Can South Sudan become a serious business destination?

Southern Sudan’s agriculture sector holds good potential for investment across the value chain.

Southern Sudan’s agriculture sector presents both potential and great challenges for prospective business people and investors. Photo: Oxfam

The region, with a population of 8.26 million, recently voted in favour of independence in a referendum that was part of a deal to end decades of conflict between north and south, driven by religious and ethnic divides.

“Southern Sudan’s agricultural sector is . . . a nearly limitless asset waiting to be acknowledged. It is absolutely underserved in every sense of the term and has an unfathomable depth for expansion,” says David Raad, a consultant who helps companies invest in the region.

According to UK non-governmental organisation FARM-Africa, southern Sudan has a vast natural resource base and huge agricultural potential, with more than 90% of the land being suitable for farming. The civil war has, however, had a devastating effect leaving much of the south of the country with little discernible infrastructure and a lack of social services.

Denise Melvin writes on the FAO’s website that “southern Sudan is blessed with ample land, a good water supply, and a generally favourable climate for agriculture.”

In an article for Pachodo.org, Dr James Thubo Ayul, a professor in agricultural economics, notes that although southern Sudan is currently a net importer of agricultural goods, the region has a good natural resource base for the production of a wide range of crops, forest trees, fisheries and livestock. He says opportunities exist for rain-fed mechanised schemes for grains and cash crops; irrigated farms for sugarcane, fruits and vegetables production and processing; dairy, pig and poultry farms; and banking and financial services, to name a few.

Despite the possibilities, he says that significant challenges remain. These include inadequate financial services; poor rural infrastructure that hampers access to markets; weak agricultural and livestock research and extension services; lack of control to pests and diseases of both crops and livestock; and a shortage of skilled labour.

Raad explains there are opportunities across the value chain. “I like to tell my more strategic-thinking investors [southern Sudan] is the place for entire business industries to be set up. For example, when investors talk about mechanised farming, I try to explain the unmet needs for not just production of every type of agricultural good, but also the inefficiencies in the rest of the industry. That means that there are opportunities in transportation, storage, processing, marketing, retailing, etc.; the list is as long as the value chain.”

According to Raad, southern Sudan has virtually no agricultural processing facilities such as flour mills and dairy plants. “Imagine the investor that can see and shape the entire process of their product getting to consumers; it can be almost limitless and massively lucrative. We haven’t seen this type of opportunity in 30 or so years in the region and we may not see it again elsewhere.”

“Smart investors, savvy analysts and individuals familiar with emerging markets know that southern Sudan is poised to become Africa’s next best bet.”

While the people of southern Sudan are anticipating their own independent state, many business people are eyeing opportunities in the region.

So says consultancy David Raad and Associates (DR&A) on its website. The company helps businesses explore and undertake opportunities in southern Sudan.

In the week from 9 to 15 January, southern Sudanese voted in a referendum to secede from Sudan. On 23 January, the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission’s website stated that with nearly all votes processed, 98.81% of voters voted in favour of secession. The final count is expected to be released by 14 February.

The referendum was a core component of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended decades of conflict between the Southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Khartoum government.

Eyeing business opportunities

With the south almost certain to secede from the northern part of the country, some regional and international investors are eyeing business opportunities in a newly independent southern Sudan.

The region has few industries outside the oil sector and almost non-existent infrastructure.

Cement companies is one group that is seeing possible growth opportunities in southern Sudan. Manufacturers are hoping for an increase in demand from the south as the region develops its infrastructure. Pradeep Paunrana managing director of Kenya’s Athi River Mining, producer of the Rhino cement brand, told Business Daily that southern Sudan will see considerable economic development over the coming years and that cement will be central to improving infrastructure. East Africa Portland Cement managing director Kephar Tande said his company is also very interested in the southern Sudan market but that any investment is dependent on the outcome of the referendum.

Reuters reports that Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) expects to double its branches in southern Sudan if the region manages to conduct a successful referendum.

One of the few major foreign investments in southern Sudan over recent years has been SABMiller’s Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd (SSBL) brewery in Juba. The brewery produces White Bull lager and Chairman’s Extra Strong Beer as well as the Club Minerals Sparkling Soft Drinks range and Source Pure Drinking Water. SSBL has also announced it will also start production of two of SABMiller’s existing brands Nile Special Lager and Club Pilsner.

“The decision was taken to produce in southern Sudan primarily for two reasons. One, the market size had the potential to support [the] local production of beverages, and two, the investment climate was right for us to invest in southern Sudan. We are the first major multinational company to invest in southern Sudan and we have thus become the case study for anyone else to base their investment decisions on,” Ian Alsworth-Elvey managing director of SSBL told South Africa’s Carte Blanche television programme.

Kenya’s East African Breweries Ltd (EABL) is also set to establish a brewery in southern Sudan. EABL last year said that it plans to build a 700,000 hectolitre (hl) plant in Juba, which can be expanded to 1 million hl.

Adopting a wait-and-see approach

Many business people are, however, waiting to see how the situation in the country pans out.

Uganda’s Daily Monitor reports that irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, many Ugandan traders will not return to southern Sudan until they can be assured of their safety. According to the newspaper, Ugandan traders in southern Sudan have reported cases of harassment and human rights abuse by security officers and influential people in the region.

Adel Ali chief executive of United Arab Emirates-based Air Arabia told Reuters that southern Sudan needs significant infrastructure development before the region’s aviation industry can really be developed. Air Arabia has been operating flights to Khartoum since 2004 but has no immediate plans to service the south. Ali added that although southern Sudan’s aviation sector holds possible potential for investment, more clarity is needed on the new government’s investment plans.

Risks of doing business

According to David Raad, who used to be a United States diplomat before starting to consult companies and individuals looking to invest in Sudan, health issues are among the major risks of doing business in the region. “It is an inhospitable area. Malaria and other debilitating diseases are widespread and deadly. Medical services are limited. Culturally the southern Sudanese people are warm, welcoming and very law abiding, so foreigners’ physical safety isn’t really a problem. Robbery is very uncommon although there were a few limited instances of robbery of foreigners several years ago.”

Government and private business

Raad says one of the most common misconceptions about southern Sudan has to do with the administration’s attitude towards the private sector.

“I hear the same questions from almost every client I advise: Will the government expropriate my property, business or investment? Do I need to have some government figure in my business? The answer to both of these questions is no,” he told How we made it in Africa in an exclusive interview.

“I have yet to see the government even ‘threaten’ to get involved in a businesses’ endeavours. The southern Sudanese leadership has always been careful to avoid this notion and it has served them well,” Raad adds.

He also debunks the notion that investors need to involve a government or political figure in their ventures for better protection or access. “This is a very dangerous and ill-advised path. Frankly, it’s not necessary and I have yet to see one example that has worked to anyone’s satisfaction.”

Competing for skilled staff

Raad admits that business people might find it challenging to source talented local personnel. “Imagine a working environment that for nearly 50 years has had no innovation, no steady employers, no training and no tangible experiences that the working population can use as a standard to gauge performance. It’s been a subsistence life for almost everyone for nearly their entire adult lives; either living in refugee camps or living under the shadow of an occupying (Northern) government intent on establishing a client state. It has not been an environment that fosters a competitive work ethic,” he explains.

