Where deals are not
respected, why go for a new one?
By: Justin
Ambago Ramba, MD.
NOV.
3/2010, SSN; Although the Rift Valley Institute (RVI) is claimed
to be a creditable non-profit research and training organisation
operating in Sudan, the Horn of Africa, East Africa and the Great Lakes,
unfortunately it has undoubtedly tarnished its fairness when it claimed
in its recent report that the January 2011's referendum in Sudan's
Oil-rich border region of Abyei may have to be postponed until April due
to severe delays to preparations at a time that all the good wishers are
doing their best to avoid such a postponement.
Those who
read the report will no doubt come to the conclusion that in spite of
the seemingly exhaustive arguments presented by its author Aly Verjee,
he intentionally went ahead to suggest a new deal – what he called the
CPA II, without getting into the root causes of why the dominant
National Congress Party (NCP) of Omer Al Bashir has consistently chosen
to derail the initial agreement in the first place – a thing very likely
to be repeated with any new truce. It’s not true that the best way to
avoid the Abyei and southern referenda becoming a 'national disaster' -
triggering a third north-south civil war lies solely in what the author
refers to as a 'political fix' in the form a new deal or 'Comprehensive
Peace Agreement II' as he prefers to call it. This is a cheap way for
Khartoum to buy time and regain its composure, from which it can only
emerge yet another notorious pariah regime.
Hence it is
not related to sensible thinking in anyway if the NCP is determined to
continue with its favourite game of playing one group against the other
while never doing anything genuinely to behave responsibly. This time
around only a well coordinated international pressure led by the US,
China and the EU can force the Khartoum government to respect its part
of the different political settlements that it signs with its many
rivals, without which peace and stability can hardly prevail in the
region. This is not only necessary, but has become an urgent need should
a return to the north and the south war be averted or tangible peace be
realised in the troubled region of Darfur.
The RVI report
which serves more or less like a preparatory ground for postponing the
referenda if not an inlet to introduce a virus that could derail the
entire CPA altogether, stands out in favour of the NCP, and it took
much interest in portraying the north’s lethal tricks when it claimed
that Senior NCP politicians have suggested that Abyei's vote be delayed
in order to resolve north-south boundary demarcation, the appointment of
members of the referendum commission, the question of voter eligibility
and residency and issues of public security. And it went to conclude
that, “For these reasons 'postponement of the Abyei referendum is
undesirable but may be unavoidable”. The report said.
How the Rift
Valley Institute chose not to see the obvious ill intentions by the
so–called senior NCP politicians when they suggested a delay to the
Abyei referendum is a point of interest if it deserves to be called a
neutral body. However for the benefit of the readers, no one should be
misled into thinking that the NCP is in a way trying to find out a
solution to the current stalemate. Is it not true that the CPA was
arrived at as a solution to the existing problems that pitted the two
parts in the two decades war? So why postpone a referendum which has
always been there to take place at the end of the CPA? The problem is
not lack of time, but rather a lack of a political will. Whenever that
is availed all parts of the agreement can get back to track and move on
smoothly. So how comes that the RVI is sure that the NCP will be able to
acquire that political will exactly within the time frame they are
asking for?
The Rift
Valley Institute (RVI) was to some extent justified in concluding that
'brinkmanship, delay and broken agreements – which it calls old
traditions of Sudanese politics – is turning every political and
technical challenges of the referenda into a national disaster.' this is
true and there is no coincidence where the Sudan finds itself now.
People keep saying that the implementation of the entire CPA has always
fallen behind schedule - largely out of design by the NIF/NCP which is
finding it difficult to part with the oil revenues that it enjoys from
the south.
The south
has every right to seek a way outside the referendum should the NCP or
the north for that matter decides to use delaying tactics in order to
frustrate the southerners from excising their right to self
determination as enshrined both in the CPA and the country’s
constitution. But for organisations like the Rift Valley Institute to
portray a picture as if the northern politicians have a birth right to
enjoy a free hand in violating the timely implementation of all the
provisions in the agreement, from the border demarcation, the census,
and now the referenda while making it appear as illegal any move by
the south to rid itself of what is overwhelmingly considered as a
colonial domination over the black African people of south Sudan by the
northern Arab Muslims – for fairness sake, this deserves every
criticism.
A
unilateral referendum or still unilateral declarations of Independence
are all possible options regardless of the RVI’s opinion that it
would contravene some articles of the CPA, as well as unlikely to gain
full international recognition or promote national consensus. However
the south Sudanese aren’t that naive even to beg for recognition from
the north. In reality it would be both an economic and a security
suicide should the north refuse to recognise the choice of the people of
the south as it can all come at the expense of the natural resources
including Oil and Water that it is eyeing to have from the south.
