Did war between South and North started already? Not so sure.
The question seems to be rhetorical in a country divided in 2 and actually in the middle of a peace process between the 2 parts.
But in fact, new info are putting this back in relevancy.
The appearances:
Quote:
South Sudan army kills eight rebels in Unity State, pledges to crash them
June 3, 2010, (TURALEI) – The Southern Sudan army (SPLA) clashed with a renegade Colonel in Unity State killing eight of his men and pledged to crash his rebellion.
Colonel Galuak Gai is one of three SPLA officers who rebelled last April contesting the results of April elections. They accused the southern Sudan ruling party of rigging the elections. The three also said coordinating their fight against Juba government.
"Our forces have on Tuesday clashed with forces loyal to former southern police colonel, Galuak Gai, south west of Mayom County, killing eight of his men and are still following him with instructions to capture him dead or alive," SPLA spokesperson, General Kuol Deim Kuol, told Sudan Tribune, on Thursday.
Kuol disputed allegations that colonel Gai is coordinating with the former General, George Athor, who turned rebel after losing in April polls.
"All militia leaders report directly to national intelligence services in Khartoum," he said.
The spokesperson further confirmed arrest of the two SPLA officers on June 1 allegedly suspected of trying to recruit for David Yauyau of Jonglei, one of the militia leaders’ allied with Gen. Athor.
"They are suspected of trying to recruit people to go and join Yauyau," he said. They may be released if the investigation shows nothing."
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35280
And
Quote:
Leaders from Murle community arrested in Juba
June 2, 2010 (JUBA) – A number of political and military leaders from the Murle community of Pibor County in Jonglei state have been arrested in the South Sudan’s capital, Juba. Mary Boyoi also explained that her uncle and others were denied to cast their ballot papers during the April elections because their names were already used by unknown individuals who used them to cast their votes.
“I know they all went to Pibor to vote. The day they were going to vote they found that their names had already been used to cast the ballot. So they left Pibor and returned to Juba. They did not involve themselves in any "rebellion".
Pibor County has recently witnessed a military standoff between the forces of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and supporters of David Yauyau, a former independent candidate who was angered by the alleged rigging of elections results and reportedly coordinated the move with the renegade former SPLA Deputy Chief of General Staff, George Athor Deng.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35272
Here are the small pitty facts which change everything:
From Global Witness:
Middle East Oil companies are conducting oil exploration in North Dafur
http://www.globalwitness.org/media_l...oil_exploratio
And from Romandi news, unfortunatelly in French:
Sudan : North and South may increase their oil production
http://www.romandie.com/infos/news2/...6.r4gma52q.asp
And the "surprising/unexpected" news :
Quote:
Peace partners agree to "persuade" South Sudanese to vote for unity
"In accordance [with] the aforementioned commitments, the NCP and SPLM have agreed on the following general directives for the programme of the next government…implementation of the remaining provisions of the CPA in spirit of partnership and responsibility with the aim of contributing to persuade the people of Southern Sudan for voluntary unity," the agreement reads in part.
The two parties also agreed to improve institutional arrangements and carry out development in the South for the next seven months in addition to working to implement a media campaign with the aim to popularize the CPA throughout the country.
The agreement came as a surprise to many political analysts and observers who have criticized it as the work of the NCP to divide the SPLM leadership on the issues to do with self-determination and its two options of unity and secession.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35281
As I was posting previously, latest research in the field show that North South war in Sudan is all about economical resources domination, from both sides. May be not what Garang fought for but it is what reality shows.
It is also part of the big game. As Bill C commented on the article Africa’s irregular security threat, Africa came back as one of the most strategic place in the world nowadays as everybody is trying to get out of the Middle East energy dependency. And, by the way, Sudan is the number 1 oil source for China.
So, unlike the article from Sudan Tribune states, backing up unity is not so much a surprise for analyst. It is even the only solution. The one that many who followed this war for long did not really want to see as they putted too many efforts in crushing North.
In fact, what tends to be is a common interest for both parties to enjoy oil incomes. China is basically the main investor in oil field and Sudan the main oil supplier from China with 60 000 b/day on a 120 000 b/day imports. The oil refineries and pipeline are located in North and linking with Port Sudan. There are projects of pipe line between South and Kenya, just like the construction of Lamu port in Kenya. But this are long term planning and, here, we are talking about immediate enjoyment of oil revenues. Let’s be practical on that one.
But also, this really highlights one of the very deep root trigger of insurgency process both on birth and ending. If the 60 and 70 “insurgencies” were in fact liberation wars from oppressed groups against external powers (most of the time). The 21 century “insurgencies” and even the late 20 century onces, at least in Africa, are definitively economically protracted. And some how, this is may be why the old recipe of COIN political settlement is not working.
The 60 insurgencies were based on the raise of individual rights empowerment. Individuals had rights and as such they had the right to rebel and build new nations out of any colonial power.
The 2000 insurgencies are struggles to control state administrations to access not individual rights but individual enrichment. People’s interest and rights are no more the leading engine of those movements. Somehow, it is the counter balance reaction to those “60 insurgencies” which were revolutionary and counter revolutionary wars at that time from states trying to re ensure their hand on citizens. Like South Sudan rebellion started to defend southerners right to have a recognized different culture and equality of rights and is ending now in a pity struggle to share oil revenues between 2 barely democratic political parties.
Manipulation and satisfaction of slogans
This:
Quote:
from JMA
If you just make the concessions the insurgents demand ("give the people what they want") then they win, yes?
is true - IFF the end state desired by the insurgents is explicitly incorporated in their demands. In short, the insurgent leadership, in that situation, does not manipulate the slogans, but explicitly lays out its desired end state.
However, let us take our Com brethren of the two major insurgencies of my youth - China and Vietnam. The end goals (ideology) for Mao and Ho-Giap never varied - a Communist government in each country. On the other hand, they used a variety of slogans which did not reflect that Communist end state. E.g., land reform (redistribution of farms), anti-imperialism (end foreign control over trade, etc.), and provide equality in class opportunities (put the rural peasants on a equal opportunity footing with urban bourgeoisie).
Thus, non-Coms could join in a United Front whose slogans were not explicitly Communistic. So also, the incumbant governments in both China and Vietman could have satisfied some of the slogans (e.g., land reform, nationalism, equal opportunity) without giving the insurgent leadership (Coms) what they really wanted. In neither case, was the incumbant government willing to make those concessions.
Regards
Mike