Will the Republic of South Sudan stay alive?

By Joseph Monyde Malieny

The troubles of establishing viable South Sudanese State on the historical social and territorial bases provided by colonial rule are not recognized internationally from the very birth of an independent South Sudan. For instance, just on April 19, 2012, The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon criticized South Sudan for reclaiming Panthou (Heglig) area in South Kordofan last week, and called it “illegal”. In the view of South Sudanese people Mr. Ban Ki Moon, the illegal annexation of Panthou (Heglig) done by Sudan over our territory is “illegal” rather than reclaiming our land being taken over by Sudan because of its natural resources.

The colonial boundaries of Sudan had been redrawn by Nimairi especially Panthou (Heglig) was redrawn by Federal Government Chambers of Bashir’s regime as from 14^th June 2004.  South Sudan restates the same locality it has retained for years, that the North/South boundaries at the time of Sudan’s independence from Britain on 1st January 1956, which underpinned the terms of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between South and North Sudan. The 1956 borderline is the agreed original border for today’s North/South border demarcation which actually lies to the north of Panthou (Heglig) and hence make Panthou/Heglig an integral a part of South Sudan territory. However, Khartoum since 1956 has exercised illegal and arbitrary power to shift the North/South boundary southwards, after the discovery of oil in the Heglig region.

To bring the attention of international community into the present basis of Panthou (Heglig), the growing influence of humanitarian pressure groups has also had an impact on the way the war is reported and understood. It is human rights researchers, rather than indigenous of the land, who are documenting the war’s most cruel aspects. Yet mindful of the requirements of objectivity, international community strive to apportion blame equally, with their opinion ending up with a demand to give our land with the expense of exploring the structural patterns of injustice. Their criticism of South Sudan is a pattern of misreading of a very sophisticated structure of our traditional ethnographic record of which the Arabs of North Sudan are “voluntary incorporation” within our natural resources such as Land, Oil and even water.

The Sudan and South Sudan original borders

The border issue at first revolved around those areas flanking to the southern region of Sudan, which by the provisions of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1973-83, were under consideration to the region north. These included certain areas which had been part of southern provinces before independence in 1956, as well as areas deemed similar to the south. The former were supposed to be automatically retransferred, and the latter were to be allowed to vote on whether they should remain in the North or join the South (Addis Ababa Agreement: Chapter II Article 3.iii). The mineral-bearing areas of Kafia Kingi and Hofrat al-Nahas, ceded to Darfur in the 1960s, should have been returned to Bhar al-Gazal province by 1977 but were not and within that same time period, referenda should have been held in the Dinka district of Abyei in Southern Kordofan, and in the Chali area of the Blue Nile Province which had been part of the South until 1953.

No referendums were scheduled. Why was no referendum held?  The border issue was a very sensitive and contentious issue for a number of reasons. In Kordofan, the prolonged drought of the 1970s meant that there was increased hardship for Arab cattle herders who grazed their animals in the Dinka of Abyei territories during the dry season pastures along the Kiir River which is now Arab of North, “named it as Bhar al-Arab”. According to their cunning conquest ideology, there was fear that if the territory were to be transferred to the Southern Region, Pastoralist Arabs would be denied to have access to the River. Throughout the late 1970s and with increasing ferocity during the early 1980s, gangs of armed Arabs mainly Misiriyya began attacking Dinka villages with the intent of driving the Dinka Ngok out of Kordofan, into Bhar al-Gazal. It was widely thought at the time that members of Umma party were involved in arming and encouraging the Nomads because the area had been Umma stronghold before 1969 as Umma leadership was initially hostile to the Addis Ababa Agreement.

Also the border region of Chali in Southern Blue Nile excited less emotion in the North but was still contentious because it was administered by Upper Nile Province until 1953, when it was transferred to Kurmuk district. This Region of Chali was well known as Southern part of Upper Nile Province because Southern United States was set up in Chali in the 1940s and remained active until the Missionaries were expelled by government order in 1964 while its local continued to function among the Uduk of Chali that survived the first Civil War. The activities of the local church elders were scrutinized just as much as they had been during the wartime. When the church leaders petitioned for referendum to be held on Chali’s future, but they were harassed by provincial officials and some were arrested and beaten.

The issue of the Southern Region’s borders became intertwined with the issue of oil and economic development. In November 1980 the new National Assembly considered a bill to set the boundaries of the new regions in the North. At Hassan al-Turabi’s instigation, the bill redrew the Southern Region’s boundaries, placing the oilfields of Bentiu (Unity State) and the agriculturally productive areas of Upper Nile Province inside neighboring Northern Provinces.

Oil   

The Southern Region’s main asset is oil, but this was discovered only after the Addis Ababa Agreement was signed and the regional government of Southern Sudan established. The regional government was not consulted on the granting of concessions to the Chevron and Total oil companies for prospecting and drilling for oil within the region but stealing it as Bashir’s government did with present oil companies recently. Chevron began to exploit the three “Unity” fields outside of Bentiu near the border with Southern Kordofan, and fields of oil and natural gas in the Maban area of northern Upper Nile near the border of Blue Nile.

It was “Chevron’s policy” that contributed to the deterioration in relationship between the regional and central government over Sudan’s boundaries. This was claimed by Abiel Alier that, “the oil issue turned Nimairi against the Addis Ababa Agreement  and insisted that a proposed oil refinery to be built by Chevron should not be placed inside the Upper Nile province, closed to the oilfields but resolute that the oil refinery will be placed inside the northern Sudan. This controversy united the Umma and Muslim Brothers members of Nimairi Cabinet in excluding the southern Region from any decisions in petroleum affairs.

President Nimairi, not surprisingly, ordered the construction of the refinery outside the Southern Region. Even that project was deferred in favour of a pipeline direct from the Bentiu oil fields to Port Sudan, via Khartoum, enabling a quick export of crude oil to offset some of the Sudan’s deficit (Peter Nyot Kok,’Adding fuel to the conflict: oil, war and peace in the Sudan’, p.104).

