Archive for April 24, 2012

Analysis: Old wounds, ethnic rivalries stoke Sudan war fever

Posted: April 24, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan
Tags:

By Ulf Laessing and Alexander Dziadosz | Reuters 

JUBA/KHARTOUM (Reuters) – When petrol started running low inSouth Sudan’s capital this month, Peter Bashir Gbandi sensed a sinister force at work.

Rather than blaming a severe shortage of dollars, which the newly-independent country needs to buy imported fuel, the lawmaker pointed to arch rival Sudan – likely in league with Horn of Africa immigrants running filling stations, he said.

A few days later, a member of Sudan’s parliament railed against the hundreds of thousands of ethnic southerners living in Khartoum, many of whom do not hold passports and have never been to the South, demanding the “fifth column” be expelled.

Breaking old habits is always hard, and in the case of Sudan andSouth Sudan – whose leaders fought one of Africa’s longest and deadliest civil wars until 2005, before the countries split from each other last July – it is proving nearly impossible.

The longtime foes have clashed repeatedly in their contested oil-producing borderlands, and deep-rooted animosities mean they will probably keep at it until one of them collapses.

The two edged dangerously close to resuming full-blown war this month when South Sudan seized the Heglig oil region from Sudanbefore withdrawing on Friday in the face of international pressure and, Khartoum says, a military drubbing.

The South’s withdrawal from Heglig eased the immediate crisis, but the aftermath of the incursion makes it less likely the two will be able to transcend the grim logic of their decades-long conflict and resolve disputed issues any time soon.

On both sides of the border, the fighting over Heglig has stoked old ethnic suspicions, excited jingoistic zeal and hardened leaders into the conviction that peace is impossible as long as their old rivals remain in power.

Gbandi’s diatribe about the ethnicity of owners of petrol filling stations shows just how deep the distrust runs.

“Most of the fuel stations here are run by people whose allegiance is doubtful, so they can be used as agents of the Arabs,” he said, shouting for several minutes on live radio. “It is time for clear decisions so that the economy is in the hands of the sons of South Sudan.”

Rulers in the two countries face pressure from powerful domestic politicians who advocate confrontation and deplore compromise with their opponent, analysts say.

These hardliners are gaining the upper hand on both sides of the border, where deteriorating economies mean leaders are more dependent than ever on the perception they are tough on their foes to shore up domestic legitimacy.

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir said on Tuesday Sudan had “declared war” with aerial bombardments in its oil-producing Unity State this week.

Sudan denied any raids, but its President Omar al-Bashir ramped up the political tension by ruling out negotiations, saying the South only understood “the language of the gun”.

Before the countries broke apart, many had hoped mutual dependence on the oil industry that underpinned both economies would deter such conflict – the landlocked South took most of the crude output but needs pipes across Sudan to export it.

But disputes over transit payments, the border, and other issues have halted almost all of the combined production, meaning that incentive to cooperate has all but vanished.

“Both parties are working towards a change of regime in each other’s country,” Nhial Bol, editor of Juba’s independent daily “The Citizen”, said, adding he doubted the two would be able to work out their differences at the negotiating table.

OLD HATREDS FESTER

Bashir has repeatedly called the South’s ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) “insects,” a play on their Arabic name, in recent weeks.

It is an unsettling word in central Africa, where Rwandan Hutu extremists called their Tutsi enemies “cockroaches” before trying to exterminate them in the genocide of 1994.

State television has grown increasingly fond of the label as it broadcasts montages of whooping soldiers, corpses of South Sudan’s SPLA fighters and a downcast-looking South Sudanese President Salva Kiir announcing the withdrawal from Heglig.

When Sudan’s armed forces declared Heglig “liberated”, thousands of people poured into Khartoum’s streets, some demanding Kiir’s downfall and an end to talks. One chant calling for military forces to enter Juba was especially popular.

All of this is an ill omen for opponents of Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and proponents of reconciliation with the South. Some mutter darkly of authorities exploiting war fever to crackdown on dissent.

“Wisdom disappears during war,” said Farouk Abu Issa, head of the National Consensus Forces, an umbrella group of Sudan’s main opposition parties.

He said South Sudan’s ruling SPLM party had made a mistake by attacking Heglig, playing into the hands of Bashir’s NCP. Authorities had further “narrowed the margin of liberties and human rights” in Sudan since the Heglig crisis, leveraging popular support for military action to label the ruling party’s critics spies or traitors, he said.

“It is detrimental to our cause of getting rid of the ugly regime of the NCP, and restoring democracy and the rule of law.”

For hardliners Heglig has been pure vindication.

Eltayeb Mustafa, a relative of Bashir whose party’s Al Intibaha newspaper is Sudan’s most widely read, framed the South’s seizure of Heglig as evidence a group of SPLM leaders were bent on overthrowing Khartoum and “colonizing” north Sudan.

“The only solution for the problem between the north and the south is to remove the SPLM,” he said during an interview in his modest Khartoum offices.

Sudanese politicians who want to compromise with the SPLM – a group he brands the “Naivasha boys” after the Kenyan location where northern and southern officials negotiated the 2005 peace deal – are losing ground, Mustafa said.

“They are keeping silent. We are bombarding them every day.”

Western powers are also likely to watch for signs of a return to the radical Islamism that colored Khartoum’s politics in the 1990s when it hosted militants, including Osama bin Laden. A U.S. trade embargo imposed in 1997 remains in place.

“SURPRISED AND DISAPPOINTED”

Passions have also run high in Juba, the South’s ramshackle boomtown capital, where some call northerners “Jellaba,” a reference to Arab slave traders who once prowled the South.

In an emotional speech to parliament near the outset of the crisis, Kiir fired up southerners by telling them to get ready for war and admonishing U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon for asking the SPLA to leave Heglig.

Hundreds of people, framing the border fight as a chapter in their decades-long struggle against Sudan’s Arab-dominated government, joined street celebrations after the speech, some even demanding the SPLA seize Abyei, another disputed area.

The oilfield grab was a sign to many the South could score a victory against Sudan’s much larger army and dominant air force.

“We are not afraid of Sudan’s army … We managed to win independence and we will win Heglig and Abyei,” Alfred Lado Gore, the environment minister, told a rally of about 1,000, mostly young people, who burned a Sudanese flag and chanted “down with Bashir” and “down with Ban Ki-moon” for hours.

Even independent newspapers and the parliament’s small opposition praised the army for teaching Khartoum a lesson after what the South calls frequent air strikes inside its territory.

Many were disappointed when Kiir ordered the withdrawal.

“This is a major decision, and I am telling you everybody I spoke to is not only surprised but disappointed about the withdrawal,” radio journalist Mading Ngor said, hosting a heated live debate just hours after the pullout was announced.

Bol, the newspaper editor, said Kiir pulled out troops in response to rising international pressure, but that he might order them back to show Bashir his teeth.

“I don’t think the SPLA will withdraw completely from Heglig. They will keep parts … and then come back again.”

