Nigeria: Let's Have Common Citizenship in Africa - Thabo Mbeki By Professor Tandeka Nkiwane, 20 May 2013
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa will, this evening at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja, receive the Daily Trust African of the Year Award 2012 for his work last year in bringing peace to Sudan and South Sudan. In this recent interview in South Africa with Professor Tandeka Nkiwane, Member, African of the Year Advisory Committee, he comments on his panels work, the challenges it faced, unfinished matters in Sudan as well as South Sudan, issues facing heterogeneous African states, and how his ANC background prepared him for a lot of the work he is doing today on the continent. Excerpts: First of all Mr President on behalf of the advisory board of the Daily Trust African of the Year Award, I would like to congratulate you on being our 2012 award recipient. First of all for the purpose of an audience primarily external to South Africa, we will perhaps begin by telling the audience a little about yourself, perhaps something we won't find in Wikipedia. You know many of us here grew up during the period of the struggle against Apartheid. So, I think that to understand people like myself, I think you have got to put us in that context, because the system of Apartheid was so pervasive, affecting all elements of life. It really was inevitable that we should grow, really into the struggle, and therefore that's what happened. I think what formed us is that involvement to end the system of Apartheid, which fortunately succeeded, and then, of course, came the task after that, which was what to do with this freedom. In other words, the task of reconstructing South Africa, as a non-racial democracy. So that's what I would say about myself, and that, really largely defines what people of my generation would be. We were born into an engaging struggle against Apartheid, and afterwards to help to rebuild South Africa. Your leadership of the ANC, and your leadership of South Africa, to what extent did this background influence your work in terms of mediating in Sudan? I would imagine, not directly. At a certain point the regime understood that it could not defeat the ANC. It could not defeat the liberation movement, and that the Apartheid system itself was in deep crises, and therefore agreed with what ANC had been saying for many years, that it was possible to find a peaceful, negotiated resolution of the conflict. So, in the end the regime agreed with this, because it could see that it was being defeated in a sense, and therefore that meant we then had to engage in quite a long process of negotiation with people who were by definition, our enemies. But in order to make peace, to save lives, to create this possibility, for South Africa to transform itself into a non -racial democracy, it became necessary to engage in those negotiations.I suppose that that experience would have helped with regard to the work we were to later help to facilitate, that is, the resolution of various conflicts on the continent, including the conflict in Sudan. I imagine that that experience would have helped somewhat. But of course, you are dealing with different sets of circumstances, in terms even of the negotiations. Here in South Africa, we were negotiating among ourselves, but with regard to the rest of the world, and these other engagements on the continent, we were facilitating negotiations,not only between us and other people, but among the belligerent forces in each of these countries in which we had engaged. Can you describe some of the challenges faced by the AU Panel as it worked, and how in your view these challenges were overcome? The task that was given to the panel of ours, by the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, was that we had to follow up on the implementation of the various proposals that were made with regard to resolving the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. Secondly, we were to help in the negotiations between what was then the government of Sudan and the SPLM, which represented the South, and, of course, which became independent South Sudan, and subsequently therefore, the negotiations between the two governments of Sudan and South Sudan. I think the major challenge with regard to all of these negotiations, has been the level of mistrust among the negotiators, so that it becomes very difficult to get them to agree to anything, because each one is very suspicious of the other.So, you can find a situation where one side might say we agree with the proposal made by the panel,and the other side will say because the other side has agreed,we say no,we don't agree. They suspect that there must be some reason which is not a good reason, that there must be a trick up the sleeve of the other side,if they say we accept.I am saying that the matter of breaking down that mistrust between the two sides becomes an important issue. In reality, in the end that can only happen in the context of practice. You cannot cultivate that trust between two belligerent parties, mainly by discussion. Each has got to see the other acting in a way which says, well, we did agree on this, now both of them are acting to implement. I am saying that that in fact addresses this question of mistrust, because you can then show practical results that we negotiated, we agreed, that both of us are implementing. I am saying it has been a major challenge, and it required a lot of patience on the part of the panel. We had to make sure that there might be one point that has been discussed, even if it takes ten meetings to resolve it, let it take ten meetings. You couldn't force these things down on people. I think essentially this is what has dragged out this process of negotiations, as