The Jonglei Canal

The South’s other main asset is water. It has higher rainfall than the North, and it is the meeting place of numerous rivers arising in East Africa such as Ethiopia and Central Africa. The exploitation of our natural resources was planned by both the northern Sudan and Egypt of making heavy demands on water from the Nile through numerous irrigation schemes. But their share of the water was regulated by the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement which doesn’t bound on our economic interests especially South Sudan now and other Eastern and Central African countries because it is not valid anymore. First proposed was in 1901, it was the momentum for the plot’s unvarying revitalization throughout the twentieth century.

Before invoking the forces of inexorable demand and the historical inevitability of hydro-politics, Cairo and Khartoum proposal to build the Canal was presented by the central ministers of Irrigation and Agriculture to the president of the High Executive Council, (HEC) which was the Southern Regional Government from 1972 to 1983, and then to the High Executive Council itself in 1974. Their argument was that, “the Canal was needed to meet planned agro-industrial expansion in both Egypt and the Sudan”, (Alier, Southern Sudan: Too Agreements Dishonoured, p.199).

With some hesitation, the High Executive Council agreed supposedly to oppose the canal. From this point onwards, the Arabs North supported forceful exploitation of Southern Regional land. The importance the government attributed to the construction of the Canal was gauged by its response to any opposition in the Southern Region. When there were demonstrations against the Canal plan in Juba in 1974, and when some Regional Assemblymen publicly opposed the Canal, the demonstrations were crushed by police and the Assemblymen were arrested or forced to flee the country.

The outbreak of war in 1983, and the SPLA’s early attacks on Canal and oil installations brought these two major economic projects to a halt by 1984. Nevertheless, illegal land acquisition process on paper was still being carried out from Khartoum, since even Panthou (Heglig) reconfiguration was made in 2004 during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) process that was signed in 2005. The determination to secure the oil fields for northern needs, first demonstrated by Turabi as Attorney General when he attempted to redraw the Southern Region’s boundaries in 1980, had been a consistent policy of the Islamist government he helped to usher into power in 1989 of Bashir that called our democratic elected government authorities “insects” while the Sudan government robbed our land and stolen our oil.

If I were President Salva Kiir Mayardit, I would not have supported withdrawal from Panthou (Helglig) even though the international community was misguided to pressure us by condemning our reclamation of our land of Panthou/Heglig. Even if the creator of this planet earth were to pressure us, I would have told him “you created my ancestors on this land and is mine now and there is no way for me to withdraw from it now and forever, not even at the advice of the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon “.

To Conclude, I wrote this article to show the world that Panthou (Heglig) is our gift from God not based on political ideologies of international community or United Nations configuration. Throughout the late 1970s and with increasing viciousness during the early 1980s, mob of armed Arabs mainly Misiriyya began to attacked South Sudan with the intent of driving the Dinka Ngok out of Kordofan, into Bhar al-Gazal. It was their ideology, those Arabs of North such as Umma party and Islamist brothers that collaborated since 1969 to redraw Sudan 1956 boundaries as that controversy united the Umma and Muslim Brothers members of Nimairi Cabinet in excluding the southern Region from any decisions in petroleum affairs.

President Nimairi stole our natural resources by ordering the construction of the refinery outside the Southern Region and Umma leadership made hostility to the Addis Ababa Agreement as Bashir is practicing it now in relation to the CPA. The exploitation of our natural resources was planned by both the northern Sudan and Egypt by making weighty demands on water from the Nile through numerous irrigation systems. Nonetheless their share of the water was regulated by the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement which doesn’t bound on our legality especially South Sudan now because we were not ask for our inputs or opinion as well as Eastern and Central African countries.

Gone are the days colonial authorities exploited African resources for their own interests and their counterparts Arabs who made African people as their goods for sale in what are now urban areas. Land and natural resources are our heritage materials that cannot be given away by international community or United Nations.

This article was written By Joseph Monyde Malieny: A South Sudanese Native and a Student at university of South Africa, (UNISA) Pretoria. I can be reached at 46403027@mylife.unisa.ac.za

Yasir Arman’s Speech at Harvard University: The Northern Question and the Way Forward for Change

Sun, 22 Apr 2012

The Northern Question and the Way Forward for Change

Presentation at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

by Yasir Arman, Secretary General, Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N)

Secretary of External Affairs, Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF)

April 20-21, 2012

What is the Northern Question?  What is the Sudan Question?

 

•    Sudan is often perceived in terms of dichotomies of North-South, Muslim-Christian, Arabs-Africans; these are oversimplification of the Sudanese question. After the independence of the Republic of South Sudan, the North could now be seen as an entity of its own.  It should be seen as the Sudan question. 

 

•    The Northern question is a crisis emanating from the lack of an inclusive national project of nation-building and a correct national formation process based on the objective realities of Sudan and on the historical and contemporary diversities; building a society for all regardless of ethnic, religious and gender background; and based on democracy, social justice and a balanced relation between the centre and the peripheries.  That is what we define as the New Sudan.

 

•    The present national project is based on limited parameters that marginalize and exclude the majority of the Sudanese people on cultural, religious, economic, political and gender basis.

 

•    Marginalization and dictatorship produces continuous wars and instability.

 

•    The mis-management, non-recognition of diversities, lack of democracy and social justice lead the people of South Sudan to choose an independence state.

 

•    A new political and geographical South has emerged in the North: it is obvious that Sudan will not remain without a new geographical South after the old traditional South has gone.

 

•    It is equally obvious that the old South was not a geography- it has a human dimension in the first place, it was the long struggle for recognition of diversity, democracy and social justice, that continues in the new South of the Northern Sudan.

 

•    It is worth mentioning that the new South of the North politically includes women, Arab tribes and non-Arab tribes all over Sudan (Rizeigat, Messeriya and Rashaida in Eastern Sudan, and many others are part of the new South), again it includes the marginalized of the rural areas and the urban poor who are the majority.

