Juba must make Oil Concessions with Khartoum to get Abyei out of the Quagmire

It is imperative that Southern Sudan will overwhelmingly vote for secession in January 2011 referendum as predicted by many keen observers of the Sudanese conflict.  This vote is particularly loathsome to NCP and the entire northern Sudanese population- the economically oppressed and the politically disenfranchised groups by the Muslim/Islamic theocratic leadership.  This makes 2010 and 2011 the years of determination of statehood and survivability. Only one area has become a silver bullet which would, nonetheless, bring about lasting peace in the country, but a threshold for doom to the entire country. This area is Abyei. Abyei had become the footstool where decision-makers rest their feet while debating the future of the country, particularly on wrong and deceitful terms.

The justifiable token for not accepting all the deliberations on Abyei by the NCP Government is not that Abyei holds any significance in the people that live in it for them. The matter in holding on to Abyei at this crucial time is a matter of survival. It is not true to suggest that the transhumance Messeriya herders who seasonally maraud while grazing and watering their livestock in Abyei will be permanently deprived of the use of the resources by southerners - grazing land and water. No supportive historical evidence is present today which can point to any occasions when the Messeriya had unduly been denied grazing and temporary sojourning by the Ngok Dinka of Abyei.

There is something deeper than what is being demanded in a manner particularly so incognito by the Sudanese government and the ruling party, the NCP. Many writers and analysts have highlighted this several times and have come to the conclusion that Sudan’s precious commodity in Southern Sudan is oil. About 80% of the Sudanese revenue is known to come from oil, and much of this lies in southern Sudan, a region presently threatening to go away as an independent sovereignty. What will happen to North Sudan economy should southern Sudan leave with all the oil? What are the guarantees that southerners will, in the near future, decide to reunite with northerners to form a much-desired United New Sudan? And what is the point of holding on to Abyei when all the Sudanese citizens in the north know that the Nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms are indeed Dinka People and, therefore, Southerners?

Somebody doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to discern the demand of the Sudanese government, hidden behind the status of Abyei. But this demand can be asked politely and southerners would consider a brotherly option for it. Clamouring and displaying higgledy-piggledy demeanours will not solve it. If anything, manners as such can destroy the country. Abyei has always been a Southern territory and its administrative sway in the twentieth century does not make it a Northern area of jurisdiction. The point is clear to all Sudanese. It is therefore incumbent upon the SPLM and NCP to do something about the heavy anchor in Abyei's matter. Something has to be done before unconditional return to war. No further tricks or clandestine hypotheses of togetherness will normalise this stalemate but oil. Juba must agree to share oil with Khartoum even if it means doing so on a long-term basis allocation. After all, Sudan has always been one country. This gesture will be honourable to all Sudanese.

This is hard to fathom, but it is evident that before the end of the year and without a concrete breakthrough, Sudan will go to war based on the premise of protecting the right of Messeriya nomads and on salvaging the land of the Ngok Dinka and the oil fields.  Should this happens both NCP and SPLM will carry the burden of the blame. The variance of the war to be waged by either side cannot be conclusively attributed to one party, but the probability that NCP will wheedle the Messeriya to jumpstart the war is one. This affirms the normative argument put forward by NCP that Messeriya, who are the majority in the area and native to nearby Muglad, are to be considered inhabitants of Abyei and therefore, have inalienable right to vote in the deciding referendum for Abyei. Professor Mading Deng disputed the concocted right of the Messeriya to vote in Abyei's referendum on the United Nation TV a few days ago in a response to the Sudanese ambassador in the USA. The ambassador reiterated his government’s call to allow the Messeriya herders to vote. professor Mading quipped and said, “There is no need for a referendum in Abyei then if the Messeriya are allowed to vote. The Messeriya  are the majority in the area and giving them the option on the future of Abyei automatically means they will want to keep Abyei under Northern administration.” He went on to say that what is needed the most is the capacity to build trust between the Messeriya and Ngok Dinka. Some harmonious platform that will allow the two communities to remain in an acceptable coexistence with each other as well as to coexist as peaceful neighbours irrespective of the future of Abyei.

So, where is the logic with which Khartoum is forcing the Messeriya to take up such a radical position on Abyei? The Messeriya were part of the peace delegation five years ago. They knew that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement granted Ngok Dinka suffrage in a referendum to decide their future. Their main complaints as herders at the time were their animals and how they would survive if Abyei went to South Sudan administratively. This complaint was addressed adequately in the CPA.  Existing cordial relationships between the two communities were held in high regards during peace negotiations. The undeniable right to grazing and watering the animals on the part of the Messeriya was part of the agreements. What then makes Messeriya think that the CPA was wrong and the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling was also a bluff? The answer could be found in the oil.

To break the deadlock on Abyei, freeze war, inculcate a mutual understanding among the Sudanese citizenry and solicit a mutually assured development between the two sides of Sudan, the South should, by virtue and wisdom, allow the North to share oil with it.  This natural bounty is the last thing that keeps the two Sudan together. 