handled by our panel, because of this mistrust between the two parties. But as I was saying, in the context of the implementation of the agreements that have been entered into, that helped to address this issue, for instance, with regard to the referendum in South Sudan at the beginning of 2011. There were many people who were very skeptical that the government of Sudan would allow that referendum to go through, but we worked with the referendum commission. We worked with the two sides, that is the government of Sudan and that of South Sudan, the SPLM.We kept engaging everybody, and making sure that there was no practical detail which got left out, that both sides understood very clearly what it is that was going to happen. In the end the referendum took place, and President Bashir indeed went down to Juba, even before the referendum, to say that the government of Sudan would accept whatever the outcome of the referendum is, and would cooperate with South Sudan, whether as an independent country, or as a part of Sudan, which gave a lot of assurance to the South Sudanese. As I said when the referendum took place,and it went according to plan, that would communicate to the south, that maybe the level of mistrust that they had of the government of Sudan, was not quite right, because how could they allow a thing like this to happen, that it means indeed there must be some seriousness behind what, for instance, President Bashir had said about the willingness to accept any outcome, and to work according to that outcome. So, I am saying that the principal challenge has been the degree of mistrust between the two sides. Can you outline the significance of the September 27th 2012 agreements that were signed? How long did the panel work before arriving at these agreements, and can you describe a sitting of the panel in the lead up to the signing? These agreements, the ones that were signed in September last year, all of them seek to define the relationship between two independent states. Now that South Sudan is an independent country, what should its relations be with its neighbour, Sudan. So that agenda was set quite early even before the cession of South Sudan, as a provisional thing, that in the event that the people of South Sudan vote for independence, what are the issues that would have to be negotiated. So, I am saying that the negotiations about the agreements which finally were signed in September last year went back some time, perhaps up to 2010,and continued after the independence of South Sudan, on the basis of an agenda that had been set by the two sides.So,they are a comprehensive set of agreements. It might probably be true that there are very few neighbouring states on the African continent that have an extensive set of agreements about how to govern relations between the two of them.This became necessary in this case because of the cession of the South,which then obliged them to have to address everything, relating to the relations between the two of them, something which would not normally happen between two neighbouring African countries.So,what were the matters that needed to be negotiated between the parties ? We must negotiate borders, we must negotiate security arrangements between the two countries.We must negotiate matters of citizens. Citizens of South Sudan in the north. Citizens of the Sudan in the South. All of these things needed to be discussed, including oil arrangements, banking arrangements, travel arrangements, management of water resources, and all of these things.They set up different panels, in different clusters. A particular group focused on the borders, another group focused on something else, maybe on citizenship. What you do in the event that South Sudan secedes. What happens to the rights of people across the border? So each side would have a team dedicated to that. We would then sit with the panel to go through whatever decisions that were reached. So, that's what had to happen with regard to all of the agreements. Some of them required convening the presidents of both countries, which was done as became necessary. So, the presidents would meet and approve and so on. It was in this sense a kind of normal process. Given the recent April negotiations in Addis Ababa, clearly there remains significant ongoing challenges, in your view where are we on the road to a lasting peace? There are two main issues that remain. Let me say that there is one issue that remains in terms of the relations between Sudan and South Sudan, and that is the question of Abyei. That is a matter that is still under discussion. President Bashir was in Juba last month, for bilateral discussions with President Salva Kiir of South Sudan. They started discussing this matter, but could not resolve the issues that need to be resolved. President Salva Kiir is visiting Sudan this May, to continue the discussion about Abyei, and the big question really, is the discussion between the two presidents as has been agreed, that they have to address the matter of the final status of Abyei. The final status of Abyei was agreed a long time ago, that this would be decided by a referendum, that the people would hold a referendum and take a decision. The referendum will ask a simple question whether the population of Abyei want to be part of South Sudan, or want to remain as part of Sudan. Now, the stumbling block is to determine who are the voters. Who is going to participate in the referendum that is the difficulty? In terms of the arbitration ruling that was requested by both sides, the government of Sudan,and the SPLM, then, before the independence of South Sudan. The permanent court of arbitration said that the Abyei area belongs to the Ngok Dinka, and other Sudanese residing in Abyei, and that's the problem now. It's