 

•    The policies and decisions of the ruling National Congress Party created a full-scale war in the new geographical South of Northern Sudan, from Darfur to Blue Nile.  In addition, the relationship between Sudan and the newly-independent Republic of South Sudan is a sour one loaded with a lot of unfinished business.

 

•    You can only have two viable states and strategic relations between Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan when Khartoum is transformed and the two states share the same values.  Democratic states rarely fight against each other.  Having good relations between Juba and Khartoum under the rule of war criminals is like having good relations between France and Germany under the rule of Hitler.

 

•    As a result of intransigence of the National Congress leadership to maintain the old policies that led to the split of the South, as they were based on hegemony, limited parameters and a bankrupt ideology- that does not recognize the diversity of Sudan as stated in General Bashir’s speeches – like the famous Gaddaref speech and many others that followed the independence of the South. General Bashir laid the foundation in order for him to start the war in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. 

 

•    Based on the above policies the National Congress targeted the SPLM-N, which is viewed by them as a formidable immanent political and military threat. As a consequence, they started the war in South Kordofan, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile that resulted in the displacement of more than 400,000 civilians and others who crossed the borders as refugees in the Republic of South Sudan and Ethiopia.

 

•    All this came at the time when the Darfur crisis has not been resolved and the partial solutions in Abuja and Doha did not address the root causes of the problem.  The same perpetrators are the ones in charge and the piecemeal solution was based on impunity.  This situation necessitated that the SPLM-N and the Sudanese liberation movements, emanating from Darfur, came together as the Sudan Revolutionary Front, forming a democratic coalition that is starting to attract and mobilize the Sudanese opposition forces all over Sudan for regime change.

 

•    Given the historical experience of past popular uprisings and armed struggles, the fundamental change in Sudan can only be achieved when Khartoum is transformed.  It is Khartoum’s policies that excluded and marginalized the majority of Sudanese people and it is Khartoum too that fought Southern Sudan, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, Eastern Sudan and Darfur.  The permanent solution can only be achieved by transforming the center where wrong policies emanate, not the periphery.   The present Sudan society, its history goes to six to eight thousand years ago and that carries a continuing historical diversity and the contemporary, present Republic of Sudan, after the independence of the South, it consists of more than four hundred different tribes and more than sixty different languages.  To address the historical and contemporary diversity, Sudan needs a new social, political, economic and cultural dispensation that is based on citizenship, democracy and social justice and separation of religion from state. 

•    Any fundamental change and a just and permanent peace would require a holistic approach that will be a departure from a piecemeal approach.  As of now, General Bashir signed around 43 peace agreements and dishonored all of them totally or partially and denied any opportunity to transform the center. 

•    The interesting situation is that Bashir and some of his colleagues are wanted by the international justice and that practically means that the international community is for regime change.  But at the same time, the practice by the international community has been to denounce any call for a regime change.   

•    The other paradox is that while President Bashir has been indicted as a war criminal, the international community continues to recognize and deal with him and his regime; and at the same time, they shy away from dealing with the representatives of the victims as in the case of the Sudan Revolutionary Front.  It is high time for the international bodies to recognize and to deal with those who have been victimized and their legitimate representatives. 

•    It is evidently clear that any approach in a peaceful solution for it to achieve a permanent peace, it would require a popular process that would involve the people, not compromises between job seekers and a settlement that would only address the interests of the elites.  Whether it is a constitutional process or peace agreement, it must include all political parties.

•    The SPLM-N suggests an interim or transitional period that would be tasked to hold a constitutional conference for all political forces and civil societies in Sudan to answer the historical question which remains unanswered since the independence of Sudan in 1956, “how Sudan is going to be ruled?” before “who is going to rule Sudan.”

The Characteristics of the Present Situation in Sudan

•    As a result of the policies of the NCP government of scorched earth, massive starvation and denying access for humanitarian intervention, hundreds of thousands are internally displaced and refugees particularly from the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile and Darfur and many of them are in danger of immediate death

•    The economy is in a deep crisis and the scope is wide and complex especially after the decision taken by the Republic of South Sudan to shut down the oil.  It will produce more marginalization that will definitely lead to social unrest and more wars.

•    There is a full-scale war from Darfur to Blue Nile in the new South of the North.

•    Last month, the war started between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan, which added a huge complexity to the political and economic situation.  Serious issues between the two countries remain unresolved.

•    There are intense rivalries and power struggles within the different groups in the National Congress and within the Army.

 

•    A sea of revolutions (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia… etc.) around Sudan that delegitimized the rule of the one-party system and witnessed the rise of the Islamic movement especially in Egypt. 

 

•    There is a growing social discontent by demonstrations and strikes by student, women and youth, famers and workers, and the victims of the dams projects.

The Way Forward for Change

•    The SPLM-N and the Sudan Revolutionary Front, taking into consideration the rich experience of the struggle of the Sudanese people against the genocidal regime and the dictatorship of the National Congress, are adopting four means to change and overthrow the regime.  The means are inter-related and inter-connected and they converge in the daily life and day-to-day struggle, and they have mutual impact on each other.

(1)    Popular uprising as it has been the case in October 1964 and in April 1985. 

(2)    The popular armed struggle that has been waged by the Sudan Revolutionary Front.

(3)    Diplomatic pressures and solidarity with the Sudanese people from the continent and the international community.  As an example, when the Sudan Peace, Security and Accountability Act initiated by Representatives Jim McGovern and Frank Wolf in the US Congress is passed, it will have a clear positive impact in favor of peace, democratization and the respect of human rights in Sudan. 

(4)    The comprehensive peaceful settlement, which can only be achieved as a result of the continuous pressures on the regime, emanating from the popular uprising forces and the armed struggle and the diplomatic pressures and solidarity with the Sudanese people that will lead to the overthrow of the regime or it is acceptance for a holistic, just, peaceful settlement.