ECONOMIC PRESSURE

One reason Kiir needs to play hardball with Khartoum, analysts say, is to galvanize public support – especially among the South’s bloated army, which some officials estimate has as many as 200,000 soldiers.

Confrontation might also help Kiir deflect public anger over a rapidly worsening economic crisis resulting from the January shutdown of the country’s roughly 350,000 barrel-a-day oil output, part of a row with Khartoum over oil payments.

Food prices are soaring while fuel, cement and some medications have become harder to get as importers struggle to get their hands on dollars.

“Supplies from the central bank have dwindled to a trickle,” one executive at a privately-owned bank in Juba said. “We now get 10 to 15 percent of what we used to get in dollar allocations … People have to turn to the black market.”

As a result, the South Sudanese pound is expected to lose even more ground. A dollar now buys up to 4.2 pounds on the black market, compared to 3.5 before the shutdown.

With practically no industry outside the now-defunct oil sector, South Sudan needs to import everything from basic food items to fuel trucked in on bumpy roads from Kenya and Uganda.

Building up the war-battered country, plagued by violent cattle raiding and widespread poverty, was never going to be easy, but corruption and cronyism have also hindered development.

Juba is bustling with Toyota Land Cruisers – every senior official is entitled to two – and officials in designer suits and Rolex watches dine in expensive restaurants on the White Nile, while Juba still has no power plant or water utility.

“The government is not delivering anything,” a Western diplomat in Juba said. “But there will be support for Kiir if he stays tough with Bashir in the face of a perceived military confrontation.”

Things are not much better in the north, where the Sudanese pound hit a historic low against the dollar in the wake of the Heglig occupation, forcing some importers to temporarily pause business because they could not get enough foreign currency.

With no oil deal in sight, and Heglig’s central processing facility, which both countries use to separate water and impurities from crude, apparently badly damaged – analysts say the two economies will struggle to recover.

The central processing facility is a vital piece of infrastructure which separates water and impurities from crude before it is pumped into the pipeline.

But in the north, the border fight may at least be a short term blessing for the government, as many citizens turn their thoughts away from food or fuel prices and toward stability after a perceived threat from hostile outside forces.

“I think now the people are not concerned with the living conditions … They are concerned with the national issue of Heglig,” Mustafa of the Al Intibaha newspaper said.

“The economic situation in the north is not good, yes, but the situation in the south is worse.”

LANGUAGE OF THE GUN

The best chance for averting further war and economic catastrophe has so far been through African Union-brokered talks, but a resumption of those seems unlikely now as both sides seem to bet increasingly the other will soon fall.

In addition to oil, the countries are at loggerheads over a long list of disputes including the exact position of the 1,800-km border, the status of citizens in one another’s territories and the division of national debt.

Speaking in Heglig on Monday, Bashir vowed Sudan would not return to talks because the South’s rulers “don’t understand anything but the language of the gun”.

Other Sudanese officials are less absolute in their pessimism, but still see little immediate prospect of a deal.

Sudan’s State Oil Minister Ishaq Adam Gamaa told Reuters on Sunday the chance of the sides reaching a settlement soon was now “very remote,” and said Khartoum would probably demand compensation for damage to Heglig before returning to talks.

Some diplomats hope China, the biggest buyer of southern oil and a longtime friend of Khartoum, will try broker a deal. Kiir is due to pay a state visit to China this week.

But even China, eager to avoid taking sides, may be hesitant to see itself as the key mediator, analysts say.

For now that leaves little chance border fighting and attacks on strategic targets will die down soon, although neither side can really afford to launch a full-scale invasion of the other’s territory.

As Magdi El Gizouli, a fellow at the Rift Valley Institute think tank, wrote last week: “Khartoum and Juba have only adrenaline to compensate for their loss of oil.”

(Writing by Ulf Laessing and Alexander Dziadosz; Editing by Peter Graff)

http://news.yahoo.com/old-wounds-ethnic-rivalries-stoke-sudan-war-fever-073207941.html


General Bashir’s Racism and Promotion of Religious Hatred
are Behind the Burning Down of the Church in the Heart of Khartoum
In the last two weeks, General Bashir and his colleagues have used inflammatory language of racism and religious hatred against his own citizens and the citizens of the Republic of South Sudan, describing Southern Sudanese as insects.  Later on, he tried to limit it to the Government of South Sudan, but he was much earlier exposed when he dehumanized and robbed half a million Southern Sudanese citizens from their rights.  It is evidently clear that it is Southern Sudanese that he is targeting.  Moreover, he used an old phrase of an Arabic poem against one of the black Egyptian rulers, which said that “you should not buy a slave without a stick.”  This is not an insult to Southern Sudanese only, but it is in the first place an insult to Northern Sudanese in whose name Bashir is ruling.  Moreover, it is an insult to humanity and a violation of all human rights and international charters.  Likewise, it is an insult to the entire African continent and to black women and men worldwide, which includes all Northern Sudanese. 
General Bashir is misreading and misjudging the recent international appeals to him and his government and he believes he is in a honeymoon with the international community.  This is a recipe for disaster because it will encourage him to intensify war and human rights violations within the Republic of Sudan and to scale up the aggression against the Republic of South Sudan.  He has already taken more than 500,000 civilians, displaced persons, in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile hostage, denying them from their very basic rights to humanitarian assistance, and moreover, he is bombarding them with his air force.  He is encouraged that the situation of the hostages has been overshadowed with other crises.  The policy of appeasement to Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, is the same policy of appeasement in a different context and environment that long ago created Adolf Hitler.
As a result of Bashir’s language of religious hatred and with direct encouragement and protection from the security and police in Khartoum, who are spoon feeding the fundamentalist groups; a religious group associated with the National Congress, burned down Algreaf Church, an evangelical church, in the heart of Khartoum.  They looted the church and burned it down to ashes.  This does not represent Islam and in particular the Sudanese Islam, which is a Sufi tolerant Islam.  It only represents Bashir, his group and his ideology.  This is an extension of what he is doing in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile.  The only difference is that it moved to Khartoum under his own eyes and protection.  We call upon the Sudanese Muslims to stand against the policies of the National Congress and Bashir, who are destroying the very Sudanese social fabric, and we should defend the right of Sudanese Christians as equal citizens of our great country.
It is worth mentioning that the Sudanese security forces launched the biggest campaign detaining more than 30 of the SPLM-N leaders and members in the 15 different states of the North.  Those are members of the SPLM-N who are not carrying arms and are working peacefully for what they believe in the areas controlled by Bashir.  Among them are Izdhar Jmmua, a lawyer, and Alawya Kepada in addition to more than 200 who are missing, detained and are sentenced to death. Among them are the poet, Moniem Rahma, and Dr. Bushra Gamar and many others. 
We, the Sudanese people, and all those who believe in the values of equal citizenship, human rights and religious and ethnic co-existence and those friends who are ready must stand against a racist delusional person who happens to be the president of a state and who is wanted by the International Criminal Court and is committing genocide and crimes against humanity that the world will live to regret.  And in particular, the massive starvation policy that is putting more than 500,000 people on the brink of death must not be forgotten and humanitarian aid to them should be the number one priority.  This is the SPLM-N’s message on my visit right now to the United States and we will leave no a stone unturned to deliver our message.  The SPLM-N is ready to meet all requirements for the delivery of humanitarian aid including the cessation of hostilities on humanitarian grounds. 
Yasir Arman
Secretary General
Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement North
April 24, 2012

24/04/2012

By Mustafa Sirri

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Majak D’Agoot, South Sudan’s deputy defense minister, has asserted that his country will never cede his home town of Hajlij. In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, the South Sudan’s deputy defense minister said that his country would insist on having the town in the negotiations with the Sudanese Government because it historically belongs to the south and was annexed to the north during the rule of former President Jaafar Numayri in 1978 following the discovery of oil in it. He added that his forces’ withdrawal from it was in response to appeals from the international community and his country’s friends, in particular the United States.