not so much a court of arbitration. This was an earlier decision taken by the Sudanese themselves. Now, the question becomes who are these other Sudanese residing in Abyei, and the debate is really centred around another section of the Sudanese population, the Miseri(y) a, who are a cattle tending people.They are pastoralists. They are nomadic. They spend a certain part of the year in Abyei, and move with the cattle, pass through Abyei to go South for water pasture and come back through Abyei. Now the question really is are these people residing in Abyei? So that matter is still going to be discussed by the two presidents. This is one issue which relates to the two countries. There is a matter which is internal to Sudan, which is a conflict which is still taking place in two areas of Sudan. These are Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile states. Now, there is a conflict that's going on there, and both sides, both the government and the rebellion, in the two states, have agreed that the best way to resolve this conflict is through political negotiation. So, we had a session with them, with the two sides on this towards the end of April, to get them to negotiate. It became clear that the delegation still needed to go back to their principals to consult. So, we said look, let's adjourn this meeting, so we will give you a chance to go and consult with your principals, and we would reconvene then. But that is a conflict that is in Sudan. So, these are the two outstanding issues of negotiations that remain. Of course, implementation of the existing agreements are matters that we are keeping an eye on, generally to encourage them to implement what they have agreed to do. We are not in that sense, an implementation agency, but because we are engaged with the matter, obviously, we are interested to help the two sides to solve any problems that might arise in the course of the implementation of the agreement. The last thing I must mention is, of course, the situation in Darfur. As I indicated to you, earlier on in 2009 when an implementation panel was set up, by the peace and Security Council of the AU, one of our responsibilities was to attend to the matter of Darfur. But what happened in that case was that the UN and the AU had appointed a mediator to facilitate negotiations between the government of Sudan and the rebel groups that were fighting in Darfur. So, there was an AU, UN mediator. Then the Arab league and the AU also agreed that Qatar should assist. The consequence of that was that in fact the responsibility to negotiate an agreement on Darfur fell on that mediation process. So, we said its ok, if that's going to produce the outcomes that are required, that's fine. Indeed, in the end, a document was agreed, to resolve the conflict in Darfur which is being implemented. But the challenge there is that some of the rebel groups in Darfur have refused to accept that document, and therefore have continued fighting. It's something that needs efforts to follow up, because that document that was negotiated and agreed in Doha as a result of the mediation of the AU, UN supported by Qatar, that has in fact not ended the conflict in Darfur. So, it remains a challenge in that sense. How did you feel when you were informed of your selection as African of the Year 2012? It took me by surprise, but I must say we have been talking here about the African Union High Level Panel for Sudan and South Sudan, that's our official title. We are a panel which included President Pierre Buyoya of Burundi, and Abdulsalami Abubakar of Nigeria.The panel had a very good staff, and I have been assisted, supported very well, very actively by Ethiopia.We also received support from the Norwegians, the British, the Americans and the Chinese. Everybody, I must say has been very, very supportive of the panel. When I heard the news it took me by surprise. I think we need to recognise the fact that this was not a one-man job. It really requires involvement of quite a lot of people, members of the panel in the first instance, and as I said we had very good support all around. I want to engage you on what I would call a Pandora's Box question. Can heterogeneous, multi cultural, multi ethnic, multi religious countries stay together? Is it always an option that they have to break in order to progress? No, they can, and on the continent, I should say, they must. Even if you take the matter of Sudan and South Sudan, what was agreed was that the two sides, the government of Sudan, and the SPLM, would use the period from 2005 to 2011, a period of 6 years, to make unity attractive, that was the phrase that was officially used. We commit ourselves to use this period to make unity attractive, because both sides understood that it would be in the interest of everybody to keep Sudan united. They understood that they should make unity attractive, in the context of what was called a new Sudan.The fact that the South seceded means that they actually failed in this context. They failed to achieve this objective of making unity attractive. Hence, the population of South Sudan said we will vote for independence. But I am saying that I think it is imperative in this continent that we must really respect this idea and notion of the inviolability of the borders which we inherited from the colonial powers, because if we don't, then the danger is that Africa can break apart into lots and lots of little pieces, which is not going to help us. So, the basic challenge really is to build what some African academics are calling a common citizenship, to do the things in our countries which will make people feel that sense of common citizenship, that I have the same rights as any other person in the country, regardless of ethnicity, colour, religion, culture or