Although skilled staff do exist, many are picked-up by NGOs. “There are good, hard-working, talented and successful workers in this market, but businesses will be competing with ‘non-productive’ entities (NGOs, the UN, etc) for them. This will prove expensive because the NGOs and the UN are prepared to pay a premium,” says Raad.

nvestors eyeing opportunities in southern Sudan

“Smart investors, savvy analysts and individuals familiar with emerging markets know that southern Sudan is poised to become Africa’s next best bet.”

Air Arabia’s Adel Ali says southern Sudan needs to improve its infrastructure before the region’s aviation industry can really be developed.

So says David Raad and Associates (DR&A) on its website. The company helps businesses explore and undertake opportunities in southern Sudan.

Southern Sudan yesterday began voting in a referendum to determine whether to remain part of a united Sudan or become a separate state. The referendum was a core component of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended decades of conflict between the Southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Khartoum government.

With few industries outside the oil sector and almost non-existent infrastructure, many international and regional investors are eyeing business opportunities in a newly independent southern Sudan.

Cement manufacturers are hoping for an increase in demand from the south as the region develops its infrastructure.

Pradeep Paunrana managing director of Kenya’s Athi River Mining, producer of the Rhino cement brand, told Business Daily that southern Sudan will see considerable economic development over the coming years and that cement will be central to improving infrastructure.

East Africa Portland Cement managing director Kephar Tande said his company is also very interested in the southern Sudan market but that any investment is dependent on the outcome of the referendum.

Reuters reports that Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) expects to double its branches in southern Sudan if the region manages to conduct a successful referendum.

One of the few major foreign investments in southern Sudan over recent years has been SABMiller’s Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd (SSBL) brewery in Juba.

The brewery produces White Bull lager and Chairman’s Extra Strong Beer as well as the Club Minerals Sparkling Soft Drinks range and Source Pure Drinking Water. SSBL has also announced it will also start production of two of SABMiller’s existing brands Nile Special Lager and Club Pilsner.

“The decision was taken to produce in southern Sudan primarily for two reasons. One, the market size had the potential to support [the] local production of beverages, and two, the investment climate was right for us to invest in southern Sudan. We are the first major multinational company to invest in southern Sudan and we have thus become the case study for anyone else to base their investment decisions on,” Ian Alsworth-Elvey managing director of SSBL told South Africa’s Carte Blanche television programme.

Kenya’s East African Breweries Ltd (EABL) is also set to establish a brewery in southern Sudan. EABL last year said that it plans to build a 700,000 hectolitre (hl) plant in Juba, which can be expanded to 1 million hl.

Many business people are, however, adopting a wait-and-see approach.

Uganda’s Daily Monitor reports that irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, many Ugandan traders will not return to southern Sudan until they can be assured of their safety.

According to the newspaper, Ugandan traders in southern Sudan have reported cases of harassment and human rights abuse by security officers and influential people in the region.

Adel Ali chief executive of United Arab Emirates-based Air Arabia told Reuters that southern Sudan needs significant infrastructure development before the region’s aviation industry can really be developed.

Air Arabia has been operating flights to Khartoum since 2004 but has no immediate plans to service the south.

Ali added that although southern Sudan’s aviation sector holds possible potential for investment, more clarity is needed on the new government’s investment plans.

Only 4.5% of South Sudan’s land currently under

cultivation

A satellite land cover survey by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has revealed that only 4.5% of South Sudan’s available land is currently under cultivation, highlighting the agricultural opportunities in the world’s newest country.

A southern Sudanese women working in the fields of a cooperative farming project. Picture: ACT Alliance

On 9 July South Sudan gained independence after the region earlier in the year voted in favour of secession from the north. The referendum was a core component of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended decades of conflict between the Southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Khartoum government.

George Okech, head of the FAO in South Sudan, said in a statement that the region has an abundance of natural resources and that the agricultural sector holds great potential.

The civil war had an negative impact on agriculture. “There are cases where populations within a locality or within an area would cultivate and within no time, there would be conflict and they would run away and leave the crops behind, and all the crops would be destroyed,” Okech explained.

“The few places where there was some relative peace, people just . . . concentrated on cultivating within the homesteads. You can imagine that this was a very small area just surrounding the homestead, which was just barely enough eat. Maybe they could just afford to eat one meal a day,” he added.

Dr James Thubo Ayul, a professor in agricultural economics, last year wrote in an article for Pachodo.org, that even though South Sudan is currently a net importer of agricultural goods, the region has a good natural resource base for the production of a wide range of crops, forest trees, fisheries and livestock. He says opportunities exist for rain-fed mechanised schemes for grains and cash crops; irrigated farms for sugarcane, fruits and vegetables production and processing; dairy, pig and poultry farms; and financial services, to name a few.

South Sudan’s agriculture minister, Anne Itto, earlier in the month told reporters that the country wants to export cereals. She said the ministry of agriculture is planning to produce two million metric tonnes of cereals alone in three years time. “We only need 840,000 metric tonnes of cereal for ourselves. The rest needs to go somewhere,” she noted.

She added that other African countries should be able to import cereals from South Sudan, instead of Russia or the US.

 

 

The Juba-Nimule road in South Sudan. The route is one of the new country’s most heavily-travelled, connecting the capital, Juba, with a border dusty town that serves as a gateway into and out of Uganda. But it is unpaved and years of civil war had left it strewn with mines that had to be removed by a Swiss compan

