---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Ashworth <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:35 PM Subject: [sudan-john-ashworth] Fwd: "South Sudan is not starting from scratch" To: Group <[email protected]>
Juba is bustling and buzzing on the eve of Independence, with a tremendous atmosphere of anticipation and happiness, and yet also very calm. International NGOs are treating it like a security-related crisis, and some journalists are producing a lot of rubbish, including some very condescending and negative stuff. Below is some of the more sensible material. John 1. SOUTH SUDAN: Beyond the euphoria of Southern independence NAIROBI, 8 July 2011 (IRIN) - South Sudan becomes the world's newest nation on 9 July, the final step in the six-year Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), a deal that ended the 1983-2005 north-south war. The government is upbeat, but after the euphoria of celebrations and the pomp of speeches, the new nation faces a mammoth task. "South Sudan is not starting from scratch," the South's information ministry said in a release timed for independence. "For the past six years, the Government of South Sudan has enjoyed considerable autonomy, with an elected assembly, government and a functioning judicial system." South Sudan does have the trappings of a state: flag, national anthem, and a coat of arms but building the new nation will require more than unfurling the colours of the new nation. Relations with the north Exactly how north and south Sudan divorce is critical to the future for both states [ http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=92943 ]. Key negotiations still remain - most importantly over oil. Border conflict has already forced thousands to flee, including some 110,000 people following the northern occupation of the contested Abyei region in May. Bombings continue in the northern oil state of South Kordofan [ http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=93052 ], where fighters once loyal to the South complain they have been left abandoned as the South splits away. Both sides have traded accusations that the other is backing rebel movements, claims also rejected by both. The two sides are masters of continuing to talk, despite the violence and accusation. "Both parties have clearly demonstrated that from now on, no unilateral action, no provocation could bring them back to war, and their remaining disputes shall be resolved through dialogue," said Haile Menkerios, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, in a speech on 7 July. Temporary agreements have been reached on Abyei [ http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=93078 ] and on Southern Kordofan as well as the creation of a 20km-wide demilitarized border buffer zone - these must still be implemented. Border tensions and oil But the high tensions still raise significant concerns. "The worst-case scenario is a return, a re-ignition, of this long-running North-South civil war that lasted over 20 years," said Gerry Martone, director of humanitarian affairs for the International Rescue Committee (IRC). The equal sharing of oil revenues under the CPA ends on 9 July, but both sides depend on the income and diplomats warn that the creation of two viable states will require the South to pay some of the profit to the North. The South holds the bulk of reserves, but, despite a determination not to share its profits any longer, it must still export via pipelines through the North. It is hoped that the source of greatest contention could also be a pragmatic economic driver of peace. "They are in fact mutually dependent on each other," Martone said. "Neither one can survive without the other, and that is largely because of oil revenues." South Sudan has often talked about breaking that connection by building its own pipeline, but that remains far off, experts say. "The conventional wisdom is that the South would have to have new oil finds in order to make that pipeline economically viable," said Jon Temin, of the United States Institute of Peace. "So the pipeline is possible, but it's not something we're going to see any time in the near future." Institutions Shiny new government buildings are being built in South Sudan's capital, Juba. "Given the regional autonomy with which the South operated. much of the architecture necessary to govern at the national level is in place, even if rudimentary," the International Crisis Group said in an April report [ http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/sudan/172-politics-and-transition-in-the-new-south-sudan.aspx ]. But effective officials are still absent, or woefully lacking in even basic skills, at state and county levels. The South has only "the highest levels of the executive branch set up", said Ronald Wasilwa from the Africa Peace Forum. "The structures that have been put up in South Sudan are good, but they need to go down to the people." Forging those institutions into effective providers of the rewards of peace and independence that the people expect will be a giant task. Many accuse the government of rampant corruption, and of domination by the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) over smaller opposition parties. The drafting of an interim constitution in recent months sparked walkouts by the committee overseeing the process by opposition groups, who claimed the SPLM dismissed their concerns. "While