anything. We are common citizens of this particular country. It is very rare, very important to do that, because if you don't then it encourages the tendency towards the balkanization, fragmentation of our countries, which ,as I said is not going to help anybody. It will lead to more conflicts. It will lead to the emergence of states that will not be viable. It will pose many challenges to all the things we are talking about. When we are talking about regional integration, for instance, we need larger economic entities; too many countries in Africa are too small. So let's integrate in regions in the first instance. Now, if you then take a step backwards and say lets break up even more. I am saying we will produce a whole series of negative consequences which are undesirable. Therefore, to address the matter, I am saying we should address this thing about a common citizenship that nobody in the country should feel marginalised, discriminated against, left behind, excluded on whatever basis.So this becomes a big challenge on our continent. After three years of the AU High Level Implementation Panel's existence, do you have any particular fond memories of the panel, or conversely, any particular difficult moments, when you thought it was a thankless job? Of course, it's always been very encouraging, pleasing and it helps to motivate even us. When in the end you sit there with the two parties to sign an agreement which they have concluded, and as you will see, the agreements themselves are very detailed. You have to sit and go through every line, every sentence, even words, until the two sides agree. This, of course, will be a high point in terms of the work of the panel. When we were negotiating, finalizing the September agreements, the last one we concluded, related to the question about what to do with the oil, particularly, what charges South Sudan should pay for the facilities to transit the oil through Sudan to Port Sudan. This was the last agreement.The others were held up because of this. So, you can imagine the relief. Even, never mind us, the relief among the negotiating parties, that at last they have signed this document. As you remember South Sudan had shut down oil production at the beginning of the year, and it was having a bad impact on South Sudan, in terms of its revenues, and so on, but also an impact on the government of Sudan too. That they could agree on this, and were ready to sign, and indeed they did sign, indeed boosted everybody's morale.So,I would say the high point in all of the negotiations could have been when you arrive at this moment when the two sides have now concluded an agreement. Normally, your discouraging moments would be when you can see that there is no willingness on both sides to reach an agreement, because as a facilitator you can tell. We have worked with these people for a long time. We know what the issues are; we know who the people are. You can even read their body language after some time, even if they haven't said anything. I am saying that some of those discouraging moments would be when people are sitting down at the negotiating table, but they have absolutely no desire to reach an agreement. That is not bright, and many times we have said to them as a panel, we really urged them to be sensitive to the fact that they represent people, that these negotiations are about the lives of people.That their people are dying,starving,and the sooner we do these things the better, so that we can attend to other things. At a point I had a long discussion with the two parties, and they admitted that they have been involved in tactical battles. Rather than seeking solutions, each side was trying to out maneuver the other. Those depressing moments when you can see that you have convened these people, and they have come, but there is absolutely no wish to reach an agreement on either side. But those moments were not that many. Fortunately, most of that is behind us now. Lastly, when we selected you as 2012 African of the Year, it was both in recognition of your leadership in 2012 in bringing both Sudan and South Sudan back from the brink of war, but I think it was also a matter of encouragement, to encourage you and the panel to soldier on. Do you have any final words or concluding thoughts for us? I would say that members of the panel and other people, did send messages of congratulations and all of that, but virtually all of them said what you have just said, that they hoped that this gives encouragement to the panel to persist in what it is doing, because the problems of Sudan, both in the North and South, are not yet solved, and this matter has arisen now, because our mandate should, in principle, end at the close of July this year, because everybody thought that by this time, all of the outstanding matters would have been negotiated and finalized. So, indeed we have reminded the presidents of the two countries, that in terms of the decisions of the peace and security council,we terminate our work at the end of July, and the response from both sides has been no, you can't, because even if you have negotiated everything else that is outstanding, the work is not yet done. You people know us, you understand the crises, and therefore you have to stay with us for some time. Both North and South are saying this. I am saying that indeed the response by everybody was that this decision by yourselves and Daily Trust, indeed would serve as an encouragement to the panel to persist in what we are doing, and I think that's how we received it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South Sudan Info - The Kob" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14ooVr4oKfX1XONaJ3hDFV7RRisagc6%3DFfjMfCd94Bz4uvA%40mail.gmail.com?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