Contractors eye South Sudan

By David Rosenberg /The Media Line

The Juba-Nimule road in South Sudan. The route is one of the new country’s most heavily-travelled, connecting the capital, Juba, with a border dusty town that serves as a gateway into and out of Uganda. But it is unpaved and years of civil war had left it strewn with mines that had to be removed by a Swiss company
If one wants to get a sense of the challenges and the opportunities facing South Sudan, the world’s newest country, take a ride down the 190km Juba-Nimule Road.
The route is one of the country’s most heavily-travelled, connecting the capital with a border dusty town that serves as a gateway into and out of Uganda. But it is unpaved and years of civil war had left it strewn with mines that had to be removed by a Swiss company. Today, it takes eight hours to make the journey.
Louis Berger Group, an American company, is now paving the road for the first time ever, thanks to funding from USAID. When the $225mn project is complete in 2012, travel time will be a mere two hours. The new route could cut the cost of delivering goods and encourage new businesses to develop to serve travellers and take advantage of easy transportation.
Less than three weeks old, South Sudan is one of the world’s least developed countries and still suffering the aftershocks of a long civil war. But as a new country hopeful about its prospects, home to considerable oil reserves and, for now at least, enjoying the attention of the world’s aid community, South Sudan also spells an enormous opportunity for contractors.
“All of South Sudan has about 50km of paved roads. That shows the lack of infrastructure. Electricity, water supply, communications, roads all need to be built. That creates opportunities for companies,” Petrus de Kock, a researcher at South African Institute of International Affairs, told The Media Line.
A country the size of France, South Sudan has just 4,000km of roads compared with 1mn for France. Its rail system consists of 250km of a single narrow-gauge track. Just 15% of the population has a telephone and almost 40% has to walk a half an hour or more to get drinking water. Schools would be crowded at 129 pupils per classroom, but only about a third of its 8mn people have ever attended school.
Moreover, the war that officially ended in 2005 is still simmering as South Sudan and Sudan are still to finalise how to split the proceeds of the petroleum that is now on the South Sudan side of the new international border. Fighting in the disputed, oil-rich Southern Kordofan state has forced more than 73,000 people to flee their homes since June 5, according to the United Nations.
But South Sudan produces about 375,000 barrels of oil per day, making it among Africa’s biggest oil patches and generating considerable revenues for the government as it tries to build the country almost from scratch. It also means that the country is strategically significant, enabling it to keep the attentions of resource-hungry China. Sudan was China’s sixth-largest source of oil imports in 2010.
The infant state’s fertile White Nile valley includes some of the richest agricultural land in Africa. Large wildlife herds could be exploited to attract eco-tourists. Furthermore, the White Nile has sufficient flow to generate large quantities of hydroelectricity.
All that holds out promise for the future, but South Sudan is also attracting foreign aid – which it needs.
Oil brought earned some $1.5bn in revenue last year for South Sudan, noted a report issued last week by the Save the Children non-governmental organisation (NGO). The World Bank estimates that developing a comprehensive road system will cost over $7bn, and that electrification of the country will be as much as $13bn.
“South Sudan’s resource needs are massive and cannot be met by oil revenues alone,” Save the Children said.
The international aid largesse is substantial. Fourteen international donors disbursed $188mn in 2010 and as of July this year had made available some $440mn out of $548mn promised, about half going to infrastructure projects such as construction of a liquid waste treatment plant, 25 new school buildings and 513km of new roads.
According to the US Central Intelligence Agency, South Sudan has received more than $4bn in foreign aid since 2005.
With the money from aid and oil flowing in, South Sudan’s capital of Juba has turned into a boomtown. It population has more than doubled in the past six years to approximately 375,000, swelled by refugees as well as by opportunity.
Businesses have come as well, mainly from neighbouring African countries such Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan itself. China National Overseas Engineering Corporation is also active. Others are looking to join. Besides roads and schools, other opportunities for business include helping foreign oil companies move their facilities from Sudan to South Sudan and building a new capital.
“The country has to be built from scratch, that’s why we must seize opportunity and find our place in South Sudan’s economy as soon as possible, with far-reaching intentions,” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s special envoy to Africa, Mikhail Margelov, said last week.
Besides continued violence, the big challenge facing South Sudan will be managing all the aid money and the private sector organisations that are now tripping over themselves to fund and manage projects, said de Kock of South Africa.
For instance in education, there are no uniform rules and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) teach curricula based on varying standards. South Sudan doesn’t have laws governing public financial management procurements or auditing, noted the Save the Children report. There is a big risk that money will be squandered or stolen.
“There is a bit of chaos right now. A huge complaint in South Sudan is corruption. There aren’t any set out procedures – if you want to provide a service to the government, or bid for contract from government, this is how you do it,” said de Kock “This has to be developed now.”

One Referendum, Two New Nations

Rebecca Hamilton, Juba, Sudan

Published on February 10, 2011

Across the globe, southern Sudanese are celebrating their imminent independence from the rule of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his predecessors in Khartoum. These northern rulers spent much of the past half-century engaged in a brutal effort to Arabize and Islamize the southern people. International attention is now focused on helping the chronically underdeveloped region of southern Sudan manage the transition to statehood. But what is missing from the conversation is recognition that the looming partition of Sudan creates not just one new nation, but two.

During the past month in southern Sudan it has been easy to get swept up in the rejoicing of a people who have finally realized their multigenerational struggle for freedom. In the jubilant words of a primary school teacher soon after he cast his vote, “This is our end-of-apartheid moment!”

But for me, the euphoria has been tempered by panicky calls and e-mail messages from friends and civil society leaders in the north, whose reactions to the imminent loss of the south form a complex web of emotions: Happiness for the southerners’ emancipation; sadness for the loss of the north’s connection to the rest of Africa; terror that the world will now “leave us to Bashir.”

Bashir himself has done nothing to allay northern fears, telling the population that if the south secedes, there will be “no question of cultural or ethnic diversity. Shariah will be the only source of the Constitution, and Arabic the only official language.”

Northerners are of course overwhelming Muslim. But they are also multiethnic and multilingual. Moreover, there is a big difference between the kind of Islam traditionally practiced in Sudan and the kind Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party, or N.C.P., has thrust on the population since its 1989 military coup.

The southern case against the N.C.P.’s vision of Sudan is well understood. Less appreciated are the longstanding efforts of many northerners to also reject the imposition of this unitary Islamic-Arab identity on “our beautiful Sudan.” For them, the south of the country has been a counterweight.

Many northern opposition leaders have in fact been over-reliant on southerners (and their Congressional supporters in the U.S.) to fight this identity issue for them. With the south now out of the equation, dissident northerners fear being left without allies at a critical moment in the battle to define their new country.

The N.C.P. is more vulnerable than it has been in years. The most telling whisper of the regime’s fragility comes not from any report produced out of New York or Brussels, but from the tea stalls that line the streets of Khartoum.

Rising sugar prices mean that a sugar-laden glass of tea — the primary calorific intake for many impoverished Sudanese — has gone up by almost 50 percent in the past three months. New austerity measures have lifted government subsidies on bread and fuel, stretching meager household budgets to breaking point. When the opposition leader Hassan al-Turabi suggested that a popular uprising was on the cards last month, he hit a sore spot; the N.C.P. arrested him immediately.

On Jan. 30, al-Turabi’s warning gained credibility when youth activists, organizing through Facebook, drew hundreds of protesters onto the streets of Khartoum. Beatings and tear gas from riot police dispersed the crowds, but sporadic protests have continued ever since. While the parallels should not be overstated, especially since opposition to the ruling regime is far from ubiquitous, N.C.P. leaders cannot discount the possibility that, like Tunisia and Egypt, the people’s frustration with their leadership cannot be contained forever.

Until now, the extraordinary ability of Bashir to weather designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, comprehensive U.S. and E.U. sanctions, and finally an indictment by the International Criminal Court for atrocities in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, has generated a mythology of invincibility around him.

But petro-dollars dispersed through a vast patronage network have been vital to enabling him maintain his grip on power. And the bulk of these oil revenues are about to head south. Bashir’s senior adviser predicts the northern economy will take a hit of “not less than 30 percent.” Absent the benefits they are accustomed to, the loyalty of Bashir’s supporters will be tested.

To his great credit, Bashir has allowed the southern referendum to take place, despite knowing a free vote would see the south secede. And he has been promised much by the West for doing so. Those promises must be delivered if future promises are to have any credibility.

But Bashir’s laudable position on the referendum does not wipe the slate clean, nor should it buy him a free pass on current or future human-rights abuses in the north.

While international attention has been consumed by the southern referendum, Khartoum has stepped up its military campaign in Darfur; at least 40,000 civilians have been displaced in the past month alone. And a handful of brave local journalists and Darfuri activists have just spent their 100th day of incommunicado detention in the custody of the N.C.P.’s ruthless internal security thugs.

Beyond Darfur, the popular consultations to address the administration of pro-southern populations falling just north of what will soon be an international border have not transpired. And desperately needed reforms of national-security laws and media censorship have been repeatedly promised and never delivered.

As Sudan splits, the temptation to deploy all donor and diplomatic energy toward ensuring the viability of the new southern nation is enormous. However, serious attention must also be given to those fighting for a prosperous and democratic new northern nation.

