South Sudan: Watching a fragile nation

[M-A Lagrange]

Sudan Opposition Leader Arrested

Sudan Opposition Leader Arrested: Security forces in Sudan have arrested opposition leader Hassan al-Turabi from his home in Khartoum, al-Turabi’s Popular Congress Party spokesman said. The arrest comes a day after Turabi’s party called for a “popular revolution” if the Sudanese government did not reverse price hikes.
What happened in Tunisia is a reminder. This is likely to happen in Sudan … If it doesn’t, then there will be a lot of bloodshed. The whole country is armed. In the towns, it will be a popular uprising, but in Darfur, and in Kordofan as well, they have weapons.”

http://www.adailynewspaper.com/sudan...arrested-25311

Let’s not be completely blind and naïve. Turabi is using the Tunisian uprising to put on the table his fundamentalist agenda once again.
It is true that in North, people are looking for a change but fundamentalist and the Muslim Brotherhood are also looking at how to use South secession to come back in power.

AU commends south Sudan election process
The African Union (AU) Commission election observer mission to the South Sudan commended on Tuesday the electoral process deeming it "satisfactory", a AU press statement said in Addis Ababa.
The Mission notes with satisfaction that the Referendum was conducted in accordance with the CPA-Comprehensive Peace Agreement- and SSRC –southern Sudan referendum Commission-guidelines.

http://www.afropages.fr/201101184036...n-process.html

An opinion shared by the EU and the US.
Now the real challenge starts: how to avoid collapse of the South and the runaway into war with North to preserve “unity”.

[M-A Lagrange]

Let's have a look at what others say about it#:

India calls for negotiated peace in Sudan, Darfur

Speaking at the UN Security Council open meeting on the Sudan here Tuesday, India's Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri expressed "great satisfaction" that the referendum in South Sudan on whether the region
should remain a part of Sudan or be independent has been completed "successfully and peacefully."
"Successful conduct of the referendum has met an important element in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached between the Sudanese parties," he said.
Commending the commitment of these parties to respect the outcome of the referendum, Puri said India hoped "the same spirit of cooperation and commitment will be shown by the parties to resolve post-referendum issues which remain to be agreed upon."
However, expressing concern at a "high and worrying level of violence in the region of Abyei, Puri urged the leaders of the Misseriya and Ngok Dinka communities to show restraint and faithfully implement the agreement which was reached with the mediation of the special representative of the UN Secretary General.
"The violence witnessed last week in Abyei should remind us of the need to remain vigilant about the ground situation, which continues to remain fragile," he said expressing the "hope that the parties will cease their support to the proxy forces and seek to resolve all issues through negotiations and dialogue."

http://www.indiavision.com/news/arti...tional/147282/
An interesting attitude from India who's one of the most not known key player in East Africa. As China, India choose to be a major economic player rather than directly intervening as a political player.

Does South Sudan secession benefit Ethiopia?

This week’s referendum also provides a political and moral support for armed groups in the region. ONLF rebels of Ethiopia have already praised the referendum in Sudan. In a statement, the ONLF said
“This vote represents a precedent affirming that there is no longer a moral or so-called legal basis for denying the Ogaden people their legitimate rights to self-determination and that the AU bears a direct responsibility to address protracted conflicts.”

http://www.eastafricaforum.net/2011/...efit-ethiopia/
The question of Ogaden is back on table...
And Somaliland is following:

Somaliland to Push for Recognition after South Sudan

The referendum will have a “positive knock-on effect,” Omar said by phone today from the capital, Hargeisa. “We will be using the South Sudan case to take a more aggressive policy to the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development.”
Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 when a coup sparked civil war. It has never been recognized abroad because the Organization of African Unity ruled in 1964 that post-colonial borders in Africa were inviolable. The break-up of Sudan, Africa’s largest country by area, would be a rare exception to that rule.
Somaliland enhanced its democratic credentials with elections leading to a peaceful transition of power to President Ahmed Mahmoud Silanyo in June. The vote met international standards, according to observers Progressio, a London-based development agency.

http://english.alshahid.net/archives/17332
Unfortunately, the following link is coming from an anti US blog. But their analyses of the China vs USA battle in Sudan is interesting... And gives an idea at strategical level of the issues for both. (More or less)

