Election ownership = postpond the election
Quote:
Top UN Official Stresses National Ownership of Upcoming Elections
"Elections need to take place according to timelines subscribed by the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement], and they have to be conducted in a conducive atmosphere to ensure a free and fair process," said Haile Menkerios today in Khartoum, in his first press conference since becoming the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) and head of UNMIS.
"The CPA, however, is an agreement by the two Parties. And should the two Parties decide whether to have the elections on time or should they want to postpone them for a time, it is up to them," the Special Representative added.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201003290002.html
I believe it's a new approach for ownership: this belongs to me so I have the right to not do it. With election and democratization it's kind of funny/fuzzy.
I own elections so I have the right to not have it... But I stay a legitimete populace representative government.
Personnally, I love it!;)
And now, ladies and gentlemen, welcome the democraticly non elected dictators! Super cool!:mad::cool::eek:
Just for fun, here is the link for the Amnesty international sudan election observers briefing:
http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/in...54/009/2010/en
Trying to analyse Sudan election failure
Is the boycott of the election really a surprise in Sudan? That’s the real question. The CPA, the core agreement leading to those elections has been signed by 2 parties only: NCP (represented by Bashir) and SPLM (represented by Garang).
What was the meaning of the CPA at that time? The opening of Sudan to democracy? Absolutely not!
It was a peace agreement between two opponents to cease the conflict. Democratisation of Sudan was like the sherry on the top of the cake, a collateral effect of the process. It was Garang objective. But Garang is no more and the CPA became the baseline agreement for the separation of Sudan in 2 independent bodies.
If you look closely at the election process in Sudan you can see that NCP is almost not present in South (at least not at decision making level). SPLM had only to find a good argument that would please the opinion and blame Bashir to do the same in North. And that’s what they did.
Did we really want to have a democratic Sudan?
Definitively not!
South Sudan is not unified and even less united. In most of the country, SPLA, SSPS and other organised forces are not capable to hold the monopoly of violence. So they cannot rule the place by the law as they do not have the capacity to enforce the law. The Rule of Law approach failed not because SPLM was not capable (SPLM capable of it is another question) but because the State administration was not functioning. So, for external and regional powers, South Sudan is more stable if there is a fake democracy.
In North, Rule of Law could have been implemented. But do regional and external powers want extremist Muslim parties in power. Does Egypt accept the idea to have a Muslim Brotherhood safe heaven as neighbour? Do the Western countries loose their influence in the sub region by allowing an extremist Muslim party to come in power? Absolutely not and every body acknowledge it.
The end of stabilization being stability in the country but also in the sub region, Sudan elections were doomed since the very first day John Garang died.
So what went wrong?
Nothing!
It’s only that the comprehension of CPA has evolved but not the position of bodies as the Carter Center or international NGO.
SPLM and NCP took beats and pieces of CPA as a draft of they separation agreement. And SPLM is not a master player...
What are Sudan elections really questioning in stabilization process is the definition of the end.
Is “fair and transparent democratic Nation” stabilization operation’s end?
During Cold War, the political model was at stake as it was reflecting an opposition of 2 economical models (Capitalism VS Communism). Nowadays, the real post Cold War consensus is the supremacy of capitalistic economical model but certainly not the democratic political model. But we are still focussed on the Cold War consensus of installation of democratic process as the end.
Stabilization operations, to be successful have to be revised. In highly economically degraded environment, what builds a real State legitimacy is not only the respect of the law but it is capacity to provide an economically population centric protective environment.
Otherwise, we will always end up with unstable regimes, elected but non democratic, weak and incapable to protect their population… And finally delaying wars but never ending them.
May be buying time is all what we can do.
Should I stay or should I go
Renewed Conflict in Sudan
Quote:
A key challenge facing the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the civil war in Sudan is whether the January 2011 referendum in which the South and the oil-rich region of Abeyi can vote to secede from the North is honored. Other triggers for renewed conflict between the north and south include political manipulation of the forthcoming general elections by the ruling party, failure to complete border demarcation prior to the referendum, and disagreement over-post referendum oil revenue distribution. The author calls on all stakeholders to enforce the CPA but singles out the United States as pivotal. To this end, she urges the United States and the international community to unequivocally back southern self-determination through robust diplomatic engagement so that neither party has incentive to renege on its commitments to the CPA. The author also recommends that the United States not endorse an election result that falls short of the minimal standards of credibility, which should be clearly defined in advance. Finally, she urges the United States to lead in preparing for the highly probable result of a separate southern Sudan.
http://africacenter.org/2010/04/rene...lict-in-sudan/
An interesting communication from council of Foreign Relations
Otherwise, an interesting development of the election boycott:
Quote:
Withdrawn SPLM candidate violated Elections Act, says NEC
According to NEC’s Jersa Kide, Mr. Arman’s recent withdrawal should have taken place within a period of not less than 45 days prior to polling day, provided he notified the Commission of his actions in a signed written form that would have been legally authenticated.