the South has made some progress in state-building and reforms, the early signs of governance - forcing through constitutional changes, restricting the media, centralizing power in the office of the President, and resorting to military violence over mediation in conflicts with rebel groups - have not been encouraging," a recent report by a coalition of 22 international and Sudanese campaign groups, Beyond the Pledge, [ http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_1566.pdf ] warned. "The South should be urged to break from the politically repressive and divisive patterns of governance characteristic of the North," it added. Such criticisms are echoed by many others. "There are real concerns about the Southern government and its capacity," Temin said. "There are concerns about its real commitment to democracy; the process of developing a new constitution has been troubled; there are worrying reports of pretty high levels of corruption in the South." Rebels, the army and conflict The ex-rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will change its name at independence to the South Sudan Armed Forces. The challenge, however, will be to ensure it also begins to change its ways: it has been accused of rape, massacres, extra-judicial killings and abuse. This has been the most violent year for South Sudan since the peace deal was signed six years ago, with the SPLA battling at least seven rebel militia groups. More than 2,300 people died in violence across the South, according to figures collated by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), from local, government and UN assessments. "This violence has of course brought human rights violations with it because the SPLA, in its clashes with armed rebel groups, has often engaged in indiscriminate killing of civilians, arrests and other violations that we've documented," said Jehanne Henry of Human Rights Watch (HRW). She added: "We'd like to see it take steps to ensure accountability for abuses by security forces." The government has admitted mistakes but says the transition from guerrilla force to army has not been an easy one. "When you have a five-year-old baby, there may be breakages that are not intended," said the Information Minister, Barnaba Marial Benjamin, speaking to diplomats in a recent address. "But you don't throw the child out, because you know they can grow up into a responsible person." Legal hurdles Experts argue that the new state is not lacking a justice system: it is just very far from perfect. "Thousands of cases are being heard and very often settled every week across South Sudan, often by chiefs and magistrates with limited formal legal education but with an understanding of the source and context for disputes," said Cherry Leonardi, a Sudan expert from Britain's University of Durham. Many, however, are drawn from an "authoritarian, centralizing and security-focused culture of government", and they have been joined by many people coming from a military background and similarly authoritarian army hierarchies, she added. Humanitarian needs South Sudan has some of the worst health and development indicators in the world, but while it is already struggling with its existing population, more people continue to flood in. At least 309,000 people have returned from the North since October 2010, and still more are expected. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) said it helped feed about half the population last year, or some four million people. Addressing those needs will be crucial not only to improve lives, but also to ensure wider stability of the new nation. "If South Sudan is to have a chance of a peaceful future then basic development is urgently needed," said Alun McDonald from Oxfam. "There has been progress since the end of the war, but at nowhere near the scale needed and people are becoming increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change." END1 2. As Sudan breaks in two, more than oil will fuel economies The National Zach Vertin and Aly Verjee July 8, 2011 Tomorrow will be a historic day for Africa. On that day, after decades of war and oppression, the Republic of South Sudan will be declared as the world's newest state, with its capital at Juba. Not since Eritrea's independence from Ethiopia in 1993 have the continent's borders shifted as dramatically. Yet joy at independence is tempered by ongoing troubles in the South and North alike. On the UN's Human Development Index - a measure of overall quality of life and development - Sudan currently ranks 154th out of 169. South Sudan will start even closer to the bottom. The new state must overcome weak state capacity and chronic insecurity and manage a tricky post-conflict transition. Since the peace agreement in 2005, oil has been central to the economies of both North and South. Most reserves are in the South, but the infrastructure to exploit that oil - pipelines, refineries and export terminals - is in the North. The current revenue sharing agreement, in which 50 per cent of monies raised by the sale of southern oil goes to Khartoum, is due to end with the South's independence. Khartoum faces the loss of more than a third of its annual income. Conversely, southern revenues will swell, but managing the wealth will still be a struggle among many conflicting priorities. Exploiting southern oil requires continued partnership between North and South, but negotiating a