General Arabisation Quandary in South Sudan Could also be a Pan Africa Problem.

Northern Sudan had experienced a tumultuous time in its history and is now grappling with the most austere political test it had never dreamt of - the break of the nation into two possible independent countries. This sincere and difficult development will come about as an achieved status quo resulting from political miscalculations by many governments in Sudan. The Sudanese government had often adopted covert policies to neglect people within their country and devised extreme measures of mistreatment to silence them. This pressure of injustice and maladministration had been imposed on the people for approximately half a century. 

When injustices outdo their limits, the masses always act on their own accord to demand justice for themselves. South Sudan was the first point of explosion as the pressure to demand justice and freedom mounted on the civil populace in Sudan. South Sudan has now alerted the Arab world that Islamaisation through slavery, sheer neglect of the people, and conquest (through the employment of divisive measures) has been halted. Throughout the entire Sudanese unity, much of what the people of South Sudan have offered to their country (since independence from Anglo - Egyptian condominium) was a brotherly coexistence in a free and prosperous country. The first Sudanese civil war that ended in 1972 proved that citizens of South Sudan only demanded unity and togetherness - the rights of the citizenry to all Sudanese people - in the country through meaningful and compromising understanding. Southern Autonomy within a united Sudan was the vehicle through which this could have been achieved.

But, Islamists in Sudan gave an impression and erratic belief that infidels or non-believers can never lead them, or even share equal Rights with them in a democratic country. It is a woe of a belief which should be generalized to assume that no world government under a non-Muslim is desired by the people of Islamic Faith. Summary application of such a thought in Sudan had not been helpful. It falls short of respect for human dignity and becomes a weapon for not doing right for the people being governed. This fallacy of Divine call for mistreatment will make Sudan's oppressive regimes, which had ruled the country for decades, carry the blame for any eventuality in Sudan. The unity of the country so desired today had been availed as an option for a period of time, but no one saw the repercussions of turning it down. This is why it is painful today to think or hear about south Sudan seceding from the country.

Many successive governments in Sudan, starting from the government of Prime Minister Ismail al Azari to Omar el Bashir did little to heed the 'Call of Rights' by the oppressed in the country. Sudanese People’s expeditious attempts to keep the nation in harmony via the demand for equal treatment and respect of values had been recurrently turned down. This will of togetherness by southerners has been demonstrated in many peace talks and also through violent arm struggle but to no compromise.

The latest test in which the people of south Sudan love to be in an autonomous state within united Sudan was accorded to Khartoum in a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005. Five years have passed since Sudan ushered in the peace but Khartoum is still arrogantly leaning on the traditional belief that it will ensnare the Southerners to vote for unity even though laxity in the implementation of the peace agreement remains mischief, pointing the people in a different voting direction.

The ultimate demand of CPA is where the citizens of South Sudan and the adjacent marginalized areas, who are partners in the peace process are allowed to exercise their democratic rights to choose the Sudan they would like to join. That is a choice between New Sudan and Old Sudan. National Congress Party has again routinely thwarted this CPA protocol with a view to derailing peace and tranquillity that had settled into the minds of the people. At the border, NCP is amassing troops; a troubling and a masterminding sign to drive the country back into war anew.

The question they should ask themselves is whether war with the south will begin in Yei this time or at the border, and whether aerial bombardment of the cities in South Sudan will be exclusive to southern cities and not northern cities this time around? Any war in Sudan in 2011 will be a war that will be very close to everyone’s children. And this should be marked very clearly.

Recently, Egyptian and Libyan Arab brotherhood had been revealed when they all expressed support for Sudanese unity and pressured Khartoum to do whatever is probable to keep the country united. Gadaffi accentuated support for one entity of Sudan, stressing fears that the whole of Africa will break up. This was an irresponsible statement from the African Union chairman. Human Life is important and preserving its sanctity is a noble and moral calling than dismantling territorial boundaries. Sinking mountains and draining out rivers do not mark African borders. Borders can be reshaped but people cannot be procreated once they are lost. The same imaginary phenomenon of borders is right and abounds throughout the rest of the world.  Asia has never ceased to carry its name and will of power after the partition of India to yield Pakistan, Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan and Indonesia's giving way to East Timor.

If Sudan is keen on territorial boundaries, why is it not talking about The Elemi Triangle with the republic of Kenya and Ethiopia? This is a productive area with unknown reserves of mineral endowments. The other case is the Hala’ib Triangle taken over in a broad daylight by Egypt. It has been annexed with all the Sudanese citizens residing in it. Recent population census and democratic elections in Sudan following the CPA were not carried out in Hala’ib and Elemi Triangles. Is there any reason why the government is soft on foreign aggression and annexation but tough on its citizens' demands for rights?

