The need for a cautious approach over Abyei dispute ArticleComments (0). Email PrintSave --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jacob K. Lupai May 5, 2011 — The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of the Republic of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) signed on the 9th January 2005 ending a 22-year civil war in Sudan accorded Abyei area administrative status under the institution of the Presidency. The Presidency was to establish an Abyei Referendum Commission to conduct Abyei referendum simultaneously with the referendum of Southern Sudan. Abyei was to choose either to remain in North Sudan or to join the South. The referendum of Southern Sudan took place on the 9th January 2011 but that of Abyei didn’t. The reason, the North has an eye on Abyei abundant oil resources and luxuriant pastures. A little bit of analysis may indicate whether Abyei is northern or southern. During the Turko-Egyptian administration the Ngok Dinka with Abyei as their centre and the Missiriya fell under the jurisdiction of Kordofan province. As the Turko-Egyptian administration had loose control over tribal life the two groups remained politically independent within the provincial unity. The Turko-Egyptian administration in Sudan was between 1821 and 1885 when the Ngok Dinka were under the jurisdiction of Kordofan province. It was unlikely that the administration of Dinka Ngok was transferred to Kordofan in 1905 because probably the Ngok Dinka were never administered from the South at that time in the first place. It was the British who instead wanted the Ngok Dinka to join (not rejoining) the South. In 1951 the British again gave the Ngok Dinka a chance of joining either Bahr el Ghazal or Upper Nile province in the South. The argument of the British was that the Ngok Dinka were racio-culturally different from the people with whom they shared the district and province in the North. It was considered appropriate for the Ngok Dinka to join their racio-cultural kindred in the South. However, the Ngok Dinka did not entertain the option of joining their kindred in the South but to remain in the North. It is of recent that the Ngok Dinka have been vigorously campaigning since 1972 to join their kindred in the South. In addition the active participation of Ngok Dinka in the attainment of independence to South Sudan cannot be denied. Arguably although Abyei is geographically northern, it has also been culturally recognized as southern. Article 3(iii) of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 on the problem of Southern Sudan reads, “Southern Provinces of the Sudan means the Provinces of Bahr El Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile in accordance with their boundaries as they stood on January 1st 1956 and any other areas that were culturally and geographically a part of the Southern complex as may be decided by a referendum”. Here “any other areas that were culturally ---- a part of the Southern complex” indirectly includes Abyei, the area of Ngok Dinka in the North. On Abyei the CPA is much more explicit. Chapter IV, The Resolution of the Abyei Conflict, Article 8.2 reads, “The residents of Abyei shall cast a separate ballot. The proposition voted on in the separate ballot shall present residents of Abyei with the following choices; irrespective of the results of the Southern referendum: a. That Abyei retain its special administrative status in the North. b. That Abyei be part of Bahr el Ghazal”. It can be seen that although it is not outright Abyei is grudgingly recognized as southern. However, it is the Ngok Dinka and only the Ngok Dinka alone that will determine the destiny of Abyei either to remain in the North or to join the Republic of South Sudan. What the Republic of South Sudan can do is to promote an atmosphere conducive for the referendum in Abyei to take place under international monitors for credible results that shall be binding on the North and the South for a peaceful co-existence. The title of this article may cause some people to raise their eye brows. Somewhere in the Statistical Yearbook for Southern Sudan 2010 Abyei is considered a county in Warrap State. Also in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 Article 1(2) indirectly claims Abyei belongs to South Sudan. One can understand why the President of the Republic of Sudan exploded and threatened not to recognize the independence of South Sudan. We seem to behave as though Abyei is already part of the South while the referendum has not yet taken place in Abyei. The British had proposed Abyei to either join Bahr el Ghazal or Upper Nile but now Abyei seems to belong to Warrap State in Greater Bahr el Ghazal. Abyei could be better off as a state in its own right and the 11th state of the federal Republic of South Sudan. Federalism is revisited and may be to the dislike of those who are nothing but paternalistic. The experience of the CPA interim period has shown that centralization may stifles development. Billions of dollars have been spent but the basic necessities of life such as clean running water, health services, affordable housing are wanting. Electrification of cities and towns is a problem. Streets at night are dark because of the lack of lighting and insecurity is rampant. Salaries as a necessity for daily bread are never paid on time but millions of dollars are available for the renovation of old houses. We have become a nation dependent on food security on producers beyond our international borders despite the fact that we are an agricultural country. Despite efforts being made road conditions in Juba are a manifestation of poor investment. Bridges are never completed to the discomfort of motorists. A federal system of government may go a long way to address some of the development problems in the states. The assertion by others that centralization is appropriate to maintain unity in South Sudan is a flaw. It is only the fear of the unknown. For example, there is an argument that when the police service is centralized then this will reduce insecurity hence unity in South Sudan. This is a joke. Human beings regardless of tribal affiliation may take sides through corruption and sympathy with what is perceived as injustice perpetrated by the powerful. Anyway when people in a state choose to be lawless why should it be the problem of another state? What the federal government can do in such a situation is to mobilize resources by requesting each state to contribute say 1000 police to be commanded by an able officer to address the situation. This can be considered in a state of emergency as articulated in the constitution. The idea of being bossy over the sate is only for reactionaries but not for visionary development oriented revolutionaries. In conclusion, for development truly to take place in the states a federal system is appropriate. The state also should not centralize the government but decentralise to the counties and payams. In all the interim period has shown centralisation impedes development where resources have been simply squandered. The billions of Sudanese pounds paid for some non-existent grains for food is an example. The states should instead be empowered for self-reliance. It is obvious that there are people with hidden agenda of domination and marginalization of others hence will be rebellious against a federal system to satisfy their egoistic vision. However, the determination of people for a federal system which is fair for all is the key. The corrupt and the greedy with their ethnocentrism should be consigned to history for the South to be truly free and independent. The author can be reached at [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