A tale of blood and oil in Africa – US seeks to undercut China in Africa by exploiting secession referendum
This “historic vote is an exercise in self-determination long in the making,” he declares. “A successful vote will be cause for celebration and an inspiring step forward in Africa’s long journey toward democracy and justice.”
Such statements are mendacious. There is no doubt enthusiasm for secession in the south, in the hope that a line can be drawn under the decades-long civil war between the north and the south. Two million people have died in the conflict that began at the moment of independence in 1956 and continued until 2005, with the last 21 years being the most destructive. The number of those displaced is close to 4 million. Generations have been raised in refugee camps.
But the referendum has nothing to do with self-determination, peace or democracy. It is dictated by the efforts of the United States to gain strategic advantage in relation to China, which dominates [sic] the Sudanese oil industry, some 80 percent of which is located in the south. Its aim is the creation of a puppet state which will become a platform for US domination of the entire region.
The separation of the south and creation of a new capitalist state will only perpetuate religious and ethnic conflict, with the most likely outcome being a resumption of warfare. Already more than 30 people have been reported killed in clashes on the proposed border between the north and a new state in the south.

http://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpre...list-web-site/

[M-A Lagrange]

Sudan soldiers clash in Malakal: Several dead

At least 13 people, including two children, have been killed in clashes between soldiers in the volatile south Sudan town of Malakal, doctors say.
Battles broke out on Thursday between rival northern troops, some of whom want to stay in the south. Malakal has previously seen north-south clashes.
The fighting comes as Southern Sudan is waiting for confirmation of the result of its independence referendum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12368831

Malakal is less known to be a hot spot compare to Abyei but it is actually the hottest spot just after Abyei. Fighting broke out there in the past.
Let see if the South will be able to be as cold and patient as for Bar Al Ghazal.

[M-A Lagrange]

South Sudan accuses Khartoum of “unjustifiably” holding Abyei

Michael Makuei Lueth, a former minister of legal affairs and constitutional development and a now minister of parliamentary Affairs in the government of south Sudan in a televised statement on South Sudan Television (SSTV) Thursday night accused Sudan’s ruling National Congress Party of holding Abyei “unjustifiably” and described it as home to the Ngok Dinka.
“The National Congress Party is unjustifiably holding Abyei. This is a clear violation of provision of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on Abyei” said Makuei. The senior member of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, who was part of the delegation representing the former rebels, at the peace talks, said the Misseriya did not have any rights in Abyei, other than to the right to access water and grazing.
“When we accept in the agreement to give Misseriya the access to water and grazing, it was not because they have any right or because we were afraid of anything but it was on humanitarian grounds”, said Makuei.

While the Dinka Ngok believes that Abyei belongs to them, the Missiriya who graze their cattle in the region for some of the year, argue the area belongs to neither of the two tribes, and thus they have rights in the area. They also blamed territorial rivalry on the CPA, with most leaders from the Misseriya arguing that they have shared this land for centuries without any problem.

“We have never had any territorial dispute between us and the Dinka Ngok because we have always been one and the same people. The problem started with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the so called court ruling which talks about borders", Hassan Musa, the leader of one of the Misseriya’s groups, told Sudan Tribune on Friday from Muglad town, located west of South Kordofan’s state capital of Kadugli.

http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Su...rtoum-of,37879

This post to put in perspective with the previous one on what's going on around Abyei and why (Partially) there are troubles in Malakal.

Also because this article illustrates very well the two sides propaganda and how thwy are instrumentalising the CPA for territorial and economical purposes. How legitimate questions from the people (How will I ensure to keep my way of living in the future) are used by both sides.

[jmm99]

for being a "little messy" - you're French.

Seriously, I'm one of your readers, but rarely a commenter. Fortunately, I've got only some snow to worry about - and not that much of that this winter.

That being said, the newspaper quote might give some the impression that the Malakal and Abyei problems hinge on tribal cattle grazing rights. You know better; I even know better; but some readers may not get what is at stake.

Which is this (snip from USAID chart of Oil & Gas Concession Blocks):

2001 USAID Oil & Gas Blocks - snip.jpg

I've also been following this article from Foreign Affairs, Sudan's Secession Crisis, Can the South Part From the North Without War?, By Andrew S. Natsios and Michael Abramowitz, January/February 2011:

....
ANDREW S. NATSIOS, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan in 2006-7, is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and the author of the forthcoming book Sudan and Darfur: What Everyone Needs to Know. MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ, a former Washington Post reporter and national editor, is Director of the Committee on Conscience at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
....
During a visit to southern Sudan in late September and early October, we met nearly 100 people, including the south's president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, and vice president, Riek Machar, civil-society groups, church leaders, international humanitarian workers, UN officials, and many others. We traveled outside Juba to the southern cities of Malakal and Rumbek but were denied permission to travel to the north. In the course of our conversations, we came to see clearly that Garang's vision of a unified, democratic Sudan died with him. Given the depredations and atrocities that the southern Sudanese have suffered for two centuries at the hands of the northern Arabs, getting southerners to vote for unity would have been difficult even with Garang in power. One cause of the ongoing tensions is the condescending attitudes of some Arab elites in Khartoum: they continue to refer to the southerners as a'bid, the Arabic term for low-caste black slaves. For them, the south's revolt during the civil war was no liberation struggle; it was an uprising of slaves that needed to be crushed. Now, these northerners cannot abide dealing with southerners as equals. The southerners, for their part, wish to be rid of the Arabs and Islamism once and for all.