Sudan should not dwell on the factor of unity for no apparent reasons. It has the moral and state duty to protect the Messeriya and the Baggara endangering themselves through a future hostile clash with the southern army by dissuading them not to think of Abyei as their area of jurisdiction. If Messeryia votes wherever they graze their animals, then why don’t they vote in Aweil and Warrap states as well?

The Baggara are the last tools in the NCP human arsenals. They will not escape the wrath of Riverine Arabs who always discard people after they have served their purpose and continue to pinch them should argumentation ensues. Darfur war is a clear and unmistakable Sudanese government heedlessness and disrespect for the people who made it possible to keep southerners at bay for twenty years in the war of a new Sudan. The Darfuris formed the bulk of government militias that tormented South Sudan during the lengthy period of war. Today all weapons of the Sudan Armed Forces are stored in Nyala ready to be used against the Furs.

The Baggara must learn to know the government they serve well. They must read into the history of Sudanese tactics of starting with the furthest enemy. The Anya Nya war between Khartoum and southern Anya Nya guerrillas was almost exclusively fought by the Nuba people who were the government’s favorite source of manpower. The war with SPLA/M saw the government targeted the Nuba people harshly while favoring the Fur and the Baggara as the favorite source of manpower against the southerners. Today, the Fur are the enemies and the Baggara are the immediate darlings. The question is who is next? And what about the united Sudan portrayed as peaceful matrimony? It may not be a realistic union but an ideal type.

Unions are not always permanent. And this includes the integrity of a country as a united sovereign entity. In Africa, the then East African Community (comprising of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) which saw the early African renaissance in trade broke up and abandoned many services that were managed jointly by one regional body such as the East African Airline and East African Customs and Trade. But the same body has been revived after a fairly negotiated settlement in the spirit of a new and mutually benefiting trading bloc.

Ethiopia is another country where dissidence had been the order of relations between the government of Emperor Haile Selassie, the army under Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, and the TPLF (Tigray Peoples Libration Front) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front). Since the 1993 secession of Eritrea, no warring groups had demanded an analogous request as Eritrea.

Africa in general has never disintegrated because of Eritrean freedom. Eritreans were justified and this is the similar condition in which marginalized Southern Sudanese and others are held at present. The Arab world should not be disheartened by what is going to transpire in Sudan following January 9, 2011. It is an experiment that had been tried but went berserk and people are left without any preference but to opt for destiny and life over terrorization and enslavement. And they are geared up to sacrifice everything to get it. 

The recent strong wording from president Obama is quite encouraging to Sudan and Africa in general. Islamization is bad for the continent and Islamists should not be allowed to terrorize the Sudanese people. If America stands and watches what is going on in Sudan, they will be surprised by the reemergence of another terrorist wing in Sudan. The results are always felt everywhere even in America.   

The Subsahara of Africa must also be vigilant for Arabization and Islamization is trickling down south faster and menacingly than ever. It is a south Sudanese problem now, but it will be an all Africa problem in the future. If the Sudanese militias (Zaghawa-also found in Chad in good numbers) could bring down governments in Chad and Central Africa, where can they not go? The government in Khartoum is a terrorizing lump to all of Africa and the world. Uganda seems to understand this fully well because Sudan Islamic government supports the Lord's Resistance Army in the north of the country. The rest of Africa must wake up to the realities of the Islamists in Khartoum.

Africa should embrace stern measures in dealing with political oppressions. This requires reformation in the AU charter that prevents meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. With this charter unchanged, Africa will continue to wallow in the mess of wars and neocolonialism economic ideologies. Africa must not be left to free thinkers like Nelson Mandela. Africa of Nelson Mandela is tantamount to Africa of Kwame Nkurumah of Ghana in the 1960s and Gadhaffi of Libya in this century. Some of the ideologies by these strong men are somehow impractical: Africa where states of affairs are allowed to chart their own courses without political pressure applied to the oppressing regimes. It is ridiculous and inhumane to watch people die while playing a messianic mission. Even the Messiah gave up his own life for the oppressed. 

What we have in Sudan is no different from apartheid in South Africa in the twentieth century. That was the reason why pan Africans, both at home and in the diasporas, garnered support and faced the apartheid government unblinkingly. South Africans recently harvested the result of the Pan African Movement when they hosted the first world cup in Africa. They knew that without empathies and actions of other African brothers, all would be different. 

Massive threats and propaganda have become the norm in the Sudanese media of late. If the intentions were to force southerners to vote for unity, then the question that remains indelible in the minds of the voters in southern Sudan would be the nature of the credibility in a forced unity rather than by choice and what would happen should someone vote for unity amid threats and curses. Of course, the Sudanese government's traditional threats and killings will not abate even if Sudanese in the south vote for a united Sudan. So, why die in unity and not in separation? 

It is possible the government in Khartoum is squandering the referendum and popular consultation time on Abyei. NCP must not waste time on Abyei for Abyei is the ultimate curse for them. If they choose to go to war because of this oil-rich state, then they have to know that southern Sudanese know nothing else other than war and they are ready to turn around and fight for self-defense.