new deal beyond tomorrow has so far proved impossible. Given the mutual reliance, both sides accept the principle of oil revenue continuing to flow to both states in the near term. South Sudan knows that a fiscally stable North is in its interest, but consensus on the details of how wealth should be redistributed - how much and for how long revenue should be allocated to cover the North's financial gap - has been elusive. In both North and South, the oil boom has lifted growth rates and filled treasuries. Measured by headline statistics, oil is indisputably the most important industry for both states. The South's independence may set off a new race among major oil companies, as contracts and concessions are reviewed. But new finds are far from assured, a fact that underscores the industry's limitations. Sudan is only a middle rank oil producer, and most producing fields are already declining in production. Much of the oil is of low quality, trading at a substantial discount to global benchmarks. Only a small number of Sudanese are employed in the industry. New discoveries are possible on both sides of the border, but this is not a resource that will provide for generations. The extreme economic dependence on one industry is increasingly problematic; now is the time to pursue diversification. Moving beyond oil is a prerequisite for the future stability of both countries, and necessary to broaden prosperity outside of the narrow elite at the centre. The majority of people in both North and South depend on agriculture, and the industry has considerable potential for growth. But neglect of the sector in the North has left productivity languishing. Production of cotton in 2010, for example, was less than a third of the 2005 harvest, itself a fraction of the production records achieved in the early 1970s. Ravaged by war, most agriculture in the South is focused on subsistence. Little is mechanised and despite fertile land and ample water, tens of thousands of hectares of land lie fallow. Access to markets is still limited. The transport infrastructure needed to move crops and other products is poor, often making it cheaper to bring basic foodstuffs from neighbouring Uganda and Kenya than to move local produce domestically. Amid chronic food shortages in the Horn of Africa, South Sudan could become a net food exporter to the region, and beyond. For both North and South, agriculture and rural development must go hand in hand. Rural areas lag far behind development levels in the handful of major cities. Greater focus on the sector, broader opportunities for local farmers and increased agricultural productivity could bridge the hunger gap, allow self-sufficiency, raise average income and prove to be a more important export earner. Importantly, policy in this sector must be carefully harmonised with the pastoralist livelihoods of many Sudanese. Development of the service industries is another path to diversification, but it is important that this sector does not grow exclusively in the capitals of Juba and Khartoum, but brings benefit to other regions. Other extractive industries can play a role too; mining is increasingly important in both North and South, while logging and wildlife tourism could be new earners for the South. Reaching a deal over oil is crucial. But oil alone will not guarantee an inclusive and stable economy for either country. Economic diversification, with a renewed emphasis on agriculture, is necessary if a viable economic future is to be enjoyed by citizens of the two Sudans. Aly Verjee is senior researcher at the Rift Valley Institute; Zach Vertin is Sudan analyst at the International Crisis Group http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/as-sudan-breaks-in-two-more-than-oil-will-fuel-economies END2 3. Two Sudans: Managing the World’s Newest Border Demands Careful Planning Zach Vertin Opinion Reuters AlertNet 8 July 2011 Tomorrow, Africa’s largest country will split in two. After decades of war and acrimony between North and South, the Republic of South Sudan will formalize its long awaited independence. But just exactly where this vast and troubled territory will be divided remains not entirely clear. Sections of the North-South border—now the world’s newest international boundary—remain hotly contested. Mounting militarization on both sides makes for a highly unstable stretch of territory. As such, the two parties have tentatively resolved to create a demilitarized zone along the border, but the details of such an arrangement must be carefully thought through lest it generate even greater problems in the long run. As part of its strategy to squeeze concessions from the South ahead of partition and exhibit strength to domestic constituencies, Khartoum’s army recently invaded the long-disputed Abyei area and ignited conflict in South Kordofan—a politically divided border state—where fighting continues to rage. Localized conflict persists elsewhere, communities on both sides claim contested lands, and most critically, the majority of the divided country’s lucrative oil reserves (the lifeline for regimes in both Khartoum and Juba) fall along this 2,100 km border. Meanwhile, negotiations toward a host of post-separation arrangements between North and South continue, albeit slowly. Among the many agenda items to be resolved is demarcation of the disputed areas as well as future border management. In the midst of an increasingly