D’Agoot admitted that the South Sudan people and Popular Army expressed their anger at the state’s decision to withdraw the forces from Hajlij considering the step the aborting of seven victories they had achieved against the Sudanese forces inside and outside the town but he said his government achieved military and diplomatic victories.

Following is the text of the interview:

[Asharq Al-Awsat] How did you reach the decision to withdraw your forces from Hajlij and was it a complete withdrawal?

[D’Agoot] We reached the decision to withdraw the Popular Army after a full assessment of the military and security situation. Our forces carried out the missions they were given competently and they remained in the Banthou (Hajlil) area for more than 10 days. South Sudan’s National Security Council recommended on the night of 19 April the withdrawal of the Popular Army forces from the area after a full assessment of the situation. Our decision was also in response to the international appeals from the UN, its Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and the heads of several countries, in particular our friends. They are convinced of our right to the Hajlij territory or Banthou historically. We will not cede it. It was annexed to the north during the rule of former Sudanese President Jaafar Numayri in 1978 following the discovery of oil in it. The decision was implemented in three stages, the last of which was on Saturday.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Were there clashes between you and the Sudanese forces during the withdrawal?

[D’Agoot] There were no direct clashes but the Sudanese Air Force continued its bombardment of our forces during the withdrawal. They also bombarded positions in Al-Wihdah Province. This bombardment continued until the early hours of Saturday morning. But we completed the withdrawal in an organized way.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Why was the decision to seize Hajlij taken?

[D’Agoot] Because of the Sudanese Air Force’s constant bombardment of Al-Wihdah Province and the land forces’ advance inside South Sudan’s borders. All this was carried out from a military base in Hajlij. We entered the area for the first time at the end of March and expelled the forces of the National Congress [the ruling party in Khartoum] and then withdrew after mediators and friends asked us to do this. The armed forces then carried out another attack after its [Khartoum’s] delegation evaded signing in (the Ethiopian capital) Addis Ababa an agreement to stop hostilities. Our response was to pursue the Sudanese army inside Hajlij and seize total control of it after inflicting a heavy defeat on these forces.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Khartoum said its forces defeated your army in Hajlij?

[D’Agoot] This is absolutely not true. The last battle we fought was on the evening of 19 April and Khartoum’s army was defeated. We fought all in all seven battles and won them all. The Sudanese army which did not win a single battle with us was chased. They are deceiving their people with these lies. Correspondents of satellite channels, among them “Al-Jazeera”, saw our forces’ retreat and reached with them Al-Wihdah Province. There was no battle.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] How did your people and army soldiers receive the withdrawal decision?

[D’Agoot] There were soldiers who expressed their discontent because they have achieved brilliant victories and they believe the withdrawal decision aborted their victories. But they will understand that the decision was right. The South people are also angry with the decision because they were demanding to punish (Sudanese President) Al-Bashir’s forces for their insults to our people and their political leadership. The incitement by Khartoum also increased our people’s anger, especially the expulsion of southern students from the Police College in Khartoum. But these are the assessments of the political leadership elected by the people and it represents them when taking such decisions.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] How do you explain the Sudanese forces’ seizure of a vehicle belonging to you carrying your soldiers?

[D’Agoot] This vehicle whose story was aired by satellite channels belongs to the services regiment and was carrying food supplies to the soldiers. It lost its way from our position. It was carrying 12 soldiers and two officers and they entered the enemy’s positions by mistake and a clash ensued with them. Three of our soldiers were killed, one officer was captured, and the rest, seven, returned. This is the only vehicle in which they achieved a victory.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What are the lessons learned from this?

[D’Agoot] Firstly, we achieved two victories: Militarily, we proved that the Sudanese army is a paper tiger and cannot stand against our forces in any future battles if there is war between us. The resources we had built during the past seven years showed real strength in our forces on which we will build for the future, particularly as our forces engaged in small clashes with the Sudanese forces during the transitional period, like what happened somewhere in Upper Nile and Abyei. These showed us the weak and strong points. Now after South Sudan had become a fully sovereign state, we were able to develop the forces and this was clearly demonstrated in the battles we fought with the Sudanese army in Al-Wihdah Province and Hajlij. We used part of our military capability in the various military branches.

On the other hand, we were able to turn the table against Khartoum politically. We were coming under diplomatic pressures at first, especially from our friends and the UN, but we succeeded in containing this and managed the diplomatic and political battle in a better way. You might be seeing now how the world dealt with our correct decision with a new spirit and you are going to see a new stand in the international community that will certainly be in our favor. This is the coup we have carried out. We have therefore achieved military, political, and diplomatic victories and the international community will see that Khartoum is against peace and prefers war.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] But Khartoum is saying it defeated you and forced you to withdraw?

[D’Agoot] As I said, Khartoum is deceiving. This is the imagination of the National Congress. The Sudanese army has become weak in the region.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] But the Sudanese army is superior to you with its air force. How can you defeat it?

[D’Agoot] Possession is one thing and competence is something else. It is true we do not have warplanes and that is not something difficult. We will possess an effective air force. But look at the Sudanese army. Its Air Force does not have capabilities and competence while we have developed our air defenses and brought down Sudanese Air Force aircraft in these battles.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What is your response to Al-Bashir’s promise to bring down the government in Juba?

[D’Agoot] Al-Bashir was in a state of hysteria while dancing and his words are pitiful because he is lying to his people. Let me be clear with you. If Al-Bashir decides to fight a battle with us then that will be the biggest mistake for him and his army. We are not worried by his attack on our country. I think such a decision will spell the end for his regime and Sudan will collapse completely because the economic blockade on it will increase, its forces will be defeated, and its people will not follow it again in any war.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Al-Bashir said your oil will not pass through his country’s territory even if you shared its revenues equally?