Citing section 45 (3) of the 2008 Act, the NEC official said, "The candidate shall not withdraw her/his nomination after the period specified in section (1) and his name shall be included on the ballot paper and any vote cast for him/her on polling day shall be deemed valid".
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34652
And the US to wonder if some delay could be a solution. With Bashir insulting everyone at the end:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34662
Despite the crazy talk from Bashir and the US and SPLM playing at should I go or should I stay… NEC is doing what looks to me as what JMM describes as lawfare. Well, at least to a fuzzy move to actually force SPLM to stay in the course and make those election credible.
I just do not see the benefit. Let's dream and imagine that SPLM candidate in North is elected while boycotting the elections. I do not see Bashir and SAF nicely and fairly saying: we lost, please take the keys of the office.
But by saying SPLM cannot redraw now, Bashir is buying credibility, at least legally. Rule of law, rule of law...
And here is what Moscow thinks about the situation: (Sorry the link is in french)
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20100405/186393760.html
Basically Moscow is saying let’s go for elections. For them, the elections have to happen because of Darfur peace process.
It’s a dam fair and bright comment. The only out come of those elections, part from an increase of tensions between North and South ARE the Doha agreement.
And if the people rebel?...
The not so fine tuned policy to keep NCP and SPLM in power may not work. At least for the people.
Quote:
Sudan’s NCP accuses opposition of seeking to topple post-election government.
"[The opposition groups] are not going to recognize the outcome of the elections and they are going to go to the streets and try to change the regime ... through conflict, riots," Sudan presidential assistant Nafie Ali Nafie told reporters at a briefing.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34783
South Sudan: a laboratory for stabilisation
Moderators Note
In response to MA's critique that some disturbance in this thread by a series of posts speculating on the role of the external, or great powers in Africa, in places like Zimbabwe and what exactly will China do? I have created a new thread for the discussion and moved some of the posts to here and please discuss the issues there, not in this Sudanese thread.
The new thread is 'The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=10188
Is negociation always the solution?
Quote:
Kiir casts doubts on negotiations with renegade general
May 16, 2010 (JUBA) – Salva Kiir Mayardit, South Sudan President-elect, has casted doubt on GOSS willingness to negotiate with George Athor Deng, the defeated Jonglei State gubernatorial candidate in April elections.
Many voices in southern Sudan called on the regional government to seek peaceful means to end the rebellion of General Athor in order to preserve peace and security in the semi-autonomous region which will hold a referendum on self determination next January.
The UN Mission in Sudan proposed to broker a negotiated settlement to the conflict. Athor welcomed the move but Southern Sudan government pledged to make further consultations and review the situation before to give its final decision to the UN body.
During the May 16th celebration here in Juba, Salva Kiir vowed that civilians’ safety and transformation of SPLA are the SPLM focus in the next term office besides ensuring successful conduct of January referendum.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35103
Quote:
South Sudan ruling party accuses NCP of backing Athor uprising At a media briefing held at the party’s Southern Sector Secretariat on Saturday, Mr. Amum said his party had secured credible information that the National Congress Party (NCP) was fully backing Gen. Athor and forces loyal to him.
Asked to substantiate further on the NCP’s alleged involvement, the SPLM Secretary General said the party’s [SPLM] intelligence report strongly link the renegade General’s rebellion to the Khartoum regime’s continuous trends of providing logistical and financial support to “enemies” of Southern Sudan.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35098
As far as I know, negociations were rejected by Salva Kiir and SPLA troops are surounding the 500 to 800 troops of Gen Athor.
This situation questions the doctrine of negociation with peace spoilers in stabilisation. Is it always worse to negociate with peace spoilers? Sometimes the answer is no, unfortunatelly.
Somehow, negociating with a general who clearly lost election would undermine GoSS legitimacy and democratic process initiated in South Sudan. Not that I am in favor of use of force to settle any problems similar to this one but...
But when the democratic defeat is clear, then negociations has to be very limited. Buying peace spoilers would work if they have some popular back up as you would fuel insurgency. But when the guys have no popular support why should democraties negociate?