·      To realize the change of the regime, there is a need to build a credible platform for the opposition forces.    Indeed, it is the main task of the Sudan Revolutionary Front that has been engaging itself seriously working it out in the last six months.  It was a huge step to bring the four organizations together on a political platform and on the basis of a political declaration, “Kauda Declaration.”  Furthermore, the involvement of the Umma Party and the DUP in the Sudan Revolutionary Front is another great step in the same direction and we are engaging the rest of the political forces and soon we will reach an agreement between all opposition forces who subscribe to the peaceful civil struggle and the armed struggle reaching a roadmap toward a permanent just peace and democracy and effecting the regime change. 

·      Out of our historical experience to transform the center that would require an alliance between the forces of armed struggle from the rural Sudan and the democratic forces in the urban Sudan. In other words, the unity of purpose and action of the popular uprising forces and the armed struggle.  And it is equally true to mention that the armed struggle forces has audience and supporters too in urban Sudan.

·    It is worth mentioning that addressing the economic problems can only be achieved by ending the wars and addressing the governance crisis.  That will require the involvement of the Sudan Revolutionary Front.

·      Sudan Revolutionary Front is the political mechanism that will definitely help in realizing a comprehensive settlement and in avoiding a piecemeal solution.  Armed struggle is not an end by itself.  It is only one of the means to achieve the objectives of democracy and just peace as mentioned above; therefore, the Sudan Revolutionary Front cannot be judged by only one of its means.  It is a misjudgment as judging the whole book by only its cover. 

Humanitarian Aid Before Politics: The Priority is to Save Lives Now

·      The complexity of the present situation should not shift focus from the need for humanitarian intervention, otherwise thousands of people, and in particular the internal displaced in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile, are facing imminent starvation and death.  The need for humanitarian aid should be in the main agenda in dealing with Sudan government.

·      Humanitarian aid is a right for those in need.  It should not be based on political conditions. Humanitarian aid for needy people comes before politics. 

·      The SPLM-N leadership is on record with the international community that whenever the modalities of delivering humanitarian aid require a cessation of hostilities on humanitarian grounds, the SPLM-N will fully cooperate.

·      The ongoing consultations between Khartoum and the international community on humanitarian aid, which has taken 10 months since war started, is part of the policy to buy time by the National Congress especially since the rainy season is imminent and will make access for humanitarian assistance impossible. 

Conclusion

·      Change in Sudan shall come as the result of the conversion of the four means of struggle under a credible umbrella that unites all opposition forces.  In this regard, the Sudan Revolutionary Front is the cornerstone aiming to bring all forces of change together.

·      Ending wars and the government crisis in Sudan and establishing two viable states in the Sudans are inter-related issues.  Lessons drawn from the experience that led to the present crisis and the secession of South Sudan suggests strongly that realizing a permanent peace and preserving the unity of Sudan cannot be achieved unless there is a paradigm shift and a fundamental change from the old Sudan to a new Sudan that is based on democracy, recognition of diversities, and on social justice.    

·      Peaceful settlement will not come in isolation from all internal and external forms of pressure. The National Congress and the political force and a dictatorship respond to force and pressure. They do not respond to niceties. 

·      Earlier on when the SPLM was negotiating with the Sudan government under the auspices of the AUHIP and the facilitations of the Ethiopian Prime Minister and the American Special Envoy, the SPLM-N, despite Khartoum has dishonored the framework agreement of June 2011, the SPLM-N submitted a roadmap to peace that was based on the holistic approach and an interim period that would lead to a national constitutional conference.  As of now and after the formation of the Sudan Revolutionary Front, the SRF did discuss a roadmap for a peaceful settlement and a committee is working it out, and it shall be approved in the next first meeting as well as efforts being made with other opposition forces to arrive at a joint agenda for peace and democracy.

·      The Sudan Revolutionary Front and other political forces and civil societies are working to ensure that change will not lead to anarchy, but it can only lead to democracy and a stable Sudan. We do not want to replace victims with victims or to reproduce the present crisis. 

·      Being an advocate of the unity of the African continent in this stormy world of today, it goes without saying that we still believe in the unity of the Sudans, the unity of two independent states. Who would have thought yesterday that after the Second World War that France and Germany would be strong allies in Europe today?

The Northern Question and the Way Forward for Change.doc 58K   View   Download

South Sudanese Community Leaders in the USA on Panthou/Heglig Crisis

South Sudanese Community Leaders in the USA Demand Obama’s Administration’s Intervention in the Crisis between the Republic of Sudan and Republic of South Sudan

The document is attached in PDF. Distribute it as widely and as effectively as possible.

Steve Paterno

South Sudanese Community Leaders in USA on Panthou Crisis.pdf

South Sudan says Sudan attacked with artillery and tanks, six miles inside South Sudan

BENTIU, South Sudan (AP) – Sudanese armed forces launched an attack more than six miles inside South Sudan‘s border, an official said Sunday, days after the South announced it was pulling its troops from a disputed border town to avoid an all-out war between the two countries.

Soldiers of South-Sudan’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army leave the Rubkona Military Hospital in Rubkona, South Sudan, on Friday.

Ground troops from Sudan launched three waves of attacks, Deputy Director of Military Intelligence for South Sudan Maj. Gen. Mac Paul said.

A soldier’s body and two wounded soldiers were brought to a hospital, the clinical director at the Rubkona Military hospital, Dr. Zecharia Deng Aleer, said. Aleer said the soldiers were brought in from around the Pariang Junction, in South Sudan’s Unity State.

Paul said it was the first major engagement between the two armies since South Sudan announced it would pull out from the contested border town of Heglig.

Paul said the Sudanese forces “have come deeply in the south” and attacked with artillery and tanks. He said the attack was part of a “continuous provocation from the Sudanese Army.” Paul said Sudan also used “militias” in the attack.

Sudan and South Sudan have engaged in several clashes over the past two weeks around Heglig, which is claimed by both countries. Heglig is the site of a major oil facility, which supplies around half of Sudan’s oil.