[D’Agoot] Al-Bashir and his state are the losers. He is talking as if our country does not have neighbors other than his country. You know that South Sudan has turned toward East Africa where it has better infrastructures than Sudan. His talk suggests isolation and lack of vision. The south will not be harmed by Khartoum’s decisions about oil even though we were eager to export it through the north, not out of love for the National Congress but because of the historic relations with the Sudanese people. We know that our relations with this people would become stronger if this government changed.

Sudan will lose a lot because of Al-Bashir government’s policies. We are the biggest market for the northern country which exports to us more than 100 commodities. Add to this the oil that reaches Port Sudan and the revenue it provides. All this now goes to Uganda and Kenya and the expertise is coming from there, even in education.

We are very interested in the relations with the country to the north because it is a thermometer of relations with the Middle East and North Africa. We do not want to sacrifice all this because we can go have contact with Sudan without the need for interpreters. But if this is Khartoum’s decision, then it is its affair.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] There are international pressures to return to the negotiating table. Are you ready for this?

[D’Agoot] We are not only ready but also committed to the negotiations. We believe that the most important urgent issue which we want to resolve is the demarcation of the borders and the return of the areas controlled by Sudan in Abyei, Banthou (Hajlij) and others in Kafya Kanji, Hafrat al-Nahhas, Al-Muqaynis, commercial Kaka, and Jawdah. As to the oil issue, I do not believe it is a major one because it all depends on Khartoum. We will reach agreement if it wants to benefit from our country’s oil. But there are many countries from the United States to China and Europe which want to benefit from South Sudan’s oil.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What are the scenarios if negotiations failed?

[D’Agoot] If we do not agree, we will then go to the International Arbitration Commission to which the two parties resorted in the Abyei case. The worst scenario is the border war if all these efforts failed and we do not want this.

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=29376


South Sudan: Rival continues aerial bombardment, attacks amount to war declaration

A policeman walks past the smouldering remains of a market in Rubkona, South Sudan, April 23, 2012. (AP Photo)

(AP) NAIROBI, Kenya – Sudan continued with its aerial bombardment of South Sudan on Tuesday, dropping eight bombs overnight, an official said, as South Sudan’s president said the attacks amounted to a declaration of war by Sudan.

South Sudan’s military spokesman Col. Philip Aguer said that Sudanese Antonovs dropped eight bombs overnight between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. in Panakuac, where he said ground fighting had been ongoing since Sunday. Aguer said he has not received information on whether there were casualties from the attack because of poor communications.

On Monday, Sudanese warplanes bombed a market and an oil field in South Sudan, killing at least two people after Sudanese ground forces had reportedly crossed into South Sudan with tanks and artillery.

South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir on Tuesday during a visit to Beijing told China’s president that attacks by rival Sudan amount to a declaration of war on his country.

There has yet to be a formal declaration of war by either of the Sudans, and Kiir’s remark, made during talks with President Hu Jintao, signals a ratcheting up of rhetoric between the rival nations which have been teetering on the brink of war.

Kiir arrived in China late Monday for a five-day visit lobbying for economic and diplomatic support. He told Hu the visit comes at a “a very critical moment for the Republic of South Sudan because our neighbor in Khartoum has declared war on the Republic of South Sudan.”

South Sudan broke away from its neighbor and became independent last year. The two countries have been unable to resolve disputes over sharing oil revenue and determining a border. Talks broke down this month after attacks started between the two countries with South Sudan invading the oil-rich border town of Heglig, which Sudan claims it controls.

Following international pressure, South Sudan announced that it has withdrawn all its troops from Heglig but Sudan claimed its troops forced them out.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has vowed to press ahead with his military campaign until all southern troops or affiliated forces are chased out of the north.

In a fiery speech to a rally Friday, after he declared the liberation of Heglig, al-Bashir said there will be no negotiations with the “poisonous insects” the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. At the time he also said, he would never allow South Sudanese oil to pass through Sudan “even if they give us half the proceeds.”

Landlocked South Sudan stopped pumping oil through Sudan in January, accusing the government in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, of stealing hundred millions of dollars of oil revenue. Sudan responded by bombing the South’s oil fields.

Earlier this month, South Sudan government spokesman Barnaba Marial Benjamin said Chinese and American investors want to build oil refineries in the South in the next six to seven months.

Benjamin said the refineries will help South Sudan process fuel for local consumption. South Sudan will also build a pipeline to the Kenyan coast and another to Djibouti to be able to export its oil, he said. He said both projects were meant to make South Sudan independent of Sudan’s fuel infrastructure and processing plants.

Kiir on Tuesday told Hu that he came to China because of the “great relationship” South Sudan has with China, calling it one of his country’s “economic and strategic partners.”

China’s energy needs make it deeply vested in the future of the two Sudans, and Beijing is uniquely positioned to exert influence in the conflict given its deep trade ties to the resource-rich south and decades-long diplomatic ties with Sudan’s government in the north.

Both have tried to win Beijing’s favor, but China has been careful to cultivate ties with each nation. Like others in the international community, China has repeatedly urged the two sides to return to negotiations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57419745/south-sudan-rival-continues-aerial-bombardment-attacks-amount-to-war-declaration/

NPR: The Two Sudans Appear On The Verge Of War

by COREY FLINTOFF

Sudan and South Sudan are careering closer to a full-scale war, with fighting along their ill-defined border and belligerent rhetoric coming from both sides.

The conflict threatens to cripple the fragile economies in both nations, and it could create new burdens on neighboring countries in east and central Africa, a region prone to humanitarian disaster.

In the latest developments, South Sudanese officials say that Sudan’s air force bombed its territory for a second straight day on Tuesday.

South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, speaking while on a visit to China, said the attacks amounted to a declaration of war.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has rejected any return to peace talks with South Sudan, saying the country’s leaders only understood “the language of the gun.”

The White House condemned the fighting. “Sudan must immediately halt the aerial and artillery bombardment in South Sudan,” President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One. “Both governments must agree to an immediate, unconditional cessation of hostilities and recommit to negotiations.”

The South Sudanese seized the area earlier this month amid an ongoing dispute over how much the land-locked south should pay Sudan to ship its oil by pipeline to the Red Sea.

The oil is critical to both impoverished states, and the fighting imperils the industry and could put it out of commission for an extended period.

An Incomplete Agareement

The escalating tensions comes less than a year after South Sudan formally gained independence last July as part of an earlier agreement that was supposed to end decades of fighting between northern and southern Sudan. That 2005 agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Accord, has never been fully implemented.

“A lot of the issues were neglected and left unresolved,” says Jennifer Cooke, who heads the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Those critical issues include the exact demarcation of the border, the sharing of oil revenues and the status of two areas, the Blue Nile and South Kordofan, which sided with South Sudan during the many years of fighting, but remain as part of Sudan.

Oil revenues account for some 98 percent of income for the south, and a sizable chunk of Sudan’s revenues as well. The escalating dispute has halted the flow of oil since early this year.

Sudan controls the only pipeline that can carry South Sudanese oil to market, but the two sides couldn’t agree on the price that South Sudan should pay for that transport. As a result, South Sudan cut off its oil production.