Democratic process are inclusive but in order to build strong democracy, it should be also archknowledge that they do have the right to impose people decisions to those who reject people choice by using force. :o
Concerning the NCP links... I am doubtful by I am very much not well placed to judge as I miss too many info.
The usefull country approach: touching the limits?
Quote:
U.S. kicks off agricultural program in South Sudan
May 17, 2010 (JUBA) – The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) inaugurated a $55 million program in the semi-autonomous region of South Sudan aimed at helping farmers there to develop their agricultural potential.
Last month, the World Food Program (WFP) warned that South Sudan is facing a major food crisis that could lead to a “free fall” impacting 4.3 million people living off assistance.
Furthermore, the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) has announced last Friday the lifting of taxes on food products in response to the looming hunger in the region.
USAID said that a five-year initiative, called the Food, Agribusiness, and Rural Markets (FARM) program, will initially focus on select counties in southern Sudan’s ‘green belt zone,’ which spans Western, Central, and Eastern Equatoria states, and where conflict destroyed much of the local capacity for agricultural production during Sudan’s civil war.
The project is to focus on commodities such as ground nuts, sorghum, rice, cassava, maize, sesame, tomatoes, cabbage, onion and okra. The areas covered in this program are comprised of Central Equatoria Counties: Morobo, Kajo Keji, Yei; Eastern Equatoria Counties: Magwi, Ikotos, Budi; Western Equatoria Counties: Maridi, Mundri, Tambura.
USAID director said that his agency will increase its presence in South Sudan in what appears to be a subtle preparation for the high probability of secession following the 2011 self-determination referendum in the region.
“Agriculture is the backbone of the economic development in southern Sudan, employing the majority of the population of more than 8 million, 80 percent of whom live in rural areas,” according to a USAID statement.
South Sudan is overwhelmingly dependent on oil revenue but some reports accused GoSS of mismanaging the money leading to persistence of food crisis and insecurity.
A GoSS official vowed to spend prudently in order to develop agriculture.
“There is going to be rationalization in all aspects of expenditure to create funds for the development of our agriculture,” the SPLM Secretary General Pagan Amum said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35110
Quote:
Poor roads infrastructure in E. Equatoria hamper development
Mr. Otim said Magwi could be the food basket of Eastern Equatoria, Southern Sudan and Sudan at large but it lacks roads linking the area to towns like the state capital Torit or to the Southern Sudan capital Juba to help the farmers transport their products to market their agricultural inputs.
The MP added that better roads would bridge the gap between farmers and consumers and open up means to rapidly boost the development of the state.
Otim calls upon the state government to do more to help the county inhabitants to let them exploit its God given resources as a means to fight poverty in the state.
Eastern Equatoria is under hunger threats since last year and Magwi County produces enough food to feed the state, but farmers lack good to transport their produce to the market due to the deplorable condition of the roads’ network in the region since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement or CPA in the country.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35133
Let’s have a look on the Usefull country development orientation in stabilization…
Yes, South Sudan is not as hot as other theather and it might not look obvious for those who do not know it enough to understand why I am trying to analyse this approach though South Sudan. But anyways, such policy approach are not meant to be a one shot but a global approach for donor agencies as USAID.
What to say on the usefull country part development approach put in place by USA?
1) It looks both rational and logical: focussing on areas which have an economical potential to build population confidence in a government.
2) The limits are not in that particular approach but lay in the partners. And that’s why I joined the second article.
For those who noticed, in Eastern Equatoria, the USAID farming projects targets 3 counties: Budi, Ikotos and Magwi. It also targets some counties in Central Equatoria and Western Equatoria. So why am I harrasing the poor Magwi deputy?
Because since 2005, Magwi county is being overflowded with aid. And because it is the door to Uganda who is also facing a strong food gape, especially in its northen regions. So, developing roads in Magwi will not allow GoSS to have a more rational management of its food security but will allow South Sudan to export food to Uganda.
Then comes the first question to whom is that farming project benefiting? Is it benefitting to South Sudan or is it benefitting to its close neighbour who is actually engaged in tracking LRA all over Central and Western Equatoria (up to Darfur in fact)?
As a strabilization strategy how does that work? I really do wonder. And this is my point: how do donors pick up and choose areas to qualify them as useful versus non useful?
Developping roads to allow farmers to sell their products inside South Sudan is likely to not work. This because South sudanese simply do not have the financial capacity to purchase that food. So you will tend to develop export to develop transport companies and respond to a need (Uganda food gape) in a solvable area (Uganda).