volatile security climate, Northern and Southern leaders last week signed an agreement which envisages a demilitarized zone stretching some 10 kilometers on each side of the line. Critically, that deal also resolved to establish monitoring and verification teams to aide in “building mutual trust, confidence, and an environment which encourages long-term stability and economic development” in the borderlands. Such teams are to be comprised of unarmed military observers from the UN as well as North and South alike—a triumvirate necessary for any such mechanism to succeed. In a move to stabilize Abyei, Ethiopian forces agreed to provide security there under a robust new UN mandate. The new border security agreement also calls for troops to be drawn from this temporary mission to provide protection for the monitoring teams in the demilitarized zone—a request that will require another nod from the UN Security Council. Such an arrangement may indeed be necessary to help avoid renewed North-South hostilities in the immediate term, but the parties, the Ethiopian command, and the UN Security Council should consider the following three principles in further shaping this operation. First, a predominantly military operation (and oversight mechanism) will, on its own, struggle to cultivate an environment of mutual trust and confidence in border localities. Deterring encroachment of unauthorized armed actors is critical, but a complement of civilian monitors is necessary to support cross-border initiatives, dispute resolution, local border management, and effective information gathering and reporting—aspirations all rightly implied in the agreement. Lessons may be drawn from previous successful mechanisms employed in Sudan and beyond, which are often as much about building confidence, cultivating community relations, and supporting mutually-agreed arrangements as they are about verifying legal obligations or military movements. Second, any arrangement that inadvertently hardens the border could prove disastrous in the long run. The people of Sudan’s border territories have relied on a porous boundary for generations. Too firm a barrier could intensify land and resource pressure, threaten pastoralist livelihoods, create hardships for Southerners who rely on goods and services from the North, and unnecessarily restrict communities which enjoy the benefits of joint cross-border initiatives and interaction. Recent blockades imposed by Khartoum on North-South transit routes are a prime example, pinching Southern areas that rely on food, fuel, and other critical staples originating in the North. Third, the interim nature of both the border agreement and the force manning Abyei and the demilitarized zone must be just that, “interim”. These arrangements cannot remain indefinitely—particularly if the border remains undefined—lest they simply incubate the disputes and effectively inhibit final resolution and demarcation of the border. The demilitarized zone and monitoring mechanism may be necessary components of border management between the two new states, but when it comes to further structuring and implementing this arrangement, the devil is—as always— in the details. Most leaders in North and South endorsed the concept of a “soft border”, but mounting military campaigns and acrimonious post-referendum talks have eroded that commitment and deepened mistrust. Further deterioration of relations could put a soft border further out of reach. Current security realities must be considered in light of the long-term social, political, and economic consequences of new barriers—physical or psychological—in border areas and more broadly across the two Sudans. If and when the hostilities, brinkmanship, and emotions surrounding partition subside, leaders in North and South alike may recognize just how much they will need each other. Zach Vertin is a Sudan Analyst with the International Crisis Group. He divides his time between Sudan and Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/two-sudans-managing-the-worlds-newest-border-demands-careful-planning/ END3 4. Standing by South Sudan By BAN KI-MOON NYT Published: July 7, 2011 This Saturday, July 9, the Republic of South Sudan will join the community of nations. Foreign dignitaries will converge on its capital, Juba, to watch the new country raise its flag and inaugurate a first president, Salva Kiir Mayardit. For the more than 8 million citizens of South Sudan, it will be a momentous and emotional day. In January, they voted in an historic referendum to separate from the rest of Sudan. That they did so peacefully is a credit to both the North and South Sudanese leadership. Yet nationhood has come at steep cost: A staggering number of lives lost and people displaced in a 21-year civil war that ended only in 2005. When the assembled presidents and prime ministers board their official planes to return home, the challenges that remain will be daunting indeed. On the day of its birth, South Sudan will rank near the bottom of all recognized human development indices. The statistics are truly humbling. It has the world’s highest maternal mortality rate. Estimates of illiteracy among the female population exceed 80 percent. More than half of its people must feed, clothe and shelter themselves on less than a dollar a day. Critical issues of poverty, insecurity and lack of infrastructure must all be addressed by a relatively new government