Opinions

Salva-Bashir summit: The last round

Saturday, 22 September 2012
Written by Luka Biong Deng
Print PDF

ADDIS ABABA - According to the African Union roadmap and the UN Security Council resolution, direct negotiations on all pending issues between South Sudan and Sudan have to be concluded on Saturday, September 22.

This new deadline came after the negotiations were extended by 50 days when President Bashir failed to turn up for the summit scheduled on July 30 in Addis Ababa. It is unlikely that the deadline will be extended again as that will tarnish the credibility of the AU and the UN.

If the two countries reach solutions on the pending issues, the panel will summit this agreement to the African Union Peace and Security Council for endorsement. It will then be forwarded to the UN Security Council for enforcement.

If, however, the parties fail to agree, the panel will submit to the AU Council the agreed solutions, and proposed solutions for issues not agreed upon, for endorsement. They will be final and binding. These will be forwarded to the UN Council for enforcement under Chapter VII of it Charter.

It is expected that the AU Council, currently chaired by Egypt, will convene immediately after the deadline of September 22. It will receive a report and proposed solutions from the panel.

Also the UN Council may convene a Sudan Forum meeting on September 27 in New York to receive a progress report from the panel while waiting for the final report, including the AU Council’s endorsed resolutions for all the pending issues.

The parties are still negotiating with the hope of preparing a comprehensive agreement for the two presidents to sign at the summit scheduled for Sunday, September 23.

While the two presidents have accepted to attend the summit, you cannot be sure about the participation of President Bashir as a call for his arrest by human rights activists is haunting him wherever he goes.

Although the new leadership of Ethiopia will provide President Bashir with all necessary protection, business will not be as usual after the death of Prime Minister Meles. There could be some voices in Ethiopia questioning his visit.

While the spirit of the negotiating teams in Addis seems genuine in resolving all pending issues before the summit, the parties are trying to maximise their gains in the remaining days.

This last minute behaviour, particularly from Sudan, produces rather erratic positions that create an environment of despair and apathy. The negotiating team of Sudan seems not only divided but also weak, uncertain, irrational and unreasonable.

On the other hand, the negotiating team of South Sudan has shown that it is serious and determined to reach an agreement with Sudan. The fear is that the Juba team may concede to a level that will make it difficult to sell the agreement to the people of South Sudan.

Generally, the parties seem to make progress, with some sticking points on oil and other payments, border, security arrangements and Abyei.

On oil, Sudan reneged smartly by arguing that the agreed transit fee of $1 per barrel is only for the oil entitlements of the Government of South Sudan but not for the oil companies.

It has managed to set $4 per barrel as transit fee for the oil entitlements of the oil companies. This high transit fee, if accepted by the oil companies, may be indirectly borne by the Government of South Sudan.

Also, despite the fact that the South has forgiven Sudan’s arrears and claims, Khartoum refused to give back two out of the five oil shipments belonging to the South which Sudan diverted.

While the South, in the spirit of good relations, accepted to avail to Sudan $3 billion in assistance, Sudan through its oil company filed a legal case against the South, claiming compensation of $1.2 billion for the loss of its shares in the oil fields in the South.

These are artificial differences created by Sudan. However, they are not insurmountable and the summit could easily resolve them.

On the border, the parties are likely to resort to international arbitration on the five disputed areas after receiving the opinion of the AU border team experts.

However, there is a sharp difference on the claimed areas, including Panthou (Hegilig). While Sudan refuses to consider these claimed areas for international arbitration, the South is adamant to take them for arbitration.

Another sticking point is whether the parties will continue exploration and development activities of the natural resources in the disputed and claimed areas.

The South sees it appropriate to halt these activities until the ruling of the international arbitration court, while Sudan insists the activities should continue.

Probably the panel may assist the summit to reach an agreement on all the issues related to the border.

On the border security arrangements, Sudan continues to reject the map provided by the AU and UN for the establishment of the Safe Demilitarized Border Zone.

In particular, Sudan singled out the 14 miles area and proposes the forces of the South to withdraw beyond 14 miles. It suggests a joint Dinka Malual-Rizeygat traditional administration of this area.