Yes but does that contribute to stabilise South Sudan? The question is far from being rethorical as the roots of many of the ethnical/tribal conflicts lay in food insecurity. So would that not be whiser to develop internal road transport capacity from producers area to food insecure areas inside the country whith UN agencies such as WFP purchasing the production to then redistribute it in unstable areas.
But in fact this is not what leads donors or agencies choice. In fact, the choice is led by partners practices. Yes, indeed, NGO and contractors do play a huge role in this. That, just because to implement a project, you do need to identify capable partners. And such partners are driven by a purely economical rational: benefit/cost(effort). It is much easier to find partners to implement a project in a easy access area rather in a logistically unaccessible area whith some level of insecurity.
Then once again, it is not the concerned country which is choosing what are its useful part but an external body, most of the time not even concerned by the political end of such projects.
Finally you end up with a great development project that is absolutely not useful in terms of stabilization and which is implemented in the already more or less stable areas. The ink spot effect is largely concurenced by the negative effect of non distribution of peace benefits in the unstable areas. To be successful, such approach has to be capable to generate a development ratio which is extremely high to be able to overpass the “instability ratio” of the non targetted areas.
I’am not saying it is worse trying. I am just saying that, except in areas where you have to be dum to be willing to stay viewing the death potential for you and your staff, such approach has an obligation to blow the roof to be successful and effectively participate to stabilize a country rather than marginalising areas. In the case of South sudan, the cradle of all insurgencies has been Jongley. It is actually the state were political unity of SPLM is cracking. So how is that this state is not integrated into the huge farming USAID project? (Taking out the technical problematic of crop production versus cattle breeding. Technical solution can be found to technical problematic).
Well here are some ints of an answer for South Sudan: Jongley state is not a bankable state as it has no links with export areas capable to purchase this food production. We are back here to the first question: to whom is such approach really benefiting? To the unstable country we are trying to stabilize or to its neighbors?
Talking about jonglei:
Quote:
Jonglei governor dismisses allegations of probable attack on Bor
Jonglei Gov. Kuol Manyang Juuk has dismissed as "spread allegations" that defeated gubernatorial candidate George Athor Deng may attack the State capital, Bor.
Mr. Manyang observed that Athor threats to attack Bor do not amount to causing panic among the town residents "because I can sit in my house and speak in my house that I will attack such a place and (media) broadcast".
The governor calls for what he calls as “the unity of our people to maintain peace and prepare for referendum on self-determination due next January. On job creation, Kuol says “unemployment is insecurity. When we make peace, we make (our state) attractive for (foreign) investors.”
Southern Sudan minister of information rapped Miraya FM for airing an interview with George Athor, a former SPLA who rebelled after losing in gubernatorial elections in Jonglei last month.
During the interview, the renegade general threatened to attack Jonglei capital Jonglei.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35136
Ironic, isn’t it?
Is the afghan strategy exportable to other theater?
Quote:
South Sudan army ceases cordoning ex-SPLA General turned rebel
May 22, 2010 (TURALEI) — Officers from the southern ruling army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) have said they have stopped deploying their forces to barricade former SPLA deputy chief of General staff, Lieutenant General George Athor, from moving out of his base.
Our forces previously deployed around areas suspected of hosting General Athor have received military instructions from the SPLA general headquarters never to conduct offensive reconnaissance, said an army officer who requested to remain anonymous.
"These instructions are helpful because they have reduced fear and tension in the area and situation is now relatively calm. Athor is even moving freely in the area, the senior SPLA officer said. "His movement is not being restricted. I understand he was on Wednesday in Baliet County and there was no problem because he did not attack any military base on his way to Baliet," the military source stressed.
According to the source, the recent instructions from the SPLA General headquarters in Juba advise the army to only monitor his movements and react vigorously in self defense in case he attacks any military base. Recent orders from the headquarters instruct the army to only fight back in self defense in case he launches any offensive against any military base in the area, he said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35167
South sudan government is actually receiving advisory support from US based companies such as Dyng corp in matter of security. The monitor and vigorous self defense approach adopted by the SPLA reminds somehow the strategy develped in Afghanistan: not waste manpower is useless fighting and concentrate on usefull South Sudan (and the border with North also).
If I come with that parallele, it is in fact because of the new USAID FARM project launched severa days ago. It will be interresting if population centric COIN is an exportabe product.
Wait and see.