“Both sides are doing things that defy rationality,” Cooke says. “The two countries need each other, but right now it’s like two people with their hands locked around each others’ throats.”

Positioned For Attacks

John Prendergast, co-founder of the human rights group, the Enough Project, cites recent satellite photos showing that Sudan has stationed warplanes at a base within striking distance of the south.

“Massive air and ground firepower has been concentrated in strategic border points that could only indicate an offensive intention.,” Prendergast says.

Satellite imagery also shows heavy damage to the Heglig oil facility, he adds, enough to stop any production for now.

Both countries stand to suffer.

Prendergast says the treasuries of both countries are nearly depleted, their currencies are losing value, and food and fuel are likely to be in short supply.

Burdens For Neighboring States

More fighting could precipitate a humanitarian crisis, says John Mukum Mbaku, of the Brookings Institution’s Africa Growth Initiative.

“If this conflict goes on,” he says, “there will be a lot of people killed.”

Mbaku says the fighting is likely to displace refugees to neighboring countries that are ill-equipped to help them. It will also make it difficult and dangerous for aid organizations to provide help for internally displaced people.

A full-scale war between the Sudans would pose serious problems for the region, says Witney Schneidman, a former State Department expert on Africa who now runs an Africa-focused business consulting firm.

“Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia are already engaged in a hot conflict,” Schneidman says, “and this would just expand what some people fear – an emergence of an arc of crisis” from Sudan to the Horn of Africa.

“This is an environment where food insecurity is great, where al-Qaida has a presence, and where the gains in economic development could be quite fragile,” he says.

It’s time for “intensifying crisis diplomacy,” says Prendergast. “The two countries with the most influence in the region are China and the United States.”

China’s Involvement

China has invested heavily in Sudan’s oil industry, but without cooperation between the Sudans, that oil cannot flow.

China is a long-time ally of Sudan’s Bashir and has been working to develop ties with South Sudan’s leaders as well.

China’s president, Hu Jintao, signaled the importance of South Sudan by welcoming President Kiir to Beijing at the start of his five-day visit.

China’s state-run media said Hu urged both Sudans to calm down and exercise restraint.

The United Nations is demanding the same. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Sudan’s bombing raids along the border, saying there could be “no military solution.”

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/24/151278626/the-two-sudans-appear-on-the-verge-of-war

Official: Sudan planes drop 8 bombs on South Sudan
Boston.com
South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir reviews an honor guard with Chinese President Hu Jintao, unseen, during a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Tuesday, April 24, 2012. (AP Photo/Alexander F. Yuan) By Tom Odula
South Sudan needs long-term support to build on fragile gains
The Guardian
Next time someone tells you aid doesn’t work, offer them a trip to the Lora health centre in South Sudan’s Central Equatoria province, where I stood a couple of weeks ago watching the life ebb out of Frezer Wano, a five-year-old boy who had arrived in 
Sudan and South Sudan must step back from war
Reuters AlertNet
Caritas Internationalis fears that a full scale war is imminent between Sudan and South Sudan with dire humanitarian consequences for both unless there is pull back from further military action. South Sudan became independent from Sudan last July 
Sudan jets bomb South Sudan town
Sky News Australia
Sudan jets bomb South Sudan town Updated: 12:49, Tuesday April 24, 2012 Sudanese MiG jets have bombed a major town in South Sudan, increasing the prospects of all-out war. The bombs fell with a whistling sound from two MiG 29 jets and exploded, 
South Sudan Seeks Oil-Sector Help From China
Wall Street Journal
By WAYNE MA BEIJING—China has signaled an interest in a long-term role in South Sudan’s oil sector, and has offered to help build an export pipeline and provide technical help once the crisis with neighboring Sudan eases, a South Sudaneseofficial 
South Sudan: Days Ahead ‘Crucial’ to Avoid War With Sudan
Voice of America
April 24, 2012 South Sudan: Days Ahead ‘Crucial’ to Avoid War With Sudan Gabe Joselow | Nairobi, Kenya South Sudan says it will retaliate against Sudan for what it considers acts of war from its northern neighbor. Sudanese warplanes have continued 

South Sudan president says Sudan has ‘declared war’ after Sudanese jets drop 
Daily Journal
TOM ODULA AP NAIROBI, Kenya — South Sudan’s president said its northern neighbor has “declared war” on the world’s newest nation, just hours after Sudanese jets dropped eight bombs onto South Sudan on Tuesday. President Salva Kiir’s comments, 

South Sudan’s leader says Sudan has declared war
Denver Post
By ALEXA OLESEN AP South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir reviews an honor guard with Chinese President Hu Jintao, unseen, during a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Tuesday, April 24, 2012. BEIJING—The president of 

White House condemns Sudan air strikes in South Sudan
MSN Money
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) – The White House called on Sudan on Tuesday to stop its bombing raids of newly independent South Sudan and said the neighboring countries needed to return to the negotiating table to avoid escalation.

China’s President welcomes South Sudan President
Christian Science Monitor
The Kony 2012 campaign has made Joseph Kony infamous. But for the Ugandan troops hunting him in the jungles of central Africa, finding him remains a mammoth task. What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change.

President of South Sudan says rival Sudan has declared war on his country
Washington Post
BEIJING — President of South Sudan says rival Sudan has declared war on his country. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Dear all,

On April 20, 2012, South Sudan’s Minister for General Education and Instructions, Ustaz Joseph Ukel, officially released the results of the South Sudan Certificate ofSecondary Education (SSCSE) Examination, 2011. Attached is my analysis of those results; hope you enjoy the data.

Thanks,
PaanLuel Wel.

Analysis of South Sudan Certificate of Secondary Education examination Results, 2011.pdf Analysis of South Sudan Certificate of Secondary Education examination Results, 2011.pdf
795K   View   Download  

Analysis of South Sudan Certificate of Secondary Education examination Results, 2011.pdf


South Sudan president seeks help from China

By ALEXA OLESEN 

BEIJING

The president of South Sudan is in China seeking support for an oil pipeline to lessen his country’s dependence on Sudan as a bomb attack by its rival threatened to trigger an all-out war.

Sudan and South Sudan, which broke away from its neighbor and became independent last year, have been unable to resolve disputes over the sharing of oil revenues and a border. Talks mediated by the African Union broke down in Ethiopia this month and the Sudanese military bombed an area near a major town in South Sudan on Monday, killing at least two people.

China’s energy needs make it deeply vested in the future of the two Sudans, and China is uniquely positioned to exert influence in the conflict given its deep trade ties to the resource-rich south and decades-long diplomatic ties with Sudan’s government in the north.

Both have tried to win Beijing’s favor, but China has been careful to cultivate ties with each nation.

President Salva Kiir is making his first visit to China since taking office. He opens a new embassy and meets Chinese President Hu Jintao on Tuesday, and sees Vice Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Monday that Beijing hoped to play a constructive role in resolving the crisis and called for the quick resumption of negotiations. He urged the nations to remain calm, exercise restraint and respect each others sovereignty.