The South, on the other hand, maintains its unconditional acceptance of the map provided by the AU and UN. It rejects the proposal of Sudan on the 14 miles and proposes the demilitarization of all the disputed and claimed areas if Sudan continues to reject the AU/UN map.

It is most likely that the panel may propose an amicable solution to the summit to overcome the differences on border security arrangements.

On the final status of Abyei, the panel maintains its position to present to the two presidents its proposal on the final status of Abyei, conform the provisions of the June 2011 agreement.

Prior to the summit, the panel shared with the two presidents its analysis of the Abyei area, upon which its proposal will be based. This analysis seems to clarify the issue of eligibility to vote in a referendum, the expected outcome of the Abyei referendum and the challenges for turning this outcome into a win-win situation.

It is worth noting that while the June 2011 agreement mandates the panel to make a proposal on the final status of Abyei to be considered by the two presidents, the AU roadmap mandates the panel to propose a final and binding solution if the parties fail to agree.

The panel will most probably propose a referendum with only the Ngok Dinka and other residents as eligible voters but not the nomads. It may also propose this referendum to be conducted within one year by a commission chaired by somebody appointed by either the AU or the UN.

Since the outcome of the referendum is known, another possibility is that the panel proposes the immediate transfer of Abyei to the South with specific proposals for mitigating the consequences of this transfer.

President Bashir will most likely reject a direct transfer and will opt for a referendum. President Salva Kiir may go for immediate transfer and commit himself to make more efforts to mitigate the consequences for the Misseriya pastoralists and the Khartoum government.

The final status of Abyei may be the only issue the two presidents will not agree upon. This will force the panel to make a final and binding proposal to the AU Council and the UN Security Council.

In conclusion, the remaining issues are solvable if there is a political will. The two presidents are coming to the summit after they have experienced the economic, political and social cost of bad relations between the two countries. It would be suicidal for them not to reach amicable solutions for the pending issues.

President Bashir will face enormous challenges if he continues to be intransigent. Even Islamic movements worldwide have come to see Bashir as a liability to Islam. His recent visit to Egypt might have sent him signals as he failed to receive due attention and courtesy, even from some well-known Islamic leaders and scholars.

In Sudan, the Islamists in NCP also see Bashir as a liability and they may work for change from within. That may result in a miserable end for Bashir.

The poor handling of the demonstrations in Khartoum against the US and other western countries over the unjustified film about Prophet Mohamed sent a clear signal to Sudan’s friends in western countries of the need to support the option of regime change.

President Bashir stands a chance during this summit to cleanse his image by boldly agreeing with his Brother Salva Kiir on all pending issues, including Abyei and SPLM-North.

That might give him a window of opportunity to exit peacefully from power, with a legacy of a peaceful and stable Sudan that has good relations with its twin country, South Sudan.

The author is the former minister of the Presidency in GOSS

 

The fate of Sudan, South Sudan relations after Meles’ demise

Thursday, 06 September 2012
Written by Luka Biong Deng
Print PDF

The late Ethiopian leader Meles Zenawi

As the people of Ethiopia, the continent and the world at large will pay their last respect to Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi on Sunday, the implications of his death will start to unfold.

There is no doubt that his death will have serious consequences for the future relations between South Sudan and Sudan.

Meles was one of the few African leaders who had a deep understanding of the tumultuous relationship between South Sudan and Sudan which ended in a bitter divorce.

As a symbol of a new breed of African leaders, Meles came to appreciate the struggle of the people of the South for justice, dignity and freedom.

Both Meles and his Eritrean counterpart, who spent some time in Sudan during their liberation struggle, witnessed the situation of the people of the South in the united Sudan.

Both described the status of the refugees from Ethiopian and Eritrea in Sudan at the time as better than that of Southerners in their own country.

In 1991, after the fall of Mengistu, who was a close ally of the SPLM, the new leadership of Ethiopia decided to build good relations with the SPLM rather than confronting it.

Although people may differ in assessing the legacy of Meles, the people of the South will always remember him as a leader who distinctively contributed to the birth of their nation; a leader who stood by them during the difficult times of their struggle.