Sudan and South Sudan have been drawing closer to a full-scale war in recent months over the unresolved issues of sharing oil revenues and a disputed border.

The international community, led by the U.S., has called for the two countries to stop all military actions against each other and restart negotiations to solve their disputes.

South Sudan broke away from Sudan in July of last year after an independence vote, the culmination of a 2005 peace treaty that ended decades of war that killed more than 2 million people. Despite the treaty, violence between the two countries has been on the rise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-04-22/south-sudan-attacked/54473206/1

South Sudan says Sudan attacked with artillery, tanks USA TODAY BENTIU, South Sudan (AP) – Sudanese armed forces launched an attack more than six miles inside South Sudan’s border, an official said Sunday, days after the South announced it was pulling its troops from a disputed border town to avoid an all-out war…

South Sudan seeks Beijing investment Financial Times By Katrina Manson in Nairobi and Andrew England in Johannesburg South Sudan will seek Chinese funds to build an alternative oil pipeline so that it no longer depends on the north to export its oil, a senior official said, ahead of a presidential visit …

South Sudan says Sudan attacked with artillery, tanks The News Journal Soldiers of South–Sudan’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army leave the Rubkona Military Hospital in Rubkona, South Sudan, on Friday. / By Adriane Ohanesian, AFP/Getty Images BENTIU, South Sudan (AP) — Sudanese armed forces launched an attack more than six …

Muslim mob burns Catholic church in Sudan capital Beaver County Times The church in Khartoum’s Al-Jiraif district was built on a disputed plot of land but the Saturday night incident appeared to be part of the fallout from ongoing hostilities between Sudan and South Sudanover control of an oil town on their ill-defined …

Sudan attacks S. Sudan WTNH BENTIU, South Sudan (AP) — South Sudan says it has been attacked by Sudanese Armed forces more than 6 miles inside its border. The attack comes days after South Sudan announced it is pulling its troops from the disputed town of Heglig to avoid an all …

Mob attacks church in Sudanese capital: witnesses The West Australian KHARTOUM (Reuters) – Hundreds of Muslims stormed a Christian church complex used by southerners in Khartoum at the weekend, witnesses said, raising fears that recent clashes between Sudan and South Sudan were stoking ethnic tensions in the city. Obama urges Sudan talks after Heglig ‘withdrawal’ Myjoyonline.com The presidents of Sudan and South Sudan “must have the courage” to return to the negotiating table and resolve their differences peacefully, says US President Barack Obama. He was speaking after South Sudan said it had ordered its troops to withdraw… Mosaic News 4/19/2012: UN Chief Calls for Expanded Monitoring Mission in Syria linktv UN chief calls for an expanded monitoring mission in Syria, Sudan’s al-Bashir vows to “liberate”South Sudan from its ruling party, Tunisians occupy Habib Bourguiba Avenue for a book reading demonstration, and more. Today’s headlines in full: UN chief … Sudan oil infrastructure hit in border fight: monitor Reuters | KHARTOUM (Reuters) – Satellite images show a key part of the oil infrastructure in Sudan’s contested Heglig region was destroyed during recent border fighting with South Sudan, a monitoring group said on Sunday. South Sudan seized Heglig, … Sudan says Juba pleaded with mediators to prevent bombardment of its troops in … Sudan Tribune April 21, 2012 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan’s presidential assistant, Nafie Ali Nafie, has accused South Sudan’s government of deceiving its people by saying that its army withdrew from Heglig. Oil-producing area of Heglig, claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, … Sudan’s army says routed rebel forces around Talodi Sudan Tribune April 21, 2012 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) announced on Saturday that it repulsed fresh attempts by rebels of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army North (SPLM/AN) to capture areas around Talodi town in South Kordofan’s State. Governor of South Sudan Lakes state replaces deputy Sudan Tribune Mayay will announce the rest of his new cabinet next week. Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect. Sudan oil infrastructure hit in border fight Emirates 24/7 Satellite images show a key part of the oil infrastructure in Sudan’s contested Heglig region was destroyed during recent border fighting with South Sudan, a monitoring group said on Sunday.South Sudan seized Heglig, a border region which accounts for … Analysis: The Sudans put China in a policy bind Reuters China’s balancing act between South Sudan and Sudan will take centre stage when the South’s president visits Beijing on Monday, seeking political and economic backing amid escalating tensions with its northern neighbor. President Salva Kiir’s six-day … Talks on South Sudan membership News24 Arusha – The presidents of the East African Community’s five member states will hold a summit on April 28 to discuss including newly-created South Sudan, a spokesperson said on Saturday. Juba’s membership in the EAC – which has a free trade area and a … Muslim mob burns Catholic church in Sudan capital Albany Times Union MOHAMED SAEED, AP People cheer during President Omar al-Bashir’s speech in Khartoum, Sudan, Friday, April 20, 2012. Sudan said Friday its forces drove South Sudanese troops from a contested oil town near the countries’ ill-defined border while the … Sudan criticizes Uganda’s remarks on fighting alongside South Sudan Sudan Tribune Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir warned South Sudan that his goal is now to topple the SPLM-led government in Juba. This was in the wake of Juba’s occupation of Heglig area in South Kordofan last week. On Friday Sudan’s army managed to take it … Egypt Calls for End to Hostilities Between Sudan and South Sudan Bloomberg Egypt called on the governments of Sudan and South Sudan to end hostilities and return to the negotiating table after more than a week of fighting over a disputed oil-rich region in the south of the country, the state- run Middle East News Agency said. Sudan says repulses rebel attack in border state Reuters AlertNet KHARTOUM/BENTIU, South Sudan, April 22 (Reuters) – Sudan said on Sunday it had repulsed a “major” rebel attack on a strategic town in its South Kordofan state, the latest outbreak of violence in its volatile border area with South Sudan.

Can al-Bashir defeat regional forces at an all-out frontline?

