Sudan and South Sudan: Where are they heading?
* Article
* Comments (17)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Luka Biong Deng
May 11, 2012 — When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed
in 2005, the Sudanese and the international community were relieved as
Sudan would be put on the path of peace and stability. The world was
further reassured by the way the referendum for the people of South
Sudan was conducted and the acceptance of President of Sudan of the
choice of the people of South Sudan to have their own independent
state. Consequently, all members of the United Nations unanimously
accepted the membership of the newest state with optimism that the two
states would work together to resolve the post-secession pending
issues.
However such optimism was dashed and to the surprise of international
community the two states resorted to the logic of war instead of
dialogue to resolve their pending issues. With the closure of oil
production in the South, escalation of war along their borders,
declaration of state of emergency by Sudan in all states bordering the
South to restrict flow of goods to the South and the danger of state
of stateless faced by Southerners who are still in Sudan, the two
states are virtually in war. The real question is why the two states
resort to the logic of war rather than dialogue and will they be able
to afford it?
This unexpected and hostile behavior of the two states underlined
serious economic fragility faced by the two states as both suffer from
the “resource curse” and poor governance, particularly Sudan. The two
states depend entirely on the oil revenue and their difference over
the management of oil after the secession of the South triggers this
antagonistic behavior. It would have been simple arrangements after
secession that the South to manage its own oil and pay internationally
accepted fees for the use of oil infrastructure in the Sudan. However
after the secession of the South, Sudan puts very a high bill to be
covered by the South not only for the use of its pipelines (USD36 per
barrel) but also to meet the budget deficit (USD10 billion) caused by
the secession of the South.
Access to the oil revenue of the South is a matter of economic and
political survival of the regime in Sudan. After the discovery of oil,
the economy of Sudan moved away from agriculture to oil resource
economy and it becomes a victim of the resource curse with oil revenue
constituting more than 90 percent of aggregate foreign exchange
earnings. Using some indices to assess the severity of the resource
curse, Sudan has been among the ten least performing countries in the
world on the basis of the index adopted by the World Bank called the
Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) that assesses
aspects related to rule-based governance, quality of budgetary
management and public administration. Also Sudan has been among the
least five performing countries based on Corruption Perception Index
(CPI) adopted by Transparency International. Also on the basis of the
two indices adopted by the Freedom House to measure the level of
political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL), Sudan has been scoring
the least scores in the region and the world. Besides these indices,
the leadership of Sudan is crippled as its President, minister of
defense and one of its state governor are indicted by the
International Criminal Court (ICC) over genocide and crimes against
humanity in Darfur and with such abuses further committed in Abyei,
Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile. With these appalling indices, defeat by
the South of the military establishment in Sudan and coupled with the
secession of the South that took with it more than 75% of the oil
revenue, it becomes apparent that Sudan is heading to imminent
political and economic collapse.
When Sudan became unreasonable on the use of its pipeline and
eventually it becomes a pirate of the oil exports of the South
transported through Sudan, the South was left with no any other option
but to close its oil production. This decision stunned the
international community and particularly the regime in Khartoum that
underrated the ability of the South to take such bold decision because
of its reliance on oil revenue that constituted 98% of the budget.
While the decision reaffirms the sovereignty and dignity of the people
of the South, it vividly exposes the economic and political fragility
of the regime in Sudan. Instead of addressing the economic effects
caused by the secession of the South, the regime in Khartoum pursued
the option of war as the only means to mobilize the people of Sudan
and to shift their attention away from the deteriorating living
conditions. The fighting along the border with the South was part of
this strategy to silence and pacify the voices that called for the
regime change. In fact the fight of Sudan over Heglig is less about
the territory but more about oil as there are many disputed areas
along its border such as Halayib with Egypt. Given its current
conditions, the regime in Sudan has no economic and political
capability to sustain war with the South.