It is too early to tell what the outcomes of the spate of recent uprisings will be, but if Tahrir Square has shown us anything, it is that ignoring the legitimate grievances of any population is a high-risk strategy over the long-run.

To view this article as it ran, click here.

U.S. Played Key Role in Southern Sudan’s Long Journey to Independence

By Rebecca Hamilton

Jul 9 2011, 7:00 AM ET 4

Twenty years of U.S. involvement contributed to today’s secession of Southern Sudan – but peace is yet to come

George W. Bush meets with First Vice President of Sudan and President of Southern Sudan Salva Kiir, January 5, 2009 / Reuters

Today marks the birth of the world’s newest nation. The Republic of South Sudan has gained its independence from Sudan after decades of bloody civil war, and southern Sudanese around the world are celebrating. So too are their allies. And there are few outside Sudan who are likely to be more pleased than a tight group of U.S. Congressional representatives who have sustained their efforts on Sudan for over two decades.

This bipartisan coalition, known in recent years as the Sudan Caucus, has pushed three successive U.S. presidents to make Sudan a foreign policy priority. “It’s a great day,” co-founder of the Sudan Caucus, Democratic Congressman Donald Payne, told me. “A victory for the oppressed.”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who is heading the U.S. delegation to the independence celebrations, called the historic occasion “first and foremost a testament to the Southern Sudanese people” as well as to leaders in both Sudan and South Sudan. She added that, in terms of the international community, “the U.S. has been as active as anyone.”

---

According to a U.S. official who is not authorized to speak to the media but has worked on these issues for decades, U.S. attention on Sudan has not been by chance. “Behind all this was [and] still is, a small group of people who have been working behind the scenes for almost 20 years” said the official.

South Sudan’s independence follows a January referendum in which 98.8 percent of voters chose to secede from Sudan. The referendum had been promised in a peace agreement that ended the war between the Sudanese government based in the largely Arab and Muslim north and rebels in the mainly Christian and animist south of Sudan. The longest-running conflict in Africa, an estimated two million southern Sudanese lives were lost by the time the war ended in 2005.

Today, while southern Sudanese rejoice, the celebrations are marred by increasingly horrific reports of violence and civilian causalities in Southern Kordofan, on the northern side of the border between the soon-to-be nations of Sudan and South Sudan.

The Sudan Caucus, co-chaired by Rep. Payne, along with Republican Congressman Frank Wolf and Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano, was inaugurated in 2005. But its roots stretch back much further.

In 1989, Rep. Wolf traveled into the war-ravaged terrain of southern Sudan to become the first U.S. representative to meet with the head of the southern Sudanese rebels, John Garang. Payne followed a few years later, and on his return to Washington pushed for the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a resolution endorsing the right of southern Sudanese to exercise self-determination. Congress subsequently condemned the Sudanese government “for its genocidal war in southern Sudan.”

Backing up these congressional efforts was an unlikely activist coalition, formed years before the more high-profile Save Darfur movement. The southern Sudan cause brought evangelicals into alliance with African American, Jewish, and secular activist groups.

U.S. attempts to support the southern Sudanese struggle have been wide-ranging. A report released by the Congressional Research Service last week lists actions going back to the Clinton era, including the provision of more than $20 million surplus U.S. military equipment to frontline states of Uganda, Eritrea, and Ethiopia, which the report says “helped reverse military gains made by the [Sudanese] government” against the southern rebels. Further pressure on the Sudanese government came with the 1993 designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terror, and the 1997 imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions, which prevented U.S. companies from operating in Sudan.

On the eve of South Sudan independence, former National Security Council Africa Director John Prendergast, who today leads much of the U.S. activism on Sudan, told me he felt “major regret that we couldn’t help get this done in the mid to late 1990s when I worked for the Clinton administration.”

Instead, U.S. support for southern Sudanese self-determination gained momentum under the presidency of George W. Bush. His aides said the former president, pressed by evangelical activists, viewed ending the civil war in Sudan as a “legacy item” for his foreign policy. Bush appointed a special envoy to focus on peace negotiations, which finally bore fruit in 2005.

Celebrations of the 2005 peace agreement were dampened, however, by ongoing conflict in Sudan’s western region of Darfur. In 2003, the Sudanese government launched a brutal military campaign to crush an insurgency by Darfuri rebels, mostly non-Arab and Muslim. In the summer of 2004, the same group of Congressional representatives who had long supported southern Sudan passed a resolution condemning the Darfur violence as genocide.

Supported once again by an improbable coalition of religious and secular activists, this time under the banner of the Save Darfur movement, these same members of Congress eventually passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. The legislation prevented the White House from rewarding the Sudanese government for signing the agreement with the southern rebels until the situation in Darfur was resolved.

The Sudan Caucus, in partnership with their new Save Darfur allies, also secured over $6 billion in humanitarian aid, between 2005 and 2010, to the war-affected areas in Sudan. According to statistics from the U.S. Official Development Assistance database, Sudan has been the third largest recipient of U.S. aid since 2005, trailing only Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet peace in Darfur, which will remain in Sudan when the country splits, has proven elusive. According to the report Beyond the Pledge, issued by a coalition of non-governmental organizations last week, the government launched at least 80 airstrikes against civilian populations in Darfur between January and April this year. Visiting the region last month, the UN human rights expert for Sudan, Justice Mohamed Chande Othman, complained about limited humanitarian access, noting that some of those displaced by violence had not received food or medical care since January.

The unresolved crisis in Darfur is not the only concern as Sudan partitions. In May, the Sudanese government seized a contested and fertile border area called Abyei. The UN says that over 100,000 people were displaced by the violence. A peace agreement has since been signed, providing for 4,200 Ethiopian peacekeepers to be deployed to Abyei under the UN banner. But the agreement has not yet been implemented, and Abyei’s future remains unclear.

Then on June 5, the Sudanese government began bombing Southern Kordofan, an oil-producing state that will remain part of Sudan when South Sudan secedes. Anti-government fighters in the area largely belong to the Nuba, a non-Arab and religiously diverse group who identity as northerners but sided with the southern rebels during the war. President al-Bashir has instructed the Sudanese army to “continue their operations in South Kordofan until they clean the state of rebels.” But according to the UN, civilians appear to be bearing the brunt of the operation.

Jehanne Henry, Sudan researcher at Human Rights Watch, said the situation in Southern Kordofan is severe. “Tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes, many have been killed or maimed, and houses and property have been destroyed.” The few remaining aid workers in the area, interviewed by phone, say the ordeal brings back memories of the Sudanese government’s campaign against the Nuba in the nineties, which led to ten of thousands of deaths.

The violence in Darfur, Abyei, and now Southern Kordofan complicates the Obama administration’s strategy of offering to lift Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terror and normalize diplomatic relations in return for completing the north-south peace agreement and accepting the secession of South Sudan.

U.S. special envoy to Sudan, Princeton Lyman, said that failure to resolve the situation in Southern Kordofan will make it “impossible” for the U.S. to normalize relations. But Sudan Caucus member Rep. Wolf remains unsatisfied with the administration’s response. “All the things that are going on in the Nuba Mountains are the things the White House said they wanted to stop in Libya,” said Wolf.