By Barbara Among

Sunday, April 22  2012

IN SUMMARY

In the event that war breaks out between the North and South, 10 regional countries are likely to be sucked in, reminiscent of the 1998 DR Congo war that drew in eight countries.

Kampala

This week, the simmering conflict between Sudan and its neighbour South Sudan flared into an almost full-fledged war. The week kick-started with the Juba government in the South announcing that it had taken control of the oil-rich town of Heglig from troops loyal to Khartoum. That same day, Khartoum responded by bombarding Jonglei and Heglig town. In the ensuing fight, the SPLA government shot down two fighter planes belonging to the Khartoum government.

By mid-week, the escalating fighting and rhetoric between the two sides over the past week had led to fears of an all-out war and the international community set in.

The UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, called on the Juba government to withdraw from Heglig. In response, President Salva Kiir reportedly told Ban Ki Moon on Phone, “I am not under your command.”

The US ambassador to UN also called on the two countries to cease hostilities.

By end of week, Gen. Kiir, despite cocking to his parliament that they would not bow to pressures from the UN, ordered his troops to pull out of Heglig. He, however, maintained that the South still believed that Heglig was a part of its territory and that its final status should be determined by international arbitration.

Gen. Bashir, while addressing a rally on Friday in Khartoum, told supporters: “We thank God that he made successful your sons; and the security forces and the police force and the defence forces – he has made them victorious on this Friday.”

Murky relations
On state TV, his defence minister said Sudan’s armed forces had entered Heglig. It will, however, take three more days before SPLA withdraws completely from Heglig.

The relation between the world’s youngest nation and Sudan is hampered over how the two would share oil revenues. While most of the oil come from South Sudan’s territory, the mineral has always been transported through Sudan’s oil pipelines to foreign markets.

While there is no formal declaration of war as yet, Sudan has said it is ready and determined to engage the South Sudan army in full combat over the oil fields.

“Heglig isn’t the end, it is the beginning,” President Bashir was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying on a Thursday visit to South Kordofan state, where Sudan is facing a separatist rebellion by Nuba Mountain militants. “And we shall go all the way to Juba.”

South Sudan has, however ,over the years cultivated relationship with its East African neighbours Ethiopia, Kenya – where it has got strong economic ties – and Uganda, where it has got strong military ties. It is also known to support rebel groups in the north.

Oil agreements
Last month, it signed an agreement with Kenya for the construction of an oil pipeline from South Sudan to Kenya through the port of Lamu. The agreement, like many projected to come with its East African neighbours, was after it passed a Cabinet resolution to shut down the oil operation through the pipeline which passes through the north, port Sudan.

China has continued to strengthen its relationship with the Juba government, who also enjoy a clean breath of pampering from the US government, while Bashir is increasingly isolated.

Hanging around his neck is the ICC arrest warrant for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur region. It is said he is also grappling with high cost of maintaining a bloated government as he lost 75 per cent of oil revenue to South Sudan when it seceded last July.

President Museveni, while addressing the press last year, said Uganda would not watch when the two go to war and this week, army chief Aronda Nyakairima said Uganda will be forced to intervene if the fighting between South Sudan and Sudan escalates into a full-scale war.

“We will not sit by and do nothing. We will be involved having suffered a proxy war by Khartoum. Our people in northern Uganda suffered and intelligence information also indicates that the LRA, who have an estimated 200 guns, are again in contact with Khartoum,” he said.

South Sudan has invited Kenya to intervene in the deteriorating relationship with Sudan to avert war. In a statement to the UN Security Council, SPLA said Kenya, as the custodian of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is expected to ensure tensions between the two Sudans do not break down into a fully-fledged war.

Kenya responded by assuring its full support. But with growing economic interest and oil deals, Kenya’s neutrality is not as straight. Ethiopia is already in Sudan, its peacekeepers guarding the disputed Abyei area. But it is also hosting efforts for possible talks between Juba and Khartoum.

Military issues
The BBC reports that both countries have serious military limitations. Sudan is fighting off rebels in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and was not able to hold on to its prize possession, Heglig. South Sudan does not have the firepower, particularly in the air, of its old enemies.

The lack of oil revenue also means both would struggle to pay for another costly war. Both armed forces, and in particular South Sudan, have command and control problems, which means on a local level military leaders sometimes launch assaults which surprise the top brass in the capital.

An all-out war would create great misery, as wars do. But it is not yet clear if either side has the resources, or the desire, to conduct a war for a sustained period of time outside of a relatively limited front.

bamong@ug.nationmedia.com

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1391118/-/item/1/-/iv5ocaz/-/index.html

Sudan conflict a series of internal divisions complicated by oil riches

By ANDREW M. MWENDA, East Africa News Paper

Saturday, April 21 2012

Last week, the low intensity conflict between the new state of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan escalated into a near full-scale war. On Monday April 10, the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA) took control of the strategic town of Heglig from troops loyal to Khartoum. That same day, Khartoum launched a series of air rides, bombing the towns of Jonglei and Heglig. In the ensuing fight, SPLA shot down two of Khartoum’s MIG 29 jets.

On Wednesday April 11, the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, called the President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit, saying “I am ordering you to pull your troops out of Heglig.” On Thursday morning, Kiir addressed parliament in Juba where he told a cheering crowd that he had told Mr Ban on the phone, “I am not under your command.” The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, called on both parties to cease hostilities. As the week ended, South Sudan was in full military mobilisation.

The war between North and South Sudan is swiftly becoming a complex international issue; Khartoum accuses the SPLA of launching aggression on its territory and supporting rebels in Blue Nile and South Kordofan; that is why it has retaliated by bombing South Sudan’s positions. Technically, Khartoum is right, for the troops fighting it are SPLA soldiers — to be precise, soldiers of the SPLA North, which fought alongside the Southern army between 1983 and 2005. But Juba denies involvement in the war in North Sudan, as the SPLA North soldiers are actually not from South Sudan. It is this part of the jigsaw puzzle that has to be understood if international efforts to end the conflict are to bear fruit.

