UN AND ABYEI

UN may use force in Sudan’s Abyei to protect civilians
July 20, 2009 (KHARTOUM)

The UN peacekeepers present in Sudan’s disputed region of Abyei will use force if necessary to protect civilians, its top official said today.

On Wednesday the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague will deliver a highly anticipated ruling on the borders of Abyei and the fate of the oil fields in the region as either being part of North Sudan or the South.
Many inside and outside Sudan fear that the court’s decision may spark violence particularly for the side that feels the ruling is unfavorable.
“We do have in our mandate a Chapter VII paragraph….with regard to protection of civilians. We are mandated to protect civilians who are in imminent danger of physical harm within our capabilities and in accordance with our mandate without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the two governments, the GoSS [Government of Southern Sudan] and the government of Sudan,” said the UNSG Special Representative for Sudan Ashraf Qazi.
“That is Chapter VII obligation within our mandate and we will fulfill that. However, we must never loose sight of the fact where the primary responsibility lies. That was the case last year and will be the case this year also,” Qazi added.
However he added that reinforcements had been sent to beef up the existing peacekeeping force in the district as a precaution.
Last year, fighting erupted in the town between GoS and GoSS forces killing dozens and displacing 50,000 from their homes.
The former US special envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson, who visited Abyei after the fighting, accused UN peacekeepers of hiding in their barracks during the fighting instead of protecting Sudanese civilians in line with their mandate.
The UN initially rejected the charge but the world body later issued a report stating that “lessons” were learned from the way peacekeepers acted during the incident.
Qazi today stressed the importance of the commitment of both sides to peaceful implementation, which “they have reiterated in a number of occasions”.
The US special envoy Scott Gration, who is currently in Sudan, is scheduled to fly to Abyei the day before the decision by the PCA is rendered.

ABYEI

Q+A: What is behind Sudan's Abyei crisis
Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:09pm IST

By Andrew Heavens

KHARTOUM, July 20 (Reuters) - Political tensions are rising in Sudan ahead of a ruling on Wednesday on the borders of Abyei, an oil-producing area claimed by northerners and southerners.
Analysts have warned the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague could reignite north-south fighting over Abyei, a development that would disrupt the country's oil industry and undermine a key peace deal.
Here are some questions and answers about Abyei.

WHAT IS ABYEI?

Abyei is a central area straddling the undefined border between Sudan's Muslim north and mostly Christian south.
For many years, large parts of the territory have been shared by the Ngoc Dinka, part of south Sudan's Dinka group, and northern Arab Misseriya nomads.
Abyei is currently governed by a joint north-south administration. But residents have been promised a referendum in January 2011 on whether they want to join north or south Sudan.
On the same day, south Sudan as a whole has been promised another vote on whether to split off as an independent country.

WHAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE?

Both sides differ over the ownership of Abyei and its boundaries. Southerners say Abyei covers a much larger area of land than the north is prepared to accept.
On one level, this is an argument about how much north Sudan stands to lose if Abyei joins the south, especially if southerners, as is widely expected, also choose secession.

WHAT LED UP TO WEDNESDAY'S RULING?

The status and borders of Abyei were among the most sensitive issues left undecided in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended more than two decades of civil war between north and south Sudan.
Efforts to reach a settlement since 2005 have failed and northern and southern forces have already clashed over Abyei a number of times, forcing tens of thousands of civilians to flee.
Last year, both sides referred the issue to the Hague court and have promised they would accept its decision.

WHAT WILL THE HAGUE COURT BE RULING ON?

On the surface, the court's Abyei tribunal has been asked to rule on a technical issue. That is whether a panel of international experts, set up by the peace deal, went beyond its mandate when it outlined Abyei's borders in 2005.
The Hague tribunal could accept the panel's border, with its northern boundary about 90km (55 miles) north of Abyei town, taking in oilfields, a large section of pipeline, a railway town, grazing land and agricultural projects. This finding would please southerners, although some want even more territory.
If the tribunal decides the panel went too far, it can draw its own boundary.
In the past, northern leaders have argued Abyei makes up a small slice of land south of Abyei town, south of the river Kiir, as it is known by the Dinka or Bahr el-Arab to northerners. Under this definition, even Abyei town would fall outside Abyei area.

WHAT IS AT STAKE ON A NATIONAL LEVEL?

Both sides want control of oil installations north of Abyei town, run by the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), a consortium led by CNPC of China, the main oil group operating in the Abyei area.
Both sides want to keep the loyalty of communities that supported them during the civil war -- for northerners the Misseriya, for southerners the Ngoc Dinka.
There are also emotional motivations. Abyei has become an emblem for the south and north after decades of fighting. Senior members of the south's dominant Sudan People's Liberation Movement come from the area.
Analysts see Abyei as a test of both sides' commitment to the 2005 peace deal, ahead of other flashpoints including elections due in April 2010, and the secession referendum.

WHAT IS AT STAKE ON A LOCAL LEVEL?

Grazing and land rights are the key issue for the Dinka and the heavily armed Misseriya. Many feel this competition over resources could be managed through traditional settlements and earlier agreements, if it wasn't for the national clash.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF CONFLICT?

The United Nations, the United States and other interested countries, will be pressing both sides to avoid conflict. Senior U.N. and government officials have promised to be in Abyei town on Wednesday to quell any violence.
But it is unclear where the parties will find room for compromise -- one will probably emerge a winner, the other a loser. Over the weekend, the United Nations said there was a build-up of southern troops close to Abyei, an accusation denied by the south. U.N. peacekeepers in the town do not have the equipment or manpower to intervene in a full-blown clash.