Zach Vertin, the senior analyst on South Sudan for the International Crisis Group, said Beijing’s principal objective has been good relations with both sides but the balance has proven delicate.

“Because the visit comes amid dangerous hostilities, Beijing will try to navigate a course that both satisfies its own interests and steers the parties toward peace,” he said.

Vertin said China invited Kiir last year with the broad aim of cultivating political and economic ties with the new nation.

“Economic cooperation is first and foremost about oil, but also about a potential role for Chinese banks and commercial actors in financing and facilitating the closure South Sudan’s colossal infrastructure gap,” Vertin said in an email.

The Financial Times on Sunday quoted South Sudan’s lead negotiator Pagan Amum as saying Kiir would be seeking Chinese financing for a long-planned oil pipeline that would bypass Sudan. The report said Beijing has already pledged technical assistance for the project.

Jiang Hengkun, a professor with the Institute of African Studies at Zhejiang Normal University, said China would contribute heavily to the project, from labor to loans.

“China will surely participate in the construction,” Jiang said. “Chinese construction companies or oil companies can join the bidding for the project, while the Chinese government may provide development aids or loans to South Sudan government.”

Jiang said the project was likely to take three to four years, or longer.

During his five-day stay, Kiir may also seek to mend differences over the expulsion in February of a senior Chinese oil executive alleged to have helped Sudan divert the South’s oil.

Jiang said kicking Liu Yingcai out of South Sudan may have been meant to prod Beijing into exerting more pressure on Sudan to stop the oil diversions but that it was unlikely to impact China-South Sudan relations in the long run.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UB0MQO0.htm

South Sudan’s leader says Sudan has declared war

BEIJING –  The president of newly independent South Sudan, in Beijing lobbying for economic and diplomatic support, told China’s president on Tuesday that attacks by rival Sudan amount to a declaration of war on his country.

There has yet to be a formal declaration of war by either of the Sudans, and Salva Kiir’s remark, made during talks with President Hu Jintao, signals a ratcheting up of rhetoric between the rival nations which have been teetering on the brink of war.

Kiir arrived in China late Monday for a five-day visit. He told Hu the visit comes at a “a very critical moment for the Republic of South Sudan because our neighbor in Khartoum has declared war on the Republic of South Sudan.”

South Sudan broke away from its neighbor and became independent last year. The two countries have been unable to resolve disputes over sharing oil revenue and determining a border. Talks broke down this month.

On Monday, Sudanese warplanes bombed a market and an oil field in South Sudan, killing at least two people after Sudanese ground forces had reportedly crossed into South Sudan with tanks and artillery.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has vowed to press ahead with his military campaign until all southern troops or affiliated forces are chased out of the north.

Kiir told Hu that he came to China because of the “great relationship” South Sudan has with China, calling it one of his country’s “economic and strategic partners.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/23/south-sudan-president-seeks-support-in-china/#ixzz1sxDb5Pa3

South Sudan leader: Sudan’s actions amount to war
USA TODAY
BEIJING (AP) – The president of newly independent South Sudan, in Beijing lobbying for economic and diplomatic support, told China’s president on Tuesday that attacks by rival Sudan amount to a declaration of war on his country.
President of South Sudan says rival Sudan has declared war on his country
New Jersey Herald
 the early morning darkness, went back into hiding Monday and likely fled to another state to avoid threats as he awaits his second-degree murder trial for the… BEIJING (AP) – President of South Sudan says rival Sudan has declared war on his country.
Sudan declared war on our country – South Sudan president
RT
The president of South Sudan says recent attacks by rival Sudan amount to a declaration of war on his country. Khartoum and Juba, which became independent last year, remain embroiled in a conflict over sharing oil profits and establishing frontiers.
35000 newly displaced near Sudan-South Sudan border
Reuters AlertNet
The recent fighting near the border between Sudan and South Sudan has displaced some 35000 people in areas around Heglig, Talodi and other parts of South Kordofan, according to our partners there. UNHCR does not have access to the areas in question, 
Ban Ki-moon condemns Sudanese air raid on South Sudan
BBC News
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Sudan’s bombardment of a border area in South Sudan. Mr Ban called on “the government of Sudan to cease all hostilities immediately”, saying there could be no no military solution” to the two countries’ 
South Sudan says towns bombed as troops withdraw
Sydney Morning Herald
Don’t play Play now More video Recommended North Korea ‘special action’ threat (Video Thumbnail)Click to play video North Korea ‘special action’ threat Jets bombSouth Sudan (Video Thumbnail)Click to play video Jets bomb South Sudan Sarkozy defiant as 
Official: Sudan bombs 3 areas in South Sudan
STLtoday.com
In this Sunday, April 22, 2012 photo, fire billows up from an oil field that caught on fire in Heglig, Sudan. An official says Sudanese jets bombed three areas in South Sudan’s Unity State, including a major oil field. South Sudan military spokesman 
Jets bomb South Sudan
Brisbane Times
RAW VISION: Sudanese fighter jets bomb the twin South Sudanese towns of Bentiu and Rubkona, killing at least one person. 24/04/12 Up next… Shelling in Hama follows UN observers Sorry. An error occured when submitting the form.
South Sudan president seeks help from China
BusinessWeek
By ALEXA OLESEN The president of South Sudan is in China seeking support for an oil pipeline to lessen his country’s dependence on Sudan as a bomb attack by its rival threatened to trigger an all-out war. Sudan and South Sudan, which broke away from 

Sudanese Warplanes Said to Attack South
New York Times
South Sudanese soldier looked at warplanes overhead as he took cover during an airstrike near the regional capital of Bentiu on Monday. Sudan attacked South Sudan with warplanes and ground troops, South Sudan said on Monday, only days after Sudan 

South Sudan president seeks support in China
Fox News
BEIJING – The president of newly independent South Sudan is lobbying China for investment in his country’s oil industry and diplomatic support in an escalating conflict with Sudan that’s threatening to become an all-out war. Sudan and South Sudan

South Sudanese run for cover as Sudan bombs border area
msnbc.com (blog)
A soldier in South Sudan’s SPLA army looks up at warplanes as he lies on the ground to take cover beside a road during an air strike by the Sudanese air force in Rubkona, near Bentiu, South Sudan, on April 23, 2012. A woman runs along a road during an 

UN deplores aerial bombardments in South Sudan
China Daily
UNITED NATIONS – The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) on Monday deplored the continued aerial bombardments in Bentiu town in South Sudan’s Unity state, and called on the world’s youngest country and its neighbor, Sudan, to take all measures to ensure 

UNAMID Alarmed By Raids
AllAfrica.com
The heightened rebel activity has been triggered by the break out of violence between Sudan andSouth Sudan. Though it was indicated that the fighting between the two Sudans has eased over the weekend after Juba withdrew from the contested oil-rich 