Khartoum has a reputation for exclusion, marginalisation and oppression of many communities in its territory. The civil war in Sudan that led to the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 pitted many of these marginalised communities against Khartoum. Given its oppressive ways, one could even say that most of Sudan has been marginalised by the Khartoum regime. However, the more distinctly marginalised groups included people in the territory currently known as South Sudan, South Kordofan (where most of the intense fighting has been taking place) and eastern Sudan, especially the areas around the Red Sea Mountains. This region is occupied by different communities close to the Ethiopians and Eritreans. In fact, eastern Sudan is the poorest and most marginalised region of the Republic of Sudan. And finally, there is Darfur, the best known conflict in Sudan.

The territory currently known as the Republic of South Sudan was a separate entity from the rest of modern day Sudan until 1947, when the British colonial government integrated it into Sudan. Although this is the region where the SPLA was born, it was not the only region with grievances against Khartoum. Thus, when SPLA was formed, communities from South Kordofan, Nuba [Southern Kordofan is in the same Nuba mountains] and the Blue Nile region that had grievances against Khartoum joined the SPLA. Even marginalised groups from Darfur who did not form part of the SPLA received inspiration and training from it. Therefore, by the time the CPA was signed in 2005, communities from these regions other than Darfur formed two divisions of the SPLA.

These divisions of the SPLA remained inside North Sudan. When Khartoum failed to meet their demands, they launched a war of liberation too. Khartoum has used this to claim that it is under attack from South Sudan and has won sufficient international support with this claim. Secondly, it has also used it as an excuse to attack South Sudan, now an independent state, thereby triggering off an international war.

Knowledgeable sources say that many of these communities felt betrayed by the SPLA when it signed the CPA, which paved way for the Independence of the South from the rest of Sudan. They had fought alongside the SPLA for more than two decades and felt that the Independence of South Sudan would leave them in a relatively weaker position. However, sources say, the main faction of the SPLA that formed the new South Sudan promised to pressure Khartoum to reach an agreement with its former allies in these marginalised regions. It also promised them support if Khartoum failed to accommodate their concerns. But Khartoum seems to have had little interest in addressing the grievances of these communities. The question is why?

Contrary to what people think, Khartoum had a strong interest in the secession of South Sudan. This seems contradictory because most states prefer to hold onto territory even at extremely high cost. This is especially so for Khartoum because most of the oil (80 per cent) is in South Sudan; so one would expect it to fight tooth and nail to keep the South. Yet there were many more complex factors that seem to have driven the National Congress Party of Omar Al Bashir, the current President of the Republic of Sudan, to want to shed South Sudan. The reality for him was either to lose power altogether or lose the South.

However, this interest was not one way. There were people in the SPLA from South Sudan who wanted to leave the union. But the SPLA was never united on this issue and in a series of internal debates, the movement accepted a compromise that created an opportunity for unity and if that did not work, to go for Independence. Therefore, there was a convergence of different but compatible interests between Khartoum and the South Sudan faction of the SPLA/M for separation.

By the time the CPA was signed, the only marginalised part of the wider Sudan that had developed both the military and political capacity to effectively challenge Khartoum was South Sudan. To put it the other way, the most militarily and politically strong faction of the SPLA/M was the one largely drawn from the South. Khartoum seems to have calculated that if it got rid of South Sudan, it would effectively break the SPLA/M down the middle, separating the strong part from the weaker one.

In Khartoum’s calculus, this would mean that the most effective fighting machine of the SPLA would have little interest in helping the other marginalised regions to fight the NCP regime. The remaining rump of the SPLA/M inside the older Sudan would now be weak and easy to crush. It is this calculation that drove Bashir to sign the CPA, seeing it as an opportunity to rid himself of a major threat, weaken internal resistance and open the way for him to subdue what remained of that resistance.

Meanwhile, within South Sudan, there were differences too on how to deal with their allies from the other regions of Sudan. Some people in the SPLA/M felt that they should not abandon them. But doing this would undermine progress towards Independence and perhaps drag the war on for many more decades. In fact, sources say, former SPLA leader John Garang wanted to keep a unified Sudan. He only signed the CPA, which recommended Independence for the South, because it had a clause clearly stating that both the North and the South should work for unity.

Admirers and enemies in the South and North say Garang was ambitious and wanted to be president of a bigger entity than a small “fiefdom” called South Sudan. However, there were other voices led by Kiir, Garang’s deputy and current president of South Sudan. These felt that unity was an unrealistic ideal and separation a more realistic objective. The clause that both sides should work for unity and separate if that ideal failed to work was the key compromise between the Garang and the Kiir camps of the SPLA/M that made the CPA possible.

Although the NCP under Bashir wanted separation, many people in Khartoum did not support this objective. While the regime extremists wanted a forcibly united country, the common people wanted separation to end the war. Thus, many political forces opposed to Bashir saw in Garang a patriot willing to keep the country united. They wanted an inclusive democratic government, which they hoped Garang would provide as he forged alliances with the West and the East. These opposition forces now became internal surrogates of Garang in Khartoum. Thus when he went to the capital to be sworn in as vice president under the CPA in May 2005, Garang was welcomed as a hero by both the “African” and “Arab” elite and rank and file. One million people turned up in Khartoum to give him a heroes’ welcome, a factor that was not missed by the Bashir regime and some forces inside the SPLA/M who preferred secession.

When Garang died two months later, it was the final nail in the coffin of a united Sudan under Khartoum. The new SPLA/M leader, Salva Kiir, was deeply committed to separation. In an ironic twist, Kiir’s greatest ally was Bashir and his apparatchiks inside the NCP. Kiir wanted secession not only because he did not think unity was a viable option but also because he did not want the South to share its oil wealth with people who had suppressed them for years. Bashir wanted secession because it would help him get rid of his strongest enemy from the union.

