|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
Revisiting the Role of Superpower Leverage in Resolving Secessionist Wars: The Case of Sudan |
|
|
|
PP: 125-140 |
|
|
|
doi:10.18576/wrpsj/060210
|
|
|
|
Author(s) |
|
|
|
Khalid Ahmed,
|
|
|
|
Abstract |
|
|
| As a greater number of sub-national groups demand secession, as is the case in the Horn of Africa, conflict mediation theories are without concrete principles with which to respond. Paradoxically, while mediation theories argue that peace is best guaranteed by superpower leverage, as it ensures the commitment of belligerents to signing and implementing peace agreements; separatist groups actively enlist the support of superpowers in their quest for secession. This article critically analyses superpower mediation and how it affects the negotiations, and the resolution, of secessionist wars. Two shortcomings are explored: First, secessionist wars are not accorded appropriate consideration in the literature despite their intricate nature. Second, superpower leverage in mediation is not considered a form of superpower hegemony. Two questions guided this research: would superpower leverage be appropriate to resolve conflicts pertaining to secessionist wars specifically? Also, does the mediation literature address the detrimental consequences of superpower leverage in mediating secessionist conflicts. Extensive interviews and findings from Sudan’s 2005 peace agreement validate the main arguments of the article that the negative role of superpower leverage in mediation has been neglected and depoliticized in the literature which, consequently, legitimizes foreign intervention and exploitation and perpetuates the imposition of ready-made resolutions. Mediation theories could be more relevant and useful in fostering an indigenous end to secessionist wars by promoting subaltern ontologies and epistemologies in order to challenge the theoretical disposition of superpower hegemony in mediation theory, which, in turn, will strengthen local ownership of peace processes and foster consensus on indigenous resolutions. The aim of article is to call for a critical theory discourse to expand the very limited research on the role of external powers in determining the outcomes of secessionist negotiations rather than providing concrete alternatives to current mediation theories/policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