In the fall, as the date of the referendum neared, international observers and southern officials reported that Khartoum was redeploying its army, with newly purchased heavy weaponry, along the disputed north-south border. In response to the north's muscle-flexing, the southern government, which is based in the city of Juba, sent the toughest units in its own armed forces, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), and also equipped them with new heavy weaponry. The south's leaders threatened to issue a unilateral declaration of independence if the north manipulated or canceled the vote. They also privately warned that if the north attempted to occupy the oil fields in the south -- where 80 percent of the country's known oil reserves are located -- they would destroy the country's oil infrastructure. And they have the troops and the weapons to do so. If Khartoum thinks it can protect Sudan's oil infrastructure, it should reflect on the failure of the U.S. military to protect Iraq's during its occupation of that country.

and, in their conclusion:

For all their differences, the north and the south will remain dependent on each other after the referendum, if only because both need oil revenues. And so one way to avert violence might be to encourage the two sides to cooperate in the name of their economic codependence. The vast majority of Sudan's oil reserves may be in the south, but most of the infrastructure necessary to export that oil -- pipelines and a port -- are in the north. Thus, without cooperation between the north and the south, oil revenues could quickly dry up for both. Any new pipeline running from the south through either Ethiopia or Kenya is a decade and billions of dollars away. Meanwhile, some energy experts predict that Sudan's oil production may peak and then decline over the next decade. (The government in Juba, 98 percent of whose revenue comes from oil, is now racing to get international mining companies into the south to explore its mineral resources and thus help the government diversify its sources of revenue.) If oil revenues precipitously decline because of a war or a political crisis between the north and the south, Khartoum and Juba would have to lay off their huge public-sector work forces, which would destabilize both governments over time. And thanks to corruption, the elites in both capitals have personally profited from the oil revenues. In other words, maintaining oil revenues is in the interests of many parties -- and thus a powerful incentive to find a peaceful way out of the current impasse.

Given these stakes, the Sudanese, in both the north and the south, might very well manage on their own and do once more what they have done over the past six years: pull back from the brink of catastrophe, averting the worst violence, and patch together an inadequate but functional compromise that protects both parties' interests. Considering the circumstances today, Sudan could do a lot worse.

We shall see (virtually) - and you will see (literally). Stay safe.

Colonialement

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Hello Mike,

Thanks for being such a constant support. And for the link that helps a lot to clarify my discourse. (And sorry again for not responding. I am lost at the moment ).

Yes, I did put the emphasis on the grazing land problematic. This as we always try to look at the problematic of legitimacy and popular support into small wars.
The article you put in link, demonstrates clearly (better than me, too lost in the problematic) that there is a distance between population's claims (grazing land and cultural way of life) and governments (GoSS and GoS) interests (Oil and taxes revenues).
Oil is why the US did intervene (directly and indirectly) in Sudan and specially in the Nuba Mountains. But what the people do fight for are grazing land access rights.
We face here a very good example of manipulation of people will and legitimate claims by 2 governments to achieve economic and political objectives (clearly deeply linked) which do not echo the population claim. But in reverse, population's claims do echo the SPLM and NCP objectives.

This does question the link between root causes of insurgencies and how do insurgent groups do evolve and get created. How a popular cause can be use and abused to cover economical agendas.

There are interesting scholar works on the economical objectives from SPLA since 1994 (Year of the creation of SPLM as a political wing for SPLA). And it clearly appears (I have to past some links there, just give me some time) that once again we start with a legitimate claim based on domestic politic/policies to end up in a personnal quest for enrichment by the insurgents elites.

In the case of Sudan and the birth of South Sudan, we witness how the elites greed (Insurgents and government) affects the conflict and may even extend or set the conditions for another conflict.

Mes respects

M-A

PS: I am actually moving out from Sudan. I'll be watching it from next door: Kenya.
Sorry in advance for all those who did follow this attempt of discourse and public information treatment of South Sudan conflict deconstruction, I may have some difficulties to keep this threat up dated regularly.

[Bob's World]

You'd think we'd evolve to being able to develop some sort of resource escrow or trust account that takes issues like the oil in South Sudan out of the equation. Allow the U.S. and China to stop worrying about which will gain an advantage on the other, and there for stop the agitation aspect of their external engagements; and also allow the parties in North and South Sudan to stop agonizing over who will gain the lion's share of the revenues.

Instead of arguing over where the line will be, etc, simply agree to the escrow and an equitable system of distribution of product and profits. Keep all the books open source on the web so that a wide range of watchdog groups can monitor. Human nature, greed, lust for power, etc are always in play though...