War Again Between North and South Sudan?

Sunday, as the Khartoum regime was solidifying its military occupation of Abyei and beginning to loot and burn the town, I heard from one of the foremost experts on Sudan in the world, Dr. Douglas Johnson. We agreed that Bashir's government felt certain that it would face no international consequences for its attack on Abyei, which threatens to plunge the North and South back to full-scale war. In the absence of any cost or accountability, to have believed that Khartoum would NOT strike would have been foolhardy.

This is what Dr. Johnson wrote to me:

The Sudan Army's occupation of the Abyei Area has been long anticipated and should come as no surprise. In his opening presentation to the Abyei Boundaries Commission back in 2005, the leader of the Sudan government delegation warned that his government would never concede its control of the territory and it threatened to go to war rather than accept any other solution. Khartoum officials have repeated this claim at different stages during the prolonged international mediation since then. After preventing the democratic referendum last year various Sudanese government officials, including President Bashir, have proclaimed that Abyei was part of the north and would remain part of the north.

The intention of Khartoum has been clear for several years, but the international community's equivocal response has only encouraged them to take action. The UN peace-keeping force in the area for far too long has confined its role to that of monitoring and reporting, rather than actively keeping the two armed groups apart and protecting the area's civilian population.

The US government, having been responsible for drafting the Abyei Protocol in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which promised Abyei's citizens a referendum to choose whether the area would join South Sudan or remain part of the north, then adopted a hands-off approach to the implementation of the agreement. Rather than insisting that Khartoum adhere to the agreements they signed and the referendum legislation their own National Assembly passed, the US and other international actors instead got behind compromise proposals that whittled away the rights of Abyei's citizens to a democratic choice and emboldened Khartoum to undertake the action they have just taken.

The current invasion must be seen in the context of Khartoum's military build-up along the border with Abyei and the adjacent oil regions of South Sudan -- a build-up that has been well documented over the preceding months -- and is a culmination of a series of provocative acts by members of the Sudan Armed Forces and allied militias since January. The danger is that if Khartoum feels that it can get away with yet another flagrant violation of the peace agreement in Abyei, other territorial seizures of strategic oil fields will follow.

John Prendergast is co-founder of the Enough Project and co-author of Unlikely Brothers.

 

Follow John Prendergast on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EnoughProject

Comments

[smasca]

01:44 AM on 05/24/2011

This blog post couldn't have been more one-sided even if the writer tried. Half-truth is not truth at all, for this reason we have to present facts in an even-handed way. This last round of fighting was started by South Sudan army and local police units. They attacked a U.N. escorted unit of the North Sudan army that was on its way to the joint forces camp (north & south combined forces units) that was agreed to by both sides to be an interim security force until a permanent solution is found. There were 20 soldiers that died, scores injured and many others missing. We have to keep in mind that the Messiria nomadic tribes have been using this land for their cattle for as long as the recorded history of Abiye. The sticking point that is delaying an Abiye solution is the question whether to allow the nomads to vote. On one hand the south only wants settled Dinka to vote and the north wants both to be included. This is a moral dilemma, if you deny the nomads to vote because they are not settled full time, they cannot vote anywhere. There has to be an peaceful and amicable solution that hopefuly can restore the historically good relations between these two parties (Dinka and Messiria).

[Nell Okie]

05:20 PM on 05/26/2011

Satellite Images Confirm GOS, Attack on Abyei
http://www­.enoughpro­ject.org/b­logs/satel­lite-image­s-confirm-­sudan-gove­rnment-att­ack-abyei

The latest analysis of satellite images by the Satellite Sentinel Project, or SSP, confirms reports of Sudan Armed Forces-led attacks on Abyei, including the razing of one southern-a­ligned base north of Abyei town. The project, which has consistent­ly documented military build-up in

[smasca]

06:11 PM on 05/26/2011

I do not dispute that the Sudanese army attached Abyei, this is a fact and they admitted their action. By the same token you have to remember that any army in the world would have responded if attacked and suffered 200 casualties between dead, injured and missing. Remember that this comes on the heels of recent attacks on the Messiria tribes by unknown sources (most likely SPLA soldiers or police units). This must be resolved through peaceful means but the situation on the ground must be prepared for such a solution. The north and South must not be allowed to send in armed forces or police. UN/African forces must step in and keep the peace and hopefully start a dialogue between the Ngok Dinka and the Messiria. The sad part of this is that these groups have historically enjoyed good relations until the civil war began. They must learn anew how to live peacefully together. I personally support a separate independent nation for Abyie, to include Ngok Dinka and the Messiria.

[Nell Okie]

07:08 PM on 05/23/2011

The post by Ann Garrison is incorrect. You can read John Prendergast's profile here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast#cite_note-15

[Ann Garrison]

12:48 PM on 06/03/2011

@Nell: I responded to you and submitted a revised comment, in which I acknowledged my error in saying that Mr. Prendergast had joined BIll Clinton's National Security Council as Director of African Affairs at the outset of the Clinton Administration rather than in 1996, as his Wikipedia bio reports. My analysis of Mr. Prendergast's history and motivating context, within the U.S. intelligence and national security community, remains the same. Because of this history and context, he prioritizes the global military dominance and hegemony of the U.S.A., and his humanitarian expressions, for the people of Abyei and other African peoples, are therefore hardly convincing.

He does at least seem to acknowledge, at the end of this essay, that Abyei oil, not genocide, is his main concern: "The danger is that if Khartoum feels that it can get away with yet another flagrant violation of the peace agreement in Abyei, other territorial seizures of strategic oil fields will follow."

Neither my response to you nor my revision of my original comment were published.