But this path did not resolve the problem of the other marginalised groups that formed a weak but significant portion of the SPLA. Southern Kordofan is populated by Nubians, whose freedom fighters are led by Abdel Aziz Al-Hilu. In Blue Nile, the fighters are largely from the Funj tribe, and are led by the former governor of the state, Malik Agar. How were those SPLA divisions drawn from South Kordofan, Nuba and Blue Nile going to be handled? Would it be up to South Sudan to disarm them? Would they become an independent entity with whom Khartoum could negotiate? But before all these issues could be digested, there was an issue to deal with first.

In 2011, there was a general election in the whole of Sudan. SPLA had promised to contest the elections and actually fielded a candidate, but an unknown entity called Yassir Arman. Salva Kiir himself kept out of the election in order, many observers now say, to ensure that Bashir won — because he wanted a separate South and going for the seat in Khartoum would be too risky, given the likelihood that the election would be rigged. Second, even if he won, he was only be in the seat for about seven months. Then he would have to go home to his village after secession since there would be a different president in the South. Many people say that if Garang were still alive he would have contested the election. If he did, it was very likely that he would have won as he would have attracted the votes of all the marginalised communities and the votes of many Khartoum Arabs who preferred a united Sudan.

Indeed, this was evident in the fact that the SPLA candidate Arman turned out to be a strong contender in the election for president. Realising that he was likely to win, the SPLA pulled him out of the race three weeks to the election. Yet in spite of this, Arman got 21 per cent of the vote. One can only speculate how much Garang would have got had he been alive and decided to run in that election.

This also means that had Kiir run, he would most likely have beaten Bashir hands down. However, critics of Kiir say he lacked the high ambition and self-confidence to aspire to rule the whole of Sudan. They accuse him of securing a deal with Bashir that allowed both of them to capture their own fiefdoms.

However, supporters of Kiir say he was much more foresighted and realistic than Garang. They argue that sections of the North that hated Bashir wanted to keep the South not because they love unity but because of its oil. They had been unable to unseat Bashir and saw in Garang an instrument they could use to get rid of their rival. According to this view, the army, police and all security agencies of the old Sudan are controlled by the Northern “Arabs” as are the bureaucracy, judiciary, diplomatic service, education, and healthcare. Had a Southerner been elected president, he would have been unable to change the entire system overnight. So he would become a hostage of these deeply entrenched interests, who would be strong enough to sabotage his plans or even kill him.

Kiir’s supporters further argue that in his big vision of a united Sudan and his ambition to lead it, Garang was blind to this fundamental reality that would have made him an ineffective president unable to serve the interests of the South. The best way to serve the people of the South was Independence, as this would give them an independent nation with oil revenues to sort out many of the issues dear to their people. It is this argument that tilted the dice in favour of Kiir and his supporters. But how would the South handle those in its ranks who came from the other marginalised regions? SPLA promised to urge Khartoum to negotiate with them.

Although South Sudan has asked Khartoum to find accommodation with these SPLA fighters, Khartoum has consistently dodged the issue. Thus, when these rumps of the SPLA decided to renew the civil war against the regime in Khartoum, the reason why Bashir was dodging negotiations with them became apparent. Rather than accept responsibility for the war or see it as an internal rebellion against the policies of his government, he accused Juba of launching an aggressive war against his government — a perfect excuse.

The situation in Sudan is exactly like the one that Uganda faced in October 1990 when remnants of the Ugandan army crossed the border and attacked Rwanda. Then, former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana argued that the Ugandan army had invaded his country. Technically he was right. But in fact, the soldiers were Rwandan refugees who had been living in Uganda and had joined the Uganda army. They had decamped from it without permission to launch their own war against his regime. But Habyarimana was able to use this “evidence” to convince the world that his country was under attack from Ugandan troops.

Using highly skilful media propaganda, Khartoum has been able to effectively convince the international community that it is South Sudan that has invaded Northern Sudan. It is in this context that Mr Ban called President Kiir to demand that South Sudan troops withdraw from Northern territory. This is the more intriguing given that up till now, Khartoum has resisted all attempts to clearly demarcate the border between the two countries, making it difficult to establish whether the positions that the SPLA troops under the command of Juba have entered are in the North’s territory or not.

But most critically, Khartoum has been able to hide the fact that it is not South Sudan but its own people who have taken up arms against it. But how will pressure on South Sudan by the international community solve the internal problem of the demands by groups in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Nuba regions for equitable treatment and inclusion? Thus, as things stand, the conflict between Juba and Khartoum is only a sideshow, a smoke screen to hide the more fundamental issue of the demands of other marginalised regions inside the old Sudan.

http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Sudan+conflict+divisions+complicated+by+oil+riches/-/2558/1390916/-/veux0j/-/index.html

South Sudan’s oil facility ‘bombed by Sudan’

South Sudan’s oil facility ‘bombed by Sudan’

Both Sudan and the South are reliant on their oil revenues, which account for 98% of South Sudan’s budget. But the two countries cannot agree how to divide the oil wealth of the former united state. Some 75% of the oil lies in the South but all the pipelines run north. It is feared that disputes over oil could lead the two neighbours to return to war.

South Sudan has accused Sudan of bombing one of its oil facilities, despite recent moves to defuse the conflict between the two countries.

A number of blasts have been heard in South Sudan, with a military official telling the BBC that the Unity oil field was targeted.

The government in Khartoum has so far made no public comments on the claim.

On Friday, South Sudan said it was withdrawing its troops from the disputed Heglig oil field.

Sudan claimed it had regained the area by force.

Heglig is internationally accepted to be part of Sudanese territory – although the precise border is yet to be demarcated.

Other issues dividing the two countries are the transit fees the South should pay Sudan to use its oil pipelines and the status of the province of Abyei.

The escalating fighting and rhetoric between the two sides over the past week has led to fears of all-out war.

US President Barack Obama has urged the presidents in Khartoum and Juba to “have the courage” to return to the negotiating table and resolve their differences peacefully.

South Sudan seceded last July following a 2005 peace deal that ended a two-decade civil war in which more than 1.5 million people died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17802909