Whatever it would take to resolve Sudan’s violence, the U.S. will likely not be able to do it on its own, especially as Khartoum deepens its economic and diplomatic relationship with Beijing. “One country alone does not have enough leverage” says Jehanne Henry, who wants to see a coordinated multilateral approach.”[The international community] need a united front to press Sudan to end the killing, destruction, arrests, and other violations — not just in Southern Kordofan, but also in Darfur.”

Experts worry that the violence is a harbinger of instability that could undermine the viability of both nations, leading some to question the legacy of U.S. efforts. But, for today at least, the focus will be on welcoming South Sudan as the world’s newest nation.

This story was reported with a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Follow @PulitzerCenter on Twitter

Why South Sudan is Egypt’s new headache over Nile water treaty

Photo/AFP/FILE Southern Sudanese waiving their regional flag in Juba, South Sudan.The new regime in Egypt has gone on a charm offensive much like its predecessor in an effort to have the colonial-era treaty on River Nile stand.

By WALTER MENYA, wmenya@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted  Saturday, July 23  2011 at  22:43

The new regime in Egypt has gone on a charm offensive much like its predecessor in an effort to have the colonial-era treaty on River Nile stand.
But however hard it may try Cairo is now confronted with new realities as an independent South Sudan, which controls a substantial part of the River Nile, has been born.

South Sudan, which could choose a new slate as far as treaties are concerned, could inevitably prove to be the North African state’s biggest test over the Nile waters.
Egypt and Sudan (Khartoum) have been at odds with upriver nations over their efforts to overturn colonial era-treaties granting them the lion’s share of the river’s water.

But recent developments in the two countries and in the region have significantlyturned the tide against them. In Egypt, long-serving President Hosni Mubarak was ousted by popular protests in mid-February.

Leaked diplomatic cables

The military council that now runs the country also arrested several of Mubarak’s former ministers.As if the February regime change was not enough, South Sudan, which has been an observer at past Nile treaty negotiations, now wants to claim its rightful place at the discussions and has already applied to accede to the treaty.

Leaked US diplomatic cables revealed that in 2009 Cairo was uncomfortable with a divided Sudan, fearing an independent South would threaten its stranglehold on the River Nile waters.

In the cables published by online whistleblower WikiLeaks, a former foreign ministry official had even asked the US government to help postpone the January 2011 referendum by four to six years. The official said the creation of “a non-viable state” could threaten Egypt’s access to Nile waters so vital to the country’s agriculture.

But Egypt could renew ties with Ethiopia, which endured more than a decade of lukewarm relations with the Mubarak regime after the June 1995 attempted assassination of the Egyptian leader in Addis Ababa.

On the other hand, Khartoum, too, has been weakened by the secession of the South, with many observers almost certain that Juba will work with the upstream states to force the North and Egypt to agree to a new treaty.

The fact that South Sudan is oil rich is seen as a major reason for tension. However, some argue that the vital water resource is likely to be a far bigger bone of contention in the region long after the oil wells have dried up.

Nairobi is preparing to host the 19th Nile Council of Ministers (Nile-COM) of water affairs of the Nile Basin states on July 28 under the theme “The Nile Basin: An Imperative for Cooperation”.

The meeting will be the first for Egypt’s new man in charge of the water docket Dr Hussein Ihsan Elafty where he is expected to explain the new government’s stand to ministers from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania, Eritrea, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya .

The meeting will also announce rotation in the chairmanship of the Nile Council of Ministers. Ethiopia, the current chair, will hand over to Kenya.
“To us, the independence of South Sudan is good news, and we expect they will be allowed to accede soon,” Fred Mwango, the head of Transboundary Waters at Kenya’s ministry of Water and Irrigation, said.
Retired diplomat and executive director of Africa Peace Forum Ochieng Adala believes that the Republic of South Sudan will act in good faith like the rest of the upstream states to make sure that Egypt has its fair share of the waters.

“Egypt is the gift of the Nile. Consequently, no state would want to deny Egypt of its lifeline, as long as Egypt also acknowledges the legitimate rights of all Nile Basin Countries to an equitable share and uses of the Nile Waters,” said Mr Adala.

Among the upstream states, the resolve to have the Comprehensive Framework Agreement (CFA) to replace the 1929 treaty seems unstoppable. The new agreement was opened for signature in May 2010 for a period of one year until May13, 2011 after more than a decade of negotiations through a platform provided by the Entebbe-based Nile Basin Initiative (NBI).

However, NBI suffers from a weak legal base — its existence is founded more on a gentleman’s agreement among member states than any binding agreement.

Remains in limbo

The anticipated Nile Basin Commission, whose establishment and decisions would be legally binding on members, is what is required but remains in limbo over disagreements among the riparian states.

The threshold to make the new treaty binding on all, Egypt and Sudan included, has been met after six riparian countries — Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi and Uganda — signed the CFA.

They are championing a treaty that gives them unhindered access to the Nile waters so long as they do not cause “significant harm” to other members.

This is the bone of contention as Egypt and Sudan — the former depends entirely on the Nile for its water requirements — have cited historical rights that give Egypt access to more than half of the river’s annual flow.

When the matter threatened to scuttle the negotiations, Nile-COM, at a special conference in Kinshasa in May 2009, annexed the contentious Article 14(b) of the Comprehensive Framework Agreement which relates to historical water rights and uses.

The article was to be refined by an international audit committee, but to date no agreement has been reached as the two sets of countries have stuck to their guns.

And in May 2010, the CFA was opened for signatures for a year. Among the upstream states only DR Congo has not signed.
Growing defiance

Much as it appears confronted with the realities of a new state and the growing defiance of the upstream states, Egypt’s new military council appears not to have abandoned the former regime’s charm offensive.

Cairo has been sending emissaries to the upstream states to talk them out of ratifying the new treaty.

Nairobi hosted such a delegation a fortnight ago.Kenya, as the next chair of Nile-COM, is also calling on all members to cooperate to seal the deal on the non-management of the resources of River Nile.

Meanwhile, the NBI is now in the process of preparing a number of regional investments totalling Sh40.7 billion ($452 million).

In the past, the rift among the riparian countries has affected the execution of the Subsidiary Action Programmes particularly on the Eastern Nile.
About Sh88 billion ($979 million) of investment projects are now under implementation in the region.

But the continued rift over the CFA could scare off donors, some of whom are growing increasingly impatient with the NBI, a loose entity lacking in legal strength.

Dinka: The cattle keepers of Sudan

Dinka: The cattle keepers of Sudan in a visual ‘tome’As South Sudan continues to celebrate its Independence, I have been enjoying a thrilling photographic exhibition contained between two covers. For it seems quite inadequate to call Dinka a mere book – not even a coffee-table book. It’s more a dining-table of a tome. Legendary cattle keepers of Sudan runs the sub-title, and for page after breathtaking page we find ourselves in a dusty swirl of images as we jostle among the extraordinarily tall pastoralists from Southern Sudan (as it was called until July 9) and their devoted long-horned cattle.

It’s almost always the case that the larger an image is blown up the more spectacular it appears and the more you become absorbed in it. So when you consider that a good number of the pictures here are double page spreads of a book that’s a full one foot wide and a giant 16 inches high you can readily understand why no 3D glasses would be needed to feel yourself in among the Dinka.