It is therefore no surprise that the Government in Juba for the first time in its short history declared three days of national mourning and lowered its flag in recognition of the role Meles played in their liberation struggle.

Meles reminded many Southerners of their late leader. Dr. John Garang, as they both shared the rare trait of visionary leadership in Africa.

In some of his meetings with President Salva Kiir that I was privileged to attend, I was amazed by his intelligence, knowledge, analytical ability, meticulous focus and far-sightedness.

In one meeting, I was impressed by his articulation of how to combat poverty in Ethiopia.

His strategy was to focus on rural infrastructure as the basis of economic growth and job creation, and on low-cost housing schemes.

I had the chance of meeting him personally and I was surprised by his level of knowledge about the details of the CPA, particularly the problem of Abyei.

He said Abyei may not need a referendum as it was clear that the Ngok Dinka would vote to join the South.

He also proposed a low-cost housing scheme for Abyei to compensate them for the repetitive loss of their assets.

I was also struck by his articulation of the Ethiopian system of ethnic federalism as the basis for unity, good governance, and equitable and sustainable development.  

In Khartoum, the death of Prime Minister Meles was received slightly differently.

Relations between Sudan and Ethiopia started deteriorating after the assassination attempt in Addis Ababa of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

However, when President Omar al-Bashir became isolated regionally and internationally over atrocities committed in Darfur, Meles maintained personal relations with him.

In fact, he was the only friend Bashir had left in the region and the continent; and the only leader in Africa who tried to see positive aspects of his tainted regime.

Meles took a high political risk by associating himself with Bashir, who has come to be seen as a liability to his own people, the region and the continent.

In recent years, Meles started to recognize that his investment in good relations with Bashir was not yielding fruits, particularly after his invasion of Abyei and the resumption of war in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.

Also, recent calls in Ethiopia for the establishment of an Islamic state, allegedly supported by Sudan, might have angered and worried the Addis government.

Meles during his last days might have regretted the way Bashir let him down in his pursuit of peace in Sudan.      

Going forward, Sudan and South Sudan will definitely remain key strategic neighbours to Ethiopia.

The way the new leadership in Addis will continue to play the special role played by Meles in keeping good relations with both countries will depend on the future strategic interests of Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa may, however, revisit its relations with Sudan in light of the increasing voices for political Islam in the country.

Confirming the current deputy Prime Minister as the new leader will be a litmus test to the commitment of the ruling party, EPRDF, to its policy of unity in diversity.

One expects that the EPDRF will convince the largest ethnic groups to confirm him, despite the fact that he comes from a small ethnic group, and to appoint competent people from these ethnic groups as his deputies.

This would not only set a good example of a smooth succession in Africa but also set a precedence of a civilian to become the commander-in-chief of a liberation army.


Reflecting on one year independence

Monday, 09 July 2012
Written by Luka Biong Deng
Print PDF

On July 9 the people of South Sudan all over the world will celebrate the first anniversary of the independence of their country. It will be a moment of reflection for us as individuals, communities and a nation on the real meaning of independence.

When the flag of the new nation was raised and that of Sudan was lowered, every South Sudanese shed tears of happiness or took a deep breath of relief after the long journey of struggle that caused enormous suffering.

The feeling every citizen had on the eve of independence was: I am at last free; I can make my own decisions and take care of myself.

The way the people of the south conducted the referendum and celebrated their independence was a source of great pride and reassured the international community that they were receiving a responsible new state.

Being independent is a paradigm shift from a state of dependence, when you rely on others to take care of you. Sometimes being independent may prove challenging. In life some children would prefer to stay with their parents rather than having their own lives.

Most African elders would say that the era of colonial administration was better than post-independent Africa. Independence by itself does not ensure success.

For the new nation to have meaningful independence, it must build a new state that fulfills the aspirations of its citizens and produce an inclusive political, social and economic order guaranteed by the rule of law.

After one year, one would say that the new state is on the right track towards fulfilling the aspirations of its citizens. Watching our children in Juba walking to school, you see that they are not only healthy and well dressed but there is happiness and joy on their faces.

These scenes cannot only be seen in Juba. I was amazed by the positive changes in rural areas I observed during my recent journey by road to Kajo Keji, Yei and Lainya countries, mainly as a result of projects funded through the Constituency Development Fund.