with little experience and only embryonic institutions. I came to appreciate the sheer scale of these challenges, for myself, when I first visited South Sudan in 2007 — an area of 620,000 square kilometers with less than 100 kilometers of paved road. Within this larger context, the risk of increased violence, harm to civilian populations and further humanitarian suffering is very real. At the same time, South Sudan has remarkable potential. With substantial oil reserves, huge amounts of arable land and the Nile flowing through its center, South Sudan could grow into a prosperous, self-sustaining nation capable of providing security, services and employment for its population. Alone, South Sudan cannot meet these challenges nor realize its potential. Doing so will require partnership — a full (and on-going) engagement with the international community and, most especially, South Sudan’s neighbors. First and foremost, the new leaders of South Sudan should reach out to their counterparts in Khartoum. Strong, peaceful relations with the North are essential. A priority for both countries is agreement on their common border, sustainable relations to ensure both states can benefit from the oil revenues in the region, and cross-border arrangements to continue their strong historical, economic and cultural ties. Recent instability in Southern Kordofan and Abyei have strained North-South relations and heightened political rhetoric. Now is the time for both the North and the South to think of the long-term benefits of working together, not short-term political gains at the other’s expense. South Sudan must also reach out to its other neighbors. Across the globe — and in Africa, especially — the trend is toward regional partnerships. South Sudan will be strengthened by becoming an active participant in the regional organizations of East Africa and developing durable trade and political ties throughout the continent. Finally, South Sudan must reach out to its own people. It must find strength in diversity and build institutions that represent the full constellation of its broad geographic and ethnic communities. The basics of any modern, democratic state must be guaranteed: free expression, full political rights, inclusive institutions that extend benefits to citizens of rural areas as well as regions affected by conflict. In the 21st century, the international community has increasingly come to recognize the responsibilities of governments to their citizens, including the protection of political space and democratic rights. The popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have shown what can happen when governments are inattentive to the needs of their people. The United Nations is committed to assisting the government of South Sudan to meet its many responsibilities. That is why I have proposed a new United Nations mission in South Sudan: to help build the institutions that the country needs to stand on its own. In doing so, let us remember that the United Nations is only one part of a broader set of partnerships that the government should develop — with the North, with its neighbors in the region and beyond and, most importantly, with its own people. On Saturday, I will join other leaders in Juba to mark the birth of South Sudan. The last thing a new nation needs is a celebration as it springs into existence, only to then be forgotten until the next crisis. Our purpose is to do more than celebrate this milestone. It is to highlight the international obligation to stand by the people of South Sudan as they seek to build a stable, strong and ultimately prosperous nation. Ban Ki-moon is secretary general of the United Nations. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08iht-edban08.html?_r=1&hpw END4 5. South Sudan passes interim constitution amid concerns over presidential powers July 7, 2011 (JUBA) - The Juba based South Sudan Legislative Assembly passed the long awaited interim constitution, giving more powers to president of the soon-to-be independent state of the Republic of South Sudan on Thursday. The parliament ratified the draft interim constitution into the supreme law of the land two days before South Sudan formally declares its independence, after the majority of its citizens voted in January to create a nation of their own. Speaking to the press on Thursday, Joyce Kwaje, the chairperson of the information, culture and communications in the parliament announced the passage of the constitution. Kwaje denied claims that the constitution gives excessive powers to the president of the Government of South Sudan, arguing that the constitution represents the will and rights of the people of South Sudan. “I congratulate the people of South Sudan for exercising patience and trust they have in their representatives in the parliament to the pass the constitution,” said Kwaje declining further questions from the press. Barnaba Marial Benjamin, minister of information in the Government of South Sudan also told journalists at daily press briefing in Juba that the new constitution has been passed, denying that it concentrates too much power in the hands of the president. “The new constitution is out. It has been passed,” said minister Marial, adding that the views of the general public were gathered and considered before the new constitution was passed. “People of the South Sudan were consulted through their representatives in the parliament. Extensive