The cameras that captured the rich culture and traditions of these people were held by Angela Fisher and Carol Beckwith, that hugely experienced team of photographers of traditional African societies. These two have spent three decades producing a unique collection of large-format pictorial books, including Maasai, Africa Adorned, Nomads of Niger, African Ark, and the two-volume African Ceremonies. (They’re currently working on a third and final volume, African Twilight.)

Like all great photographers — and these two are among the greatest — they do far more than point their cameras where they should. It is their engaging personalities that help them establish the warm, respectful and trusting relationships with the traditional communities whose cultures they become privileged to share, and which allow them to bring these cultures to life as they do.

Fisher and Beckwith first visited the Dinka in the late 1970s, when the war between the North and the South had not yet reached their vast cattle camps. But it soon did, with devastating effects on that peace-loving tribe. Government-sponsored militias wreaked havoc on them, with unprecedented brutality. Young boys, orphaned and with no support, made epic journeys to Ethiopia and Kenya, and not a few found their way to America where they became known as the “Lost Boys of Sudan.”

Simon Akoch John, the leader of the South California Chapter of the Lost Boys of Sudan Foundation, wrote to the two authors after attending the launch of Dinka in California, thanking them for supporting their foundation. And here’s what they said about the book: “You have done what nearly seven million Dinka people could never do themselves, preserve their heritage and culture.”

As I read John’s long and lyrical letter I concluded that as a complete outsider, I could do no better than to quote further from this Dinka’s reactions to a book about his own people. He wrote that no words could adequately express his sensational joy and his unexpected nostalgia. He was stunned, he said, by the sheer joy of seeing such familiar sights, each picture telling a familiar story, his story. John loved the way Fisher and Beckwith’s pictures were pure and accurate, free of embellishment or commercial manipulation, and admired how they narrated the story that accompanied the pictures with grace, precision and accuracy. Who am I to say different?

John repeatedly thanked Fisher and Beckwith not only for their great achievement, but also for the endless hardships they had to endure in search of their images. He concluded by saying he would cherish his copy of the book, “pass it on to my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and to the world at large, a celebration of enduring love and humanity”.

Fisher and Beckwith were only able to return to South Sudan following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005, and when they did they found the war had resulted in massive changes. Spears had been replaced by Kalashnikov rifles, beaded bodices and corsets by T-shirts and jeans. And now, as the benefits of modernity spread around the new nation, the Dinka’s traditional nomadic ways are likely to fade further.

Little wonder that the Lost Boy wrote what he did, and little wonder that Dinka (in its limited edition version) received first prize in the 2010 HP Indigo Digital Printing Award for the highest quality digitally printed photographic book, having competed against 450 projects from 170 countries. And the version now available here in Nairobi was proclaimed by American Photo as one of 2010’s 10 best photographic books. Take a look, and you’ll readily understand why.

How the Arab world lost southern Sudan (Tehran Times).

How the Arab world lost southern Sudan
By Lamis Andoni

The division of Sudan into two states is a dangerous precedent. The Arab world has to draw the right lessons from if it wants to avoid the break-up of other Arab states into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

The birth of South Sudan is first and foremost a testimony to the failure of the official Arab order, pan-Arabism, and especially the Islamic political projects to provide civic and equal rights to ethnic and religious minorities in the Arab world.

The jubilation that swept the people of southern Sudan at their independence from the predominantly Arab and Muslim north attests to the long-standing feelings of repression and alienation by a people, the majority of whom were born into the post-independence Arab world.

Granted, British rule planted the seeds of ethnic and religious divisions in Sudan and elsewhere in the Arab world. Western and Israeli intervention have played crucial roles in fueling secessionist trends in southern Sudan, and stand to benefit the most from the division of the country.

Avi Dichter, Israel’s former interior security minister, once said: “”We had to weaken Sudan and deprive it of the initiative to build a strong and united state. That is necessary for bolstering and strengthening Israel’s national security. We produced and escalated the Darfur crisis to prevent Sudan from developing its capabilities.””

But the Arab world cannot simply explain secession as a product of a Western-Israeli conspiracy.

Arab failures

If anything, it is the repressive regime in Sudan, combined with an incompetent and corrupt official Arab order, that drove legitimately disaffected people in southern Sudan into Western and even Israeli arms seeking independence from a failing Arab world.

Intellectuals in the Arab world should not comfort themselves by pointing – even though rightly so – to Western hypocrisy and double standards in supporting, embracing and recognizing the new state of South Sudan while effectively blocking the emergence of an independent Palestinian state.

South Sudan, with its capital in Juba, is the world’s newest country Arabs should look at their serious blunders and moral failures by facing the fact that the South Sudanese are an oppressed people whose grievances were against Arab rule and not against Western domination. It is true that the people of South Sudan may still find themselves prey to greedy Western governments interested in their rich natural resources, but that does not change the reality that people of the new state celebrated the end of what they viewed as oppression by an Arab and Muslim elite.

Whether the leaders of the new state will prove less repressive and less corrupt than the Khartoum government – and there are indications that they may disappoint their people on both counts – is at the moment irrelevant considering what secession itself says about the Arab world.

Brittle power

The unwillingness of the Arab leadership in Sudan to embrace a very rich, diverse culture that connects the Arab world with Africa underscores the urgency of reconsidering not only the Arab political systems, as the Arab Spring has done, but also the failure of prevailing political ideologies and political parties to adequately address the rights of ethnic and religious sects and groups.

The pan-Arab nationalist movement proved to be less capable of dealing with ethnic minorities and nationalities than with religious minorities. Pan-Arabism as an ideology did not condone sectarianism, and was never an exclusively Muslim school of thought. While rooted and influenced by the predominantly Muslim culture, it was secular in orientation and did not differentiate between existing religions in the Arab world. In fact, some of its most prominent founders and thinkers were Arab Christians, mostly from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Egypt.

But while pan-Arabism was initially an anti-colonial movement, some of its branches – especially the Ba’ath Arab parties that ruled Syria and Iraq – demonstrated and practiced destructive chauvinist policies and actions against other ethnic groups and nationalities. The case of the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq testify to different degrees of exclusivist, supremacist and racist policies by both Ba’athist political parties.

Hence the influence of pan-Arab nationalism on the political culture has not always been positive. Instead, it has actually created racist and chauvinist attitudes that obstructed serious condemnation and criticism of the way the national Sudanese government in the North dealt with the people of the South.

Islamist systems

However, the post-independence regime in Sudan had never become part of the pan-Arab project, as it was mostly influenced and even led by the strong Islamist movement there.

It is also true that the Sudan case is not a model of an Islamic rule that many Islamists might be advocating, and many would argue that it contradicted the tolerance upon which an Islamic system is meant to be based. But it is a case in which an Islamic movement had the opportunity to create an Islamic model of inclusion and peace, and failed miserably.

In Sudan in particular, these ailments have finally led to its breakup. The political system in Sudan, like the systems in some other Arab countries, has evolved from three military coups d’etats in the last 55 years of independence.

It was only natural that the system could not deal with the country’s diversity. This gave a golden opportunity to foreign interference and eventually division.

It is only legitimate for the people of the new state of South Sudan to celebrate their independence, but it is also a critical point, while Arab uprisings are demanding freedom and justice, to remember that we cannot establish a better Arab order without embracing diversity and pluralism, instead of narrow nationalist or religious ideologies that have only served as tools for dictators.

Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.

(Source: Al Jazeera)

US envoy to press two Sudans to talk

WASHINGTON — A US envoy headed Monday to Sudan and newly independent South Sudan to press the two nations to resolve lingering disputes and end the violence in a flashpoint border region.

Princeton Lyman, the US special envoy on Sudan, will urge leaders in Khartoum and Juba to restart stalled negotiations under a 2005 peace deal including on border security and currency, the State Department said.

Lyman “will also press the parties for an immediate end to conflict and unfettered humanitarian access in the Southern Kordofan region of Sudan,” the State Department said in a statement.

Fighting has raged in the ethnically divided border state since early June. UN peacekeepers started leaving when South Sudan became independent on July 9 as their mandate under the 2005 agreement expired.

The Khartoum government has rejected US and UN appeals to allow a temporary extension of the peacekeepers’ mandate, saying that South Kordofan was now an internal matter.

Lyman will also visit Ethiopia in a show of support for the country’s deployment of troops to Abyei, another troubled area of Sudan. In Addis Ababa, Lyman will also speak with former South African president Thabo Mbeki, who has been mediating on Sudan for the African Union.

It marks Lyman’s second trip this month to the three countries. During his last visit, he was part of the US delegation in Juba for celebrations of South Sudan’s independence.

The United States has put a high priority on diplomacy and aid for ethhnically African South Sudan, which broke away from the Arab-dominated north after a two-decade civil war that claimed two million lives. A separate conflict erupted in 2003 in the western region of Darfur.

From Juba to Jerusalem

By Aidan Fishman

07/23/2011 23:52

Israel has the opportunity to midwife the birth of the UN’s newest member.

As most already know, the international community welcomed a new nation on July 9, as South Sudan officially gained independence from its former Northern overlords. On July 14, the UN accepted South Sudan as its 193rd member state. But behind the jubilation throughout that country and among its exiles worldwide lurk feelings of doubt and even despair.

Their newborn state is one of the poorest in the world, with economic and public-health shortcomings that dwarf other international causes for concern, such as Gaza’s so-called humanitarian crisis. More than one in 10 children in South Sudan die before the age of five due to easily preventable diseases, while 90 percent of the population lives on less than $1 per day.

Although there is abundant cause for concern, there are also reasons to be grateful for the opportunity that now lies before the people of South Sudan and the international community. The country will serve as a critical test case for Western nations as they seek to learn the lessons of previous failures in Africa and the Third World. Israel can play an important role in transforming South Sudan into a shining beacon of peaceful development for the region.

As World War II ground to a halt in 1945, the two new superpowers, the US and the USSR, made it known that the era of colonialism was over. Although their ideological and pragmatic disputes would soon lead to the Cold War, both victors agreed that European nations such as France and Britain needed to grant independence to their erstwhile African and Asian colonies.

Teh colonialist nations left their former possessions in shambles – hobbled by poor infrastructure, ethnic disputes, arbitrary borders and economic systems designed for the benefit of the colonial power, and not the denizens of the colony.

Nations like Senegal, Nigeria and Angola were abruptly cast off, left to fend for themselves like the infant boys Romulus and Remus in Roman mythology.

And like Romulus and Remus, these countries were then raised by wolves.

Demagogues like Nasser and Castro molded the newly independent states into the Non-Aligned Movement, and set them firmly on the path of left-wing kleptocracy, authoritarian paranoia, and hatred for the US and its allies, notably Israel. This bloc became the “automatic majority” in the UN General Assembly – nations that, in the immortal words of Abba Eban, would pass a resolution “declaring that the Earth was flat, and that Israel had flattened it” by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.

WITH SOUTH Sudan, the West has an opportunity to show that it has learned the lessons of over-hasty decolonization.

At a time of debt crisis in the EU and wrangling over the debt ceiling in the US, it will not be easy to dedicate millions of dollars to feeding the starving children of South Sudan. But if the developed world is serious about bridging the massive equality gaps that plague our planet, now is the time to do so.

Israel has a critical role to play. Both Israel and South Sudan earned their sovereignty only after traumatizing and hard-fought wars of independence. And both nations are saddled with question marks over their borders, as South Sudan prepares for a drawn-out struggle with its former Northern overlord over the provinces of Abyei and South Kordofan.

South Sudan will need a modern, professional military to defend itself against the bloodthirsty dictator and alleged war criminal in Khartoum, and Israel can certainly help in that regard. But more importantly, the Jewish state can also nurture democracy and sustainable development.

In recent years, Israel has become home to approximately 15,000 refugees from East Africa, although exact figures are difficult to determine. About 2,000 are said to be from South Sudan. As Israeli politicians from across the spectrum hailed South Sudanese independence, Interior Minister Eli Yishai of Shas was quick to propose the repatriation of these migrants, who are seen in some quarters as an economic and demographic boondoggle.

YISHAI’S APPROACH is foolish and wrong-headed, especially since most of the refugees have no desire to return immediately. Rather than shipping the South Sudanese asylum seekers back to their newly sovereign homeland, Israel and international Jewish organizations should team up to provide them with the best education Israel has to offer. After a few years at Israeli universities in fields such as agriculture, politics, medicine and communications, these former refugees can then return to South Sudan and use their newfound skills to build the country.

Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, can help breed the political class that will make South Sudan the only true democracy in East Africa.

Farming techniques that help grow fish in Israel’s Hula Marshes can help raise fish in the Sudd, the giant marsh that dominates South Sudan.

Israel’s extremely advanced solarpanel technology can be easily transplanted to South Sudan, one of the sunniest nations on Earth.

The massive benefits to South Sudan are clear. The world’s newest nation will receive tangible and desperately needed help from Israel in the form of cash, technology and even human capital. Who better to help the South Sudanese “start up” their nation than the Middle Eastern state famously dubbed the “Start-up Nation”? In its own small way, South Sudan can also begin to reward Israel’s massive investment in its future. At some point in September, the UN will hold its muchanticipated vote on a unilateral Palestinian bid for independence, in direct violation of the 1996 Oslo Accords.

If the UN’s newest member bucked the Third World trend and voted against the Palestinian bid, or even abstained, the symbolic boost to Israel and its allies would be immense.

To be sure, the motion would still pass by a large margin in the General Assembly, and would still likely be vetoed by the Americans at the Security Council.

But this gambit by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was never about attaining real independence, because even he knows that fine words and meaningless UN resolutions will not give his people a state. Rather, the Palestinian campaign is all about empty rhetoric and advancing the goal of delegitimizing the Jewish state. A fiery, impassioned speech by the South Sudanese delegate decrying Arab duplicity and expressing solidarity with Israel would work wonders to take the wind out of anti- Zionist sails.

Befitting their status as a newborn nation, South Sudanese leaders will find themselves with a host of foreign-policy decisions that require urgent attention.

For this reason, it is essential that Western nations act quickly to prop up this new African state, and do their part to expunge the sins of mismanaged decolonization from their collective conscience.

Israel, too, needs to approach South Sudan immediately, before the Arab League can beguile its politicians with bribes and false promises of aid. The events of the past weeks represent a critical foreign-policy opportunity for the West, for Israel and for South Sudan.

From Juba to Jerusalem, let freedom ring!

The writer is a student at the University of Toronto specializing in International Relations and Near and Middle Eastern Studies.