It took decades for some independent states to reach the level of success the south has reached in one year.

No sensible South Sudanese can regret our decision of having our own independence. You can easily see the progress made in most capital cities of our ten states and even in most counties.

If we were to reflect back, one would say that most of us made progress in improving our living conditions. Our continuous struggle as individuals to secure food, clean water, education, shelter and quality of life for the members of our families will not only make us truly independent but it will be the basis upon which we can build an effective nation.         

Besides our individual successes, our national army, the SPLA, was a source of pride as they showed that they are able to defend the territorial integrity of our new nation.

The humiliating defeat of the Sudan Armed Forces by the SPLA in Panthou showed the superb military capability of the SPLA and awakened a sense of nationalism.

Equally, one would also commend the leadership provided by President Salva Kiir in defending the sovereignty of our new nation, particularly in light of the efforts of the regime in Khartoum to undermine our independence.

In fact the decision of the south to stop oil production, which was seen as suicidal, has reaffirmed the real sense of independence and shown the remarkable stamina and determination of the people of the south to survive without oil.

If our great leader Dr. John Garang and our martyrs were to rise from their graves, they would certainly congratulate the President and the people of the south for their achievements within a short period of time.           

As a nation, we should be proud of ourselves but also recognise our shortcomings.

The south unsurprisingly faces enormous challenges in building an effective and successful state. The recent report by the National Democratic Institute claims that our Government is far away from fulfilling the aspirations of its citizens.

Recent reports by the UN Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Watch show that we are a long way from producing an inclusive political order and maintaining the rule of law, despite efforts to create a democracy, political space and freedom of expression.

An unpublished report by the World Bank shows that our economy is not only fragile but also suffers from the “resource curse” despite efforts by the finance ministry to effect financial discipline and mobilise non-oil revenues.

Corruption is perceived as serious and increasing, despite efforts by the President to implement a policy of zero-tolerance and retrieve stolen funds.

The task of building nationalism and ensuring social cohesion and tolerance is daunting, despite efforts by the SPLA to disarm the civilian population and reconciliation initiatives by the churches and the Peace Commission.

How can we become a successful nation? The success of any nation largely depends on the existence of a functioning state.

The state provides mechanisms to create security, rights and obligations, and an enabling environment for business and civil society, as well as mobilise citizens around wealth creation and human security.

We can learn from the framework provided by Stephen R. Covey in his book titled “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”.

It attributes success to one’s character. Our character as a new nation is a collection of our habits, and habits have a powerful role in our lives.

Habits consist of knowledge, skills and desire. Knowledge allows us to know what to do, skills give us the ability to do it, and desire is the motivation to do it.

Our nation is founded on strong values and principles that shape our character as a nation. Our independence came as a result of a long and heroic struggle of the people of the south for justice, freedom, equality and human dignity.

The selfless sacrifices of our martyrs will continue to inspire the new nation in its quest for a better and prosperous future.

Also our country is endowed with unique cultural values that nurture fairness, honesty, forgiveness, reconciliation, openness and integrity. These values are enshrined in our Constitution.

Rwanda provides a good example of how it emerged from genocide to transform and build a successful nation around its unique values.

The national cleanliness programme of the country, including its capital city, is based on cultural values which emphasise personal and collective dignity, honour and pride. Once a week, everyone, from the President down, engages in community service aimed at keeping the country clean.

Also the country adopted a national programme of mutual shelter support, built upon cultural values that emphasize unity, harmony and solidarity.

Traditional age-grading and mobilisation are also used for military service and socio-economic development.

These values, usually associated with military culture, are built upon promoting collective self-help projects, which can be used in building roads, schools, hospitals and other facilities.

Also the traditional gacaca courts provide justice reconciliation and social reintegration in a combined manner.

In fact, the cultural values Rwanda has utilised in its post-genocide programmes have a lot in common with our traditional legal, social and cultural systems.

With our rich cultural values and enormous resources and the inspiring selfless sacrifices of our martyrs, South Sudan has all the ingredients for building a bright and prosperous future.

With visionary leadership, it can one day become the most powerful nation on the continent.

dhalco