In a previous development
many observers were indeed surprised by the attack on the US President
by Sudan’s second vice president Ali Osman Taha, when President Obama
warned against a possible
bloodshed if the referendum on independence for south Sudan doesn’t take
place as planned in January. Taha went on to describe the US President
as someone who depends on reports from entities who don’t know what is
happening in the Sudan and is being misled by a Jewish lobby.
"This is
not the first time he speaks as such of Sudan, and it will not be the
last. He makes those remarks based on what he hears from
pressure groups." Taha
added.
The truth
of the matter is that the senior Sudanese politician’s (Taha) reaction
is a reflection of the state of uncertainty that has lately dominated
the mood within the northern ruling elites. The regime is terrified to
hear such a blunt statement coming directly from the US’s top official,
for it may entail a possible military intervention by the US at any time
if it deems necessary to prevent the anticipated bloodshed. However to
conclude that President Obama’s statement was a mere work of a pressure
group or some kind of anti-Arab lobby, sincerely confirms the state of
paranoia where the NIF/NCP leadership finds itself after having
completely lost the needed political will to walk the final step in the
CPA.
But as if
to remind the people of the Sudan, rulers and citizens alike that the US
administration is determined not to back down on its position of having
the two referenda simultaneously on the 9th of January 2011,
the special envoy was quick to dispute a recent rumours about a possible
postponement of the polls which was marked by an infamous statement by
the Chairman for the referendum where he simulated the timely holding of
the referenda a ‘miracle’.
"We have no
proposal to delay the referendum. In fact we would like to see the
referendum that happens on time, that is peaceful and allows the people
of southern Sudan to express their will," Gration told reporters in
Khartoum.
"That is
what we are pushing for, so we are looking for 9 January having people
fill out the voting cards to be able to express their will. That is what
we are pushing for and there is absolutely no talk about a delay," he
added.
While the
people of south Sudan continue to look confidently towards the Obama
administration for a full, timely and fair implementation of the crux of
the CPA – the referenda, yet there are times marked by certain
disturbing suggestions which are attributed to the US administration
that do not go well with the basic aspirations of the majority pro
independence south Sudanese. Of late there is the stalemate created by
the NCP in order to undermine the proper demarcation of the north –
south borders and the conduct of the Abyei referendum by intentionally
using the Misserya nomads as a disruption tool.
The Misserya
were present during the CPA where their case was discussed in details
and addressed in the Abyei Protocol only to be over turned later by a
joint NCP-Messairiya spoilers. This took the entire Abyei border issue
to the court of arbitration at The Hague where a new verdict was again
issued re-defining the Dinka Ngok territory to which the NCP-Misserya on
one side and SPLM-Ngok Dinka on the other put their initials. However
what happened after that is a clear evidence for the whole world to see
that the NCP-Messairiya union is primarily meant to promote instability
and lawlessness by undermining subsequent agreements. This should be
clear by now to all, and hopefully including the US administration.
Dr. Luka Biong, a senior SPLM politician and a native
of the Oil- rich Abyei region was quoted in the media where he confirmed
that
Washington had
put forward a proposal for a political settlement, in an attempt to
avoid the region (Abyei) from triggering a renewed conflict between the
north and the south. According to the proposal, Dr. Biong was reported
to have said:
"They put this
proposal ... having a presidential decree to return Abyei back to the
south and the Messairiya to have dual citizenship — we accepted it,"
Biong said
“Under
this US proposal, in the event that the referendum does not go ahead the
SPLM would grant the Messairiya citizenship rights so they could
continue to use the region to find pasture for their cattle. The south
would also use some of Abyei’s oil revenues to set up a development fund
for the Messairiya, Biong said.
The US
administration is entitled to its opinion; however it is doubtful
whether there is any relevance of this so-called US proposal and the
realities on the ground. Besides the fact that the proposal is openly
calling for a renegotiation of the CPA protocols, especially on
incorporating a very notorious Arab tribe(Misserya) that has
traditionally been used by the northern Riverains as a war fodder in
their five decades war against the people of the south. In short one can
ask the obvious question that, “ If the Arab nomads – and in particular
these extremely hostile Messairiya Tribesmen are to become citizens of
the independent south Sudan nation – then what point is it there for the
entire so-called independence struggle?
For obvious
reasons, I couldn’t agree more with Dr. P.A Nyaba that the Postponement
of the referendum will be more dangerous than war. We are all aware of
the underlying ill-intentions of the northern Sudanese in as far as the
right of the south to self determination are concerned in spite of the
fact that it was arrived at through a national consensus.
To say the
least, no one in south Sudan would like to share the fate of the
Saharawi’s [Polisario – Western Sahara]. But for those adventurers
amongst the NCP and the Messairiya warlords who prefer brinkmanship to
sober politics must not forget that they are playing with catastrophe
and the bloodbath they are about to plunge the region into is a reality.
Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba,
M.B, B.Ch, D.R.H, MD. He can be reached at either justinramba@doctors.org.uk
or justinramba@aol.co.uk.
COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE
Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: The views expressed
above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the
website.