On the other hand the South faces the same symptoms of the “resource
curse” but slightly better than Sudan, particularly in civil liberties
and political rights. Given the high expectations from the people of
South for better life after independence, the leadership of the South
has less to gain from war. In fact one would say that the South was
dragged in self-defense into the recent war along its border with the
Sudan as the military establishment in Sudan imposed this option of
war on the people of the South. The defeat of Sudan Armed Forces by
the South in Heglig has profoundly exposed the weakness of military
establishment in Khartoum. Despite its military success in defeating
Sudan, the South does not have appetite or economic capability to wage
and sustain war with the Sudan except in self-defense.
With the defeat of military establishment in Sudan, the unanimous
stance of international community against eruption of war and the
serious economic hardship caused by the closure of oil production,
there will be now pragmatism from the two states. There is now a
window of opportunity for finding amicable solution for the pending
issues. The seven points roadmap adopted by the African Union Peace
and Security Council (AUPSC) provides a framework within a time-bound
of three months for resolving holistically all the pending issues
between the two states. Also, the unanimous decision of the United
Nations Security Council to fully support the AUPSC’s roadmap and to
effect the implementation of this roadmap under Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter would encourage the two states to reach
agreement on these pending issues and to avoid sanctions.
While South Sudan welcomes the roadmap, it has raised concerns over
the mediation and facilitation of the African Union High-Level
Implementation Panel (AUHIP), particularly over the role of its chair
President Mbaki after his report to UNSC. On the other hand the Sudan
welcomes the AU roadmap but not comfortable with referring the issue
to UNSC under Chapter VII and this shows the intention of Sudan to
continue with its piecemeal and time-buying approach. In fact the two
states are assessing the process that would increase their chances for
getting a good deal. While the South is uncomfortable with the role of
AUHIP, it may not be diplomatically appropriate for the leaders of the
South to discuss such issue in the media. The South as a member of AU
has the right to officially and in silent diplomacy raise its concerns
over the mediation role of AUHIP. The fact of the matter is that UNSC
has not only endorsed the mediation role of AUHIP, but it has asked
the UN Secretary General in consultation with AUHIP, in case of
failure of the negotiations, to prepare report including detailed
proposals regarding the pending issues.
It is important for the South to recognize that President Mbaki enjoys
overwhelming support from African leaders and international community.
Also he has unique and rich wealth of experience and strategic
thinking and he stands as one of the few African intellectuals with
righteous and strategic ideas for the future of Africa. As a freedom
fighter, he sees himself in the struggle of people of South Sudan and
his learning curve about the regime in Khartoum has exponentially
improved over the few years. I do not see any reason that would make
President Mbaki to be more sympathetic with position of Sudan than
that of the South except in the articulation and presentation of the
issues. It is a high time for our diplomatic outreach to proactively
and objectively engage with AUHIP and UN and to move away from the
blaming culture. The failure of the international community to
sympathize with our positions is more to do with us than with them. We
should not forget that it is the same international community that
stood firmly with us during difficult times of our struggle but
importantly during peace negotiations and implementation of CPA,
particularly the conduct of the referendum.
For this roadmap to succeed it requires a serious diplomatic move,
particularly USA and China to encourage the two states to reach
solution on the pending issues. Although USA may not have more
effective leverage over Khartoum than China, the USA can use its
commitment to human rights and democracy to adopt necessary
legislations and sanctions against the regime in Khartoum that would
expedite democratic transformation and change. China has shown very
encouraging diplomatic stance and it is gradually moving towards a
balanced diplomatic approach with powerful signal to Khartoum that
“things are not the same”. Russia may require a lot of diplomatic work
as it may need to be encouraged to realign its strategic interests
with those of the South. The South should not also take its neighbors
and friends and region for guaranteed as it was well reflected in the
surprising and uninformed condemnation of AUPSC of the South for
capturing Heglig that it assumed to be a territory of Sudan.
With more realism from the two states and bleak economic future
without resumption of oil production and coupled with the close
engagement of the international community, the path of war could now
be avoided and the two states stand a better chance to be on a track
of peace and good relations as prerequisites for their economic and
political viability.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" 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/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.