Scandalous international hypocrisy on Sudan

Posted: April 24, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Featured Articles
Tags:

By Eric Reeves
The stench of hypocrisy and expediency is in the air wherever one turns in assessing international responses to recent events in Sudan. The deeply imbalanced reactions to the seizure of Heglig by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) give us our starkest picture to date of how selective and tendentious the world is prepared to be in creating a narrative for the present multiple crises that threaten war in Sudan and South Sudan. And in their attempts to achieve a factitious “even-handedness,” various actors—including the UN, the U.S., the AU, and the EU—have encouraged Khartoum to believe that it has somehow gained the diplomatic, even moral upper hand. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous response to have encouraged, and the currently ongoing offensive military actions against South Sudan by the regime’s Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) stand as stark confirmation.
Notably, international reaction has worked to encourage the most vehemently bellicose language on the part of Field Marshal and President Omar al-Bashir, who has very recently declared that (northern) Sudan is now essentially at war with South Sudan, and that Khartoum’s military ambition is to destroy the “insect” government in Juba. We have heard such language of racial contempt many times from al-Bashir’s regime; in this instance it is difficult not to recall the infamously ubiquitous calls in Rwanda in 1994 for the destruction of Tutsi “cockroaches.”
Certainly during the widespread ethnic slaughter in Kadugli (South Kordofan), beginning in June 2011, we repeatedly heard reports of similar racial contempt. “Yusef,” a Nuba from Kadugli, told Agence France-Presse and The Independent (UK) that he had been informed by a member of the notorious Popular Defense Forces (PDF) that they had been provided with plenty of weapons and ammunition, and a standing order: “He said that they had clear instructions: ’just sweep away the rubbish. If you see a Nuba, just clean it up.’ He told me he saw two trucks of people with their hands tied and blindfolded, driving out to where diggers were making holes for graves on the edge of town.”
This racial contempt and hatred, combined with a jihadist rhetoric, has already proved a potent brew in Khartoum, where on Saturday (April 21) various news agencies have reported the destruction of the Presbyterian Evangelical Church. Following an incendiary sermon by a nearby Muslim cleric during Friday evening prayers, hundreds of Muslims attacked and destroyed the church. Reuters offers the most authoritative account:
“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. The attackers ransacked buildings, knocked down walls and burned Bibles on Saturday, Youssef Matar, secretary general of the Presbyterian Evangelical Church told Reuters.”
“The attack on the church came a day after South Sudan’s army pulled out of the key Heglig oilfield, an area it seized from Sudan in the worst violence between the two countries since secession. Sudan quickly declared victory over its former civil war foe, prompting widespread celebrations in Khartoum. A Muslim preacher known for fiery sermons took advantage of the excited climate to call for ’jihad’ against Christians during Friday evening prayers, prompting hundreds to attack the church complex the next day, Matar said.”
The attack represents a terrible precedent in Khartoum, especially given the ineffectual presence of security forces:
“’No one could believe it. Nothing like this has ever happened before,’ Matar said. While Sudan is known for long and bitter conflicts fuelled by religious and ethnic animosity, communal violence in the capital is relatively rare. But communities also live separately for the most part and distrust between them often runs deep. Ethiopians, Eritreans and Indians, as well as Christians from Sudan and South Sudan, use the church, Matar said. A Reuters witness on Sunday saw smoke rising from some of the trees on the church compound, and security vehicles waiting nearby.”
(Reuters [Khartoum], April 22, 2012) (emphasis added)
We should expect to hear very little about this terrible incident from the unctuous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon or other feckless international actors, certainly no condemnation commensurate with this state-sanctioned attack on a place of worship. What we may sure of, given the details of this dispatch, is that this assault was tacitly sanctioned by the regime’s security forces, who in turn have no difficulty discerning what they are to do in restraining, or allowing, racially and religiously motivated attacks on Southerners.
In fact, the ethnic culling of Southerners has been looming for many months, and on April 8 became regime policy, stripping as many as 700,000 “Southerners” of their nationality solely on the basis of ethnicity. No internationally recognized standards for de-nationalizing citizens have been observed or even promulgated. And yet again, there has been no urgent or appropriately forceful international condemnation of this ruthless policy of de-nationalizing those judged ethnically “Southern.”
Sadly, our best guide to the world’s responses to Khartoum’s current multiple violations of international human rights and humanitarian law can be discerned in previous perfunctory responses to cross-border aerial assaults on South Sudan, going back to November 2010. These attacks include multiple, deliberate bombings of civilian targets, including the refugee camp at Yida (Unity State) on November 10, 2011. International response has been equally indecisive in the face of Khartoum’s campaign of ethnic annihilation by means of starvation in northern border states, a campaign that has been underway in the Nuba Mountains for over ten months and in Blue Nile for almost eight months. Khartoum’s campaign is a ghastly reprise of the genocidal assault on the Nuba in the 1990s, a fact that seems to inform almost none of the present desultory discussions about the future of these people, even as heavy and isolating seasonal rains are impending.
Of a piece with the this perverse diffidence is the refusal to credit fully the massive evidence of atrocity crimes committed by Khartoum’s regular and militia forces in Kadugli, including definitive evidence of mass graves that may hold many thousands of Nuba—evidence that includes both substantial satellite photography and eyewitness accounts gathered by a wide range of sources, including the UN human rights team present in Kadugli in June 2011. Skepticism on this matter by the Obama administration, and special envoy Princeton Lyman in particular, has been a shameful episode in U.S. Sudan policy, which has been conspicuously misguided from the beginning of Obama’s presidency.
There is a grimly revealing and familiar history leading to current international failures, one that may be readily traced. Certainly at key moments in the build-up to Khartoum’s military seizure of Abyei (May 20-21, 2011) the international community refused to condemn the clearly impending assault—or to respond subsequently with anything approaching the misguided fervor that has defined international reactions to SPLA actions following SAF military assaults originating in Heglig. There has been, for example, no meaningful demand that Khartoum demilitarize Heglig, or allow deployment of a UN buffer force, as requested by Juba as the basic condition for its military withdrawal. Instead, there has been merely rhetorical posturing; and again the Obama administration—and President Obama himself—have seemed especially culpable, particularly in light of earlier deeply misguided administration efforts to compel Juba to “compromise” further on the nearby Abyei region (fall 2010).
At the time, such efforts—by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, special envoy Scott Gration, and part-time envoy and prevaricator Senator John Kerry—attempted to foist on Juba more “compromises” than were already embodied in the Abyei Protocol of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA, 2005) and the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on Abyei’s boundaries (July 2009). Nor, we should recall, did the U.S. object meaningfully when the findings of the Abyei Boundaries Commission were peremptorily rejected by Khartoum (July 2005), or when Khartoum’s regular and militia forces mounted a brutal assault on Abyei town and its surroundings (May 2008). Failures of U.S. policy in Sudan have been thoroughly bipartisan, despite the critical U.S. role in securing the CPA.
Given the tense history of the region, SAF military seizure of Abyei represented an extraordinary provocation, as did the consequent forced displacement of more than 100,000 Dinka Ngok into South Sudan. Juba did not respond militarily, and yet watched in deepest anger. For the international community was in effect sanctioning the permanent displacement of these indigenous people; certainly in the significantly reduced area defined as “Abyei” by the PCA, the Dinka Ngok were unquestionably the only “residents” and thus the only ones guaranteed (by the CPA) the right to vote in the self-determination referendum scheduled for January 9, 2011.
Encouraged by misguided U.S. policy expediency on Abyei, Khartoum all too predictably refused to allow the Abyei self-determination referendum to take place. Unsurprising, given its previous diplomatic posture, the Obama administration largely ignored this abrogation of the Abyei Protocol, evidently in the interests of preserving at all costs the self-determination referendum in the South. Southerners, for their part, may be forgiven for believing that the U.S. justified such acquiescence before Khartoum’s unilateral decision on the basis of Juba’s “refusal to compromise” yet further on Abyei in fall 2010.
With its unerring nose for hypocrisy, Khartoum watched this history of Abyei unfold over a period of six years and calculated—all too accurately—that there would be minimal consequences for a final abrogation of the Abyei Protocol. And after its military seizure of Abyei, the regime also calculated that it could sign an agreement on June 20, 2011—committing it to withdraw its forces from Abyei with deployment of an Ethiopian peacekeeping brigade under UN auspices—and then simply renege on the agreement, also without consequences. Yet again, this cynical calculation proved all too accurate.
If we turn from these obtuse and expedient responses to Khartoum’s annexation of Abyei—and annexation is precisely what the international community has countenanced, despite various pro forma objections—and examine in this context the international response to the SPLA’s retaliatory and defensive occupation of Heglig—from which it has now withdrawn—it is impossible not to be struck by the radical asymmetry.
Implications
Certainly the leadership in Juba has taken stock of what has transpired over the past ten days, and is even now re-calibrating what it can and cannot count on from the international community. The Southern leadership has seen its extraordinary military forbearance over the past eighteen months essentially dismissed, even as Khartoum continues to test that forbearance by means of ever more provocative actions (multiple sources report SAF attacks across a range of territory in Unity State today). These re-calibrations by Juba will be tough-minded, fully prepared to encounter future international hypocrisy, and even more determined to protect the territorial integrity of South Sudan. Certainly the international community will no longer have the influence it had even a month ago.
Khartoum of course is also recalibrating its military policies, and the largest conclusion the regime has drawn is that it may continue its longstanding military policy of aerial attacks on civilian and humanitarian targets in the sovereign territory of South Sudan without meaningful consequences, and that it can continue is campaigns of annihilation in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The regime has been persuaded, on the basis of ample evidence, that even South Sudan’s putative friends regard “sovereignty” as one thing for Khartoum and quite another for Juba.
It is hard to see a greater encouragement to war.
Eric Reeves is a professor at Smith College and author of A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide. Website: www.sudanreeves.org