Forced to choose between Sudans

By James Copnall, BBC News, Khartoum

Magbula Osman says people left their homes after promises they would be bused south but are now waiting in misery

Sudan: Coping with divorce

Makwaj Adol Malek has a problem – and it’s one shared by hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese living in the north.

Their region has become an independent country – and they face losing their Sudanese nationality, and maybe much more, because of the split.

“South Sudan’s independence has created problems for me,” Malek says.

“I feel I am in danger. When I take public transport people tell me ‘your brothers have left – what are you doing here?'”

“But I tell them I have a pension and rights here.”

Malek was born in Khartoum around half a century ago and worked as a teacher and a soldier.

He speaks Arabic, not English, the new official language of South Sudan.

All the same, he is one of thousands of South Sudanese gathered at a train station in the Khartoum suburbs, waiting for a ride home.

Bed-frames and cooking pots are piled up next to the station as people move their whole lives to a place they may not even have seen.

“I did not decide to go back to the south, but the government told me ‘your part of Sudan has decided to become an independent state, so you have nothing here’,” Malek explains.

He will take his family to his ancestral home, a place he scarcely knows, and then come back to Khartoum in an attempt to get his pension.

No choice but to leave

A few kilometres away along paved roads cutting through the desert, 545 Southern Sudanese are living rough under the hot sun.

Even if I lose my Sudanese nationality, it is not a problem, I am going. There is no future for me in the north”

Jerome

They left their homes in December and are still waiting for the money they say they have been promised to take buses back to the south.

They have made houses out of anything they can find – bits of wood and old clothes and towels.

Magbula Osman is a chief, and is pushed forward by the residents of the improvised tent town to talk on their behalf.

“They are poor people, tired people with no money and they don’t know what to do,” she says.

“Their children are out of school since they were told they would be taken back home.

“People are living in complete misery, with nothing to eat.”

She and others here blame both Khartoum and the new government in Juba, saying both have responsibilities to get them to South Sudan.

But all insist they have no choice but to leave Khartoum.

“I am South Sudanese,” says Jerome. “Even if I lose my Sudanese nationality, it is not a problem, I am going. There is no future for me in the north.”

‘Thank you Khartoum’

Of course, not all Southern Sudanese here are in such a difficult situation.

Sudanese officials have made it clear dual nationality will not be an option

Banguang Tap, a young opposition politician, lives in relative comfort.

The sofas in his living room are comfortable and he can watch Southern Sudan TV via a satellite dish.

“Those who came to Khartoum got educated here and engaged themselves in the Khartoum lifestyle,” he says.

“You cannot say they do not belong to Khartoum, they belong to Khartoum in all senses.

“Khartoum received us during the war so we say thank you Khartoum!”

All the same, he and his friends intend to go to South Sudan.

They believe that as the south has seceded, they can no longer consider themselves Sudanese.

That opinion will soon become fact.

No dual nationality

The national assembly has agreed on a draft law that removes Sudanese nationality from anyone the authorities consider South Sudanese.

“When our government acknowledged the secession, that means all southerners living in the north will not have a right to enjoy northern nationality,” explained Rabie Abdelati, a senior official at the ministry of information.

“This does not mean they will be all deprived of nationality, but their situations will be looked at on a case by case basis.”

The law still needs to be signed off by the president, who would retain the right to restore Sudanese nationality to those who have lost it.

But Sudanese officials have already made it clear dual nationality will not be an option.

It seems likely that South Sudanese will be able to acquire some sort of residency right.

But the current situation is very unclear.

At the moment foreigners cannot own property in Sudan, which means losing their Sudanese nationality would be a big problem for the wealthier South Sudanese here.

Senior presidential adviser Nafie Ali Nafie has said there will be a nine month transitional period for individuals to sort out their situation.

But in a country where many people do not have the correct papers this will be tricky.

I see my nationality as Sudanese, not northern or southern”

Makwaj Adol Malek

Then there is the issue of those truly caught between two countries.

Mohamed Nour’s grandmother was a Dinka from South Sudan, and the rest of his family is northern.

He was hired as a southerner in the civil service, as part of a peace deal, and then lost his job once the south became independent.

“It is a very bad thing. It is just like you are dividing one person into two,” he says.

But if politics took his job away, what about his Sudanese passport?

“I don’t think I will lose my nationality. Practically it is very hard to take people’s citizenship away.”

All the same, the status of those with parental links to Sudan and South Sudan is still very unclear.

‘Not northern or southern’

It’s estimated there are 800,000 to one million South Sudanese in Sudan.

Since last autumn a further 300,000 have already made their way to South Sudan.

Many more are likely to follow.

“Many people were born here, they’ve got their lives here, they’ve got their children in school, they’ve got many reasons to remain here actually,” says Peter de Clerq, the Sudan representative for the UN’s refugee body UNHCR.

“But for them, with the withdrawal of the nationality and very high bar that has been set for maintaining their status its going to be very difficult to maintain themselves here.

“So they may not have much of a choice in the long term.”

Back at the train station, Malek’s dilemma is one felt my many.

“I feel like I belong to both countries.

“I’m grateful to the north because I am born here. I see it as my village.

“But I still love the south. I see my nationality as Sudanese, not northern or southern.”

Unfortunately for Malek, that is no longer reality

South Sudan accuses Khartoum of ‘currency war’

Khartoum says the old currency will be phased out
South Sudan has accused the north of declaring an “economic war” by issuing a new currency.

South Sudan government minister Pagan Amum said Khartoum had left the south holding large quantities of old currency that was now illegal tender.

Khartoum denied triggering an economic war and said people would get a chance to change the old currency.

The south, which became independent on 9 July, is also locked in dispute with the north over borders and oil revenue.

Mr Amum, who is South Sudan’s minister of peace, said the north had violated an agreement by launching a new currency, the Sudanese pound.

Khartoum had agreed in talks not to issue it until six months after the south did, he said.

The south launched its currency, the South Sudan pound, about a week after independence.

‘Daylight robbery’

Mr Amum said Khartoum’s move would cost the southern government at least $700m (£429m).

“This is a hostile act… contrary to our emerging as two states on good terms,” he is quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.

The north’s central bank says the new currency has been introduced as a precautionary measure, since South Sudan has already brought in its own currency.

A spokesman for northern Sudan’s ruling party, Rabie Atti, said the adoption of the new currency would be gradual.

“Our banks now are dealing with the same – the new currency and old currency,” Mr Atti is quoted by the AP news agency as saying.

“I don’t think this is a big problem… I think it can be resolved technically without trouble for the north or the south.”

Mr Amum said Khartoum had also imposed a charge of $22 per barrel on oil transported through its pipelines.

“This is nothing but robbery in broad daylight. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to Khartoum not to start economic wars with South Sudan,” he said.

The BBC’s James Copnall in Khartoum says the financial squabbles highlight the tensions which are likely to complicate life in both countries for the foreseeable future.

Both economies could face real difficulties if there is no co-ordination between them, he says.

The governments in Juba and Khartoum also have to come to an agreement over oil.

Most of it is in the South, but the infrastructures to export it are in Sudan.

The two sides cannot agree on how much South Sudan should pay to use these facilities.

There is also no agreement over the fate of the oil-producing Abyei region, which both countries claim.