise out of the peace drumming event was to attract people to the issue of Sudan who have an interest to do more. But campaign leaders must carry that great momentum forward by offering the post-drum activists clarity on what to do next.

Clearly the only thing the Sudanese national security elite and those wielding weaponized power across the country's troubled mid-section care about is economic gain for their internal group. The vast majority of Sudanese already do want peace, but have little leverage.

On the country level, as the Save Darfur movement leaders do point out, the pressure points have been oil and favor in the Islamic world. Theoretically, the global drumming effort is meant to rally the public -- to consider joining efforts, rally government officials, rally world leaders, apply pressure on investors like China and partners like Egypt, and condition economic ties with Sudan on reducing war.

But how the hell is peace drumming to help these more critical local areas where Sudan is so delicate? On the local level, like in the touchy areas of Darfur, Abyei, South Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Jonglei (this is where the coming elections and referendum on southern independence are most delicate), those who would take up arms have a much more complicated set of demands.

It goes to the very heart of the nuances of the oil trade (namely that despite the south potentially controlling much oil, they can do nothing with it without paying the north to open the spigot and allow it to flow to buyers on the sea), representation in local government, herding lands and routes, farmland claims, fishing rights, landmines, and of course, jobs.

Well, the global message must not simply be shouted "More Attention to Sudan!" Nor "Peace in Sudan!" Nor "Send Bashir to Prison!" These are all vital, but even more vital are the specifics. Campaigners for peace must demand that their governments not only "Call for an end to conflict," but very specifically do two things.

First, condition federal-level investments and aid on a ceasefire in Darfur and very high standards for elections and the referendum. Second, dramatically increase the commitment to very nuanced local peacebuilding aid, even if absolutely necessary at the cost of other priorities such as roads or school construction. Not only is peacebuilding in Sudan's local trouble spots the most important priority for Sudan after the ceasefire and election planning, it is something which takes a great deal of lead time.

"Peacebuilding" -- to be clear -- is distinct from peacemaking (brokering a deal for a ceasefire), peacekeeping (using a 'neutral' security force to enforce a ceasefire), mediating (facilitating dialogue on one major disagreement), reconstructionism (healing communities after fighting), traditional dispute resolution (having elder counsels in rural areas hold a grand council to discuss issues), and other methods.

Unlike the others which come in during and after a conflict, peacebuilding is best brought in as early as possible. It is primarily about transforming conflict and building relationships. Rather than the traditional approach to simply ask fighting groups to stop fighting, swallow their grievances, and have the item of dispute cut in half, peacebuilding acknowledges the very natural instinct to have valid disagreements. It is not about ending conflict, but about moving conflict from violence toward dialogue and relationship negotiations. And peacebulding works best with a specific goal like how to determine the shared use of grazing area or a water source.

Only after the millions of activists who pound the drums of renewal take that second step and follow through by recommending to their government representatives a clarified direction will that great movement of hands in one part of the world transform into a change of heart in another.

• For more on peacebuilding theory, try the UN partner Peacebuilding Initiative.
• To rally with peacebuilding advocates in the professional and advocate realm, join the Peace and Collaborative Development Network.
• To rally with like-minds to talk about issues, try the World March for Peace and Nonviolence.
• To follow advocacy on Sudan, see Save Darfur.

Of course, there are a lot more where that came from, so by all means recommend more below if you like.

Photo credit: Vmulky