http://www.sudanreeves.org/2012/04/23/scandalous-international-hypocrisy-on-sudan/

What is in the Name of Bor?

Posted: April 24, 2012 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary, Featured Articles
Tags: ,

By Apioth Mayom Apioth

What is in the name? In the history of humanity, many people have always pondered and paused for a moment to ask themselves that question. Apparently, there are some of us who think Twic East and Dukens are using the name of Bor to get political recognition. It has been known across the many communities of Dinka and even to Equatorians that Bor South, Twic East, and the two Duks, are all called Bor.

Even though, we have been called Bor by the majority of people in South Sudan, people from Twic East & the two Duks have always some few distinct differences that set them apart from their Bor South counterparts. Once the South Sudanese went to the bush to fight the war of liberation, those distinct differences  became deeply ingrained in the minds of Twic East, Dukens, and Bor South communities, a politicized discourse that is continuing up to this day. Those few insignificant differences were exploited and carefully carved out from their small role and brought up to become the contemporary voracious machine that is continuing to break apart the wholeness of both communities.

How come that our ancestors didn’t fight over the name of Bor? Well, there was something called turuk or economic empowerment that many people aspired to achieve. Now, many people in both communities are highly educated and while some hold PhDs and Master’s degrees from Ivy League universities, they are still lacking the wisdom that is highly craved by the conflicted communities. It is true that education can volley someone to new unprecedented heights of prestige in the societal standing, but that is about it. Using books only without proper societal conditioning can lead you nowhere and that is because there are some educational theories and acquired knowledge that can become obsolete or are non-practical in our materialistic world.

As knowledge become easily accessible to mass of people around the world, it has become apparent to some degree that something that is considered unique as the name of Bor can be used as for a profit organization by the people such as Gok and Athoc who consider themselves as the flag bearers of Bor. When NGOs, IMF, WTO, and many other well-recognized bodies of international organizations come to Jonglei state and ask to invest in the Agricultural markets, provide humanitarian assistance or educational assistance, the name Bor can easily pop up and from there, resources can start pouring to the Gok and Athoc sections of Bor from all the corners of the world.

And so, that is why, the name Bor has become like a mad bull that is stirring up problems wherever it turns its horns to. Members of both communities seemed to have shared a great history of economic development equally until recently when the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) allocated 12 national ambassadorial positions to be divided among the three counties of Bor South, Twic East and Duk. Instead of giving equal share of positions to their respective counties, members of Bor South in Bortown took the lion’s share of positions by giving themselves eight positions, leaving 4 positions to be shared between the Twic East and Duk counties.

Both Twic East and Dukens should have been given 6 ambassadorial positions to begin with, if we are  to be honest with each other on business terms. Since the Twic East and Dukens positions went into the gluttonous stomaches of our cousins in Bortown, we will just leave it as that and  try to see how we can approach this terrible treatment we have just experienced in our beloved communities. The discourse that is visible between the Twic East and Bor South is recognizable even here in the U.S. and across the seas in Australia.

Whenever members of both communities attend fundraising events, community gatherings or Sunday worships, some of us secretly refuse to acknowledge to be included under the unison umbrella of Bor. Yes, some members from Twic East refuse to be called Bor and some members from many Bor South refuse to acknowledge their brethren from Twic East as members of Bor. So, the name of Bor continues to baffle us in that, it can easily be manipulated and used as an organizational weapon by those who claim as the real owners of the name.

The name Twic East didn’t just sprung up from nowhere, it was always there, it was just that some individuals failed to see it. Not too long ago, if someone from Bor South wanted visit his or her relative in Twic East, he or she would say, ” I am going to visit my relative in Tuic.” See? Ta-da! It is not a recent phenomena that was created out of thin air.

If Twic East and the two Duks communities continue to refuse the name of Bor and Bor South members continue to be exclusive, why are we then wasting our precious times beating around the bush and not create two different communities with two different names?

Apioth Mayom Apioth is a concerned South Sudanese citizen from Jonglei state, currently living in Tacoma, WA, USA.