Election Delayed For 2nd Time in Three Months

Elections delayed for second time in three months:

Change caused by late census results and rainy season (Adds detail, background, southern reaction)

By: Andrew Heavens

KHARTOUM, June 30 (Reuters) - Sudan will delay its national elections by two months to April 2010, said officials on Tuesday, the second postponement of the poll which will be the country's first democratic vote in two decades.
Sudan's National Elections Commission said delays in the release of census details and a decision to postpone voter registration until after the rainy season were reasons for changing the vote timetable for a second time in three months.
"The National Elections Commission has been deliberating and observing the circumstances relating to the national elections and has decided on the modification of the previous timeframe," said a statement signed by Commission chairman Abel Alier.
Africa's largest country was promised democratic presidential and parliamentary elections under a 2005 peace deal that ended more than two decades of civil war between north and south Sudan.
The main parties in both north and south Sudan have in the past said they would resist moves to delay the poll, but the independent commission has the power to set election timetables without the approval of politicians.
Southerners are particularly worried any lag could hit the timing of a long-awaited referendum, scheduled for January 2011, on whether their territory should split away as an independent state.
U.S. special envoy Scott Gration called on Sudan in May to ensure it carried out "credible" elections and pledged Washington's support for the southern independence referendum.
In his May visit to Sudan, seen as a sign the diplomatic detente between Washington and Khartoum may be thawing, he also called for the passage of legislation seen as pre-requisites for a free and fair election and referendum.
BASHIR SET TO RUN
Current president Omar Hassan al-Bashir is expect to stand in the elections, despite a decision this year by the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant against him on charges of atrocities in Darfur.
No other candidates from the main parties have formally said they will run.
A spokeswoman for the south's dominant Sudan People's Liberation Party (SPLM) said she would need more information on the exact reasons for the delay before commenting.
"If they have postponed to help with rules and regulations for freer and fairer elections or to reach peace in Darfur then it is OK," Keji Jermolil told Reuters.
The north's dominant National Congress Party (NCP), led by Bashir, said members would accept the delay, which would give parties more time to prepare.
"We hope that this will be the last amendment for the timetable," the NCP's chief official for the elections Ibrahim Ghandour told Reuters.
A Commission timetable released on Tuesday pointed to Apr. 5-12, 2010 as the new period for polling, sorting and announcing the results. Voter registration is planned for November 2009 and campaigning will take place from February 4 to Apr.4, 2010.
The elections were previously due to take place in February 2010, and before that, July 2009.
A total of six elections will be held -- for the presidency and parliament, the south Sudanese presidency, state governors, the southern parliament and state assemblies.
Some analysts have raised concerns about the complexity of the planned voting process. (Reporting by Andrew Heavens; Additional reporting by Skye Wheeler in Juba; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Sudan Conference Communique

Sudan Conference
June 12-14 2009 in Hermannsburg, Germany
“Visions of Transition 3: Transformation from War to Peace or Protection of Prejudices and Privileges?
organised by Sudan Forum e.V., Church Development Service and Sudan Focal Point-Europe

Communique

We, 150 participants of the Sudan Conference from 19 countries, representing Sudanese civil society and political parties, Faith based Organisations from inside the Sudan and outside, International Non Governmental Organisations and Institutes, Governments and Government agencies, after lengthy and frank discussions of the current socio-political situation in the country, and particularly prerequisites for a process of nation building, make the following statement:

Regarding the challenge of nation building, we note with concern the serious challenges including prevailing armed conflict, endemic tribalism, entrenched prejudices, lack of visionary leadership and the lack of peace dividends. We see the urgent need for a people centred process that is focused on realising equality, through genuine public debate, involving women and youth as important agents of change. Genuine national reconciliation is a prerequisite for sustainable peace. It is a process requiring commitment from political leadership and further reform of the armed and security forces as well as the judiciary. We call on the government of National Unity at all levels to launch the national reconciliation and healing as stipulated by the CPA and enshrined in the Interim National Constitution as a prerequisite for ensuring “Unity in diversity”. Regarding transitional justice and building sustainable peace, we recommend that further consideration be given to deal with the crimes which were not granted amnesty by the CPA, in a way that would help to heal a society deeply divided by war.
Regarding the current social, political and economic situation, we note with concern and recommend that action is taken to end the violence, killings and displacement and to address the root causes. We note the destabilising effects of decreasing oil revenues, especially in Southern Sudan, and the inability of the Government, both national as well as in Southern Sudan, to provide vital services, such as security and education. We call for greater transparency and accountability in government administration.
Regarding the potential for change through elections, we note the difficulties in ensuring that the elections are free and fair, given the short timeframe available. We recommend broader discussion about the elections, and to allow for thorough preparations. We urge that the repressive national laws on security are repealed; much greater emphasis is put on civic education of the electorate and on capacity building of political parties.
. We ask the Government of Sudan and the armed groups in Darfur to enter into genuine peace dialogue. To lay the foundation for sustainable peace, a conducive environment for dialogue and reconciliation among the struggling Darfurian tribes must be guaranteed by the Government of Sudan. Civil society needs to be given a real chance to be politically active, to gather and to express itself. We ask the Government of Sudan to stop area bombardment and all forms of violence targeting civilians; to stop the settlement of people from outside in the villages and on the land of the displaced Darfurians, and to facilitate the return of displaced people to their villages so that they can regain their dignity. We want the government to allow the return of the expelled relief organizations and to facilitate their work in order to alleviate the suffering of the displaced Darfurians. For the common good of the people, we urge the armed groups in Darfur to overcome fragmentation and to avoid any harm to civilians. Finally, we call for the release of the prisoners of war, as already agreed upon.