consultations with our people were made on the constitution and their views have been considered.” Benjamin explained that the new constitution encourages a system of decentralisation, while reserving the voices calling for federalism, to be addressed in the next permanent constitution. The constitution contains a provision allowing the transfer of the former members of parliament in Khartoum into the new parliament in South Sudan, regardless of their political parties. Members of the political parties elected in Khartoum state are also allowed to join their respective states in the South. An additional 66 members from various political parties shall be appointed into the transitional assembly by the presidential decree as 30 other members shall be appointed into the new council of states, making the total 50 representative from various political parties. In case the post of the president falls vacant within the first one year during the transitional period, the political party on whose ticket the president was elected shall nominate the successor within the 14 days and the elections shall be conducted to fill the vacant position of the president after one year. A constitutional review committee shall be formed during the interim period to work on the permanent constitution. CONCERNS AND CRITICISMS The US-based Cater Center last week urged the ruling SPLM party to demonstrate strong commitments towards an inclusive and participatory governance in South Sudan. It appealed on the parliament to consider taking into account views from cluster groups and other stakeholders before to adopt the constitution. In a statement released on 2 July, the Center said "The current draft of the transitional constitution contains a number of provisions that appear likely to concentrate power in the central government." The opposition SPLM-DC said the Constitutional Review Committee dominated by the governing party process "delivered a one-party constitution tailored to fit the SPLM alone". It went further to say the dominant party even rejected the "meek proposals" of some opposition parties. The SPLM-DC went to accuse the ruling party of maintaining the institutions elected last year saying such decision dishonours the resolution of power sharing agreed during the “All Southern Sudanese Political Parties Conference” held in Juba in October 2010. The opposition party further says the adopted constitution "denies our people the federal system" by concentrating all the powers in Juba and allowing the President to relieve an elected governor or to dissolve a state legislative assembly. The new constitution, under article 101 (R), allows the president to dissolve the state legislative assembly and fire elected governors. The president can also declare war and a state of emergency without the prior approval of parliament. (ST) END5 6. South Sudan ratifies new constitution: minister JUBA, Sudan, July 7, 2011 (AFP) - South Sudan's legislative assembly has ratified the nation-in-waiting's new constitution, the information minister said on Thursday, denying that it put too much power in the president's hands. "The new constitution is out," Barnaba Marial Benjamin told AFP. Benjamin insisted that the people of the country had been widely consulted on the constitution and rejected suggestions that it concentrated too much power in the hands of the president. "That is the choice of the people of south Sudan. They have discussed it democratically in the parliament and they have agreed to it, so that is the constitution," he said. There has been some controversy in the run-up to the fledgling nation's full independence on Saturday, about the draft transitional constitution with many complaining that non-government figures had been excluded from the consultation process. Civil society groups have warned that it could tighten the grip on power of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), the ruling party of the south. On Saturday, the Carter Centre, a monitoring group set up by former US president Jimmy Carter, repeated that warning. "The current draft of the transitional constitution contains a number of provisions that appear likely to concentrate power in the central government," a statement said. "Carter Centre staff and observer interviews with government officials, political party members and civil society representatives across the south indicate there is significant support for a decentralised system of government." South Sudan's president Salva Kiir is expected to sign the constitution during Saturday's independence ceremony. A draft version of the constitution caused separate controversy in April for stating that the contested border region of Abyei was a part of the south's territory. Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir said afterwards that Khartoum would refuse to recognise the new state if it insisted on claiming Abyei. Benjamin denied on Thursday that the disputed region would be unilaterally claimed by the south. "We don't claim it. We say that Abyei will be included in south Sudan should they vote after the referendum to choose coming to the south," he said. Last month, the UN Security Council ordered a 4,200-strong Ethiopian peacekeeping force into Abyei to monitor the withdrawal of northern troops who occupied the region on May 21. END6 7. South Sudan counts down the hours to independence Fri Jul 8, 2011 12:21pm GMT By Andrew Heavens and Alexander Dziadosz JUBA/KHARTOUM, July 8 (Reuters) - Dancers decked in South Sudanese flags and leopard-print trousers marched through the streets of their ramshackle capital Juba on Friday, counting down the hours until Africa's largest country splits into two states at midnight. Sudan entered its last day as a united nation with rumblings of conflict along its north-south border and international concerns for the future stability of the huge, fractured and largely impoverished territory that straddles Arab and sub-Saharan Africa. But looming independence already sparked celebrations across the south -- and in large diaspora southern communities from the United States to Australia -- with many seeing it as a moment of liberation after years of fighting and perceived repression, dating back to raids by Arab slave traders. "I'm very happy for the independence," said Gabriel Yaac, 38, in central Juba. "There is nothing bad in the future. If you are alone in your house you can manage your own things. No one will interrupt you." The country's oil-producing south is to split from the north on Saturday - a separation it won at the climax of an internationally brokered 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war with the north. The new Republic of South Sudan will take around 75 percent of the country's known oil reserves with it when it goes -- depriving the Khartoum government of more than a third of its national revenues, the northern finance minister said last month. Police and soldiers in Juba tried to keep a lid on the more boisterous revelers -- banning celebratory gunfire, seizing weapons and searching cars -- determined to protect the scores of dignitaries flowing into a city awash with small arms. A red digital display on a city roundabout counted down the seconds to independence. "Free at last," one message on the display board flashed. In sharp contrast, the streets were largely empty in the northern capital Khartoum on Friday, the start of the weekend in the Muslim north. "Losing the south will be difficult for a few years after losing the oil," minibus driver Osman said. "But all we've had up to now is war. It is good we are going our separate ways." Other northerners see the separation as a tragedy -- robbing Sudan of around a third of its territory and ending a dream of a diverse nation containing a vast patchwork of the continent's cultures. "This overwhelming of sorrow, of sadness is wrapping around us. I cannot put my feelings into words. It is beyond expression. I am in a vacuum. I want to go into hibernation," the spokeswoman for the opposition UMMA party Mariam al-Mahdi told Reuters. North and south leaders have still not agreed on how they will manage oil revenues, the lifeblood of both their economies, and other key issues after the split -- alarming diplomats who fear they will return to war. North Sudan has the only pipelines in the country, and has threatened to block them if the south does not pay enough. Southern officials on Friday said they would be able to live off credit, using their oil reserves as collateral, if the north carried out its threat. Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who will lead the north after the split, on Thursday said he would fly to Juba for the independence celebrations and promised friendly relations. But he sent out a stern message to rebel movements in the north, saying he would not take part in any more international peace talks with armed groups. Khartoum is fighting rebels in the Darfur region and, since early June, in its main remaining oil state Southern Kordofan. Both regions border the south. Analysts have accused Khartoum of targeting civilians from the ethnic Nuba group in Kordofan -- many of whom fought alongside south in the civil war -- with a military ground and air campaign. Khartoum denies the accusation. Washington's ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Thursday said it was vital for U.N. peacekeepers to stay in South Kordofan after the official end of their mandate on the south's independence day. Khartoum has said it wants the blue helmets, deployed to monitor the 2005 peace deal, to go. South Sudan will start life as one of the least developed nations on earth, despite its oil revenues. Aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres said the south was going through a humanitarian emergency with existing poverty compounded by disease outbreaks, tribal and rebel clashes -- and the return of around 300,000 southerners ahead of the independence, many of them needing aid. (Additional reporting by Ulf Laessing in Khartoum and Jeremy Clarke in Juba; Editing by Michael Roddy) http://af.reuters.com/article/sudanNews/idAFL6E7I80UX20110708?sp=true END7 ______________________ John Ashworth Sudan Advisor [email protected] +254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile) +249 919 695 362 (Sudan mobile) +27 82 853 3556 (South Africa mobile) +44 750 304 1790 (UK/international) +88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone) PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation -- The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the content and the source is always cited. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" 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.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth -- 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.
