Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Monday, July 6, 2009
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
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'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.
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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Youth are to BE Exemplary
S. Sudan church leader appeals to youth to be exemplary
Monday 23 February 2009 03:30.
Printer-Friendly version Comments...
By Isaac Vuni
February 22, 2009 (JUBA) — The Vicar General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Juba, Fr. Lawrence Kose, today appealed to youth of Southern Sudan to be exemplary to each other and to avoid politicians’ exploitations and embracing so-called “nigger” behaviors brought from foreign countries.
The term “nigger” is currently used to describe a section of Sudanese youth, which has adopted certain foreign modes of dress and behaviour, and is anecdotally associated with criminal activities.
Fr. Kose urges youth of South Sudan to totally discredit “nigger” behaviour now derailing the rule-of-law system particularly in major towns.
The middle-aged spiritual leader stated that those involved in deadly activities are mostly children of senior government officials who previously were studying either in Egypt or America and who now are terrorizing major cities of Southern Sudan particularly metropolitan Juba and Eastern Equatoria. He added that when the youths are apprehended by police on patrol duty, their elders rush to order their release.
Celebrating the 23rd anniversary of Youth in the Archdiocese, the vicar general advised youth to reject being politically manipulated especially during the coming national election scheduled for July this year. He went on to say youth are the leaders of today rather than just tomorrow; therefore they have the full right to elect capable people among themselves.
Otherwise, when it is time for war the politicians rush to the youth to fight despite that they are marginalized from positions when war is over, Kose noted. The positions are occupied by the politicians claiming that youth are still young to rule, he cautioned.
The elected chairman of the youth is Emmanuel Nason, the secretary general is William Kalisto, the secretary for information is Elizabeth Musa and the financial secretary is Simon Alesio.
In the current government of Southern Sudan, only one youth holds a ministerial level position, in Commerce and Industry.
Monday 23 February 2009 03:30.
Printer-Friendly version Comments...
By Isaac Vuni
February 22, 2009 (JUBA) — The Vicar General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Juba, Fr. Lawrence Kose, today appealed to youth of Southern Sudan to be exemplary to each other and to avoid politicians’ exploitations and embracing so-called “nigger” behaviors brought from foreign countries.
The term “nigger” is currently used to describe a section of Sudanese youth, which has adopted certain foreign modes of dress and behaviour, and is anecdotally associated with criminal activities.
Fr. Kose urges youth of South Sudan to totally discredit “nigger” behaviour now derailing the rule-of-law system particularly in major towns.
The middle-aged spiritual leader stated that those involved in deadly activities are mostly children of senior government officials who previously were studying either in Egypt or America and who now are terrorizing major cities of Southern Sudan particularly metropolitan Juba and Eastern Equatoria. He added that when the youths are apprehended by police on patrol duty, their elders rush to order their release.
Celebrating the 23rd anniversary of Youth in the Archdiocese, the vicar general advised youth to reject being politically manipulated especially during the coming national election scheduled for July this year. He went on to say youth are the leaders of today rather than just tomorrow; therefore they have the full right to elect capable people among themselves.
Otherwise, when it is time for war the politicians rush to the youth to fight despite that they are marginalized from positions when war is over, Kose noted. The positions are occupied by the politicians claiming that youth are still young to rule, he cautioned.
The elected chairman of the youth is Emmanuel Nason, the secretary general is William Kalisto, the secretary for information is Elizabeth Musa and the financial secretary is Simon Alesio.
In the current government of Southern Sudan, only one youth holds a ministerial level position, in Commerce and Industry.
Religion , Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan
Religion, Ethics, and Human Rights Activities Index
Overview
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in SudanA U.S. Institute of Peace Conference
September 16-17, 1997
David Little, Chester Crocker, Francis Deng and others welcome participants on the opening day.
Overview
The Institute of Peace hosted a two-day meeting on September 16-17, 1997 in Washington D.C. to examine the role of religion and ideology within the continuing civil war in Sudan. The first day of the September conference reviewed the larger issues of religious identity and intolerance in Sudan's civil war, with a particular emphasis on the policies of the National Islamic Front (NIF), while the second day focused more specifically on the requirements for resolving the civil war and the implications for U.S. policy. [Read the concept paper written for the conference.]
An overview of the conference agenda is provided below, including links to transcripts from each panel session. Several of the papers presented at the conference are also available below.
Conference Concept Paper
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan: A U.S. Institute of Peace Conference
In October 1991, the Religion, Ethics and Human Rights program of the U.S. Institute of Peace held a meeting to examine the role of religion, nationalism and intolerance as sources of conflict in Sudan's continuing civil war. That conference was part of a larger series investigating how and why certain religious and fundamental beliefs create or contribute to hostility and war. The series has sought to better understand the role of religion within conflict and to identify means for easing the tensions created by religious nationalism.
The Institute's 1991 conference highlighted the historical role of religious identity and intolerance in Sudan's civil war. While the war is not simply a matter of religious differences, it was argued that the various factors contributing to the conflict have found expression in religious terms. The struggle for political authority and economic resources has been closely tied to communal tensions between North and South. Since religion has been so significant in defining communal identity, issues such as racial discrimination and the disparity in wealth and power between North and South have been seen by many as inseparable from religion.
The potency of religion within this context is derived from both its influence on ethnic identity and the close link between nationalism and religious beliefs. These two issues come together in what Francis Deng has called the "war of visions" for the country. The predominantly Muslim North has historically perceived Sudan as a single country composed of one people divided by colonial powers. Northern policies have subsequently sought to "re-unite" the country through a process of Arabization and Islamization. Such policies, however, have generated antagonism among the southern population whose indigenous cultural values combined with Christianity to create a common identity, one defined largely in opposition to Northern attitudes and policies. Because government policy since independence has by and large disregarded Sudan's multi-religious character and the South's contrasting identity, conflict and civil war has remained endemic.
Southern opposition groups have consistently opposed the North's efforts of forced unity, and have argued for either complete separation from the North or a secular political structure coupled with a restructuring of Sudanese national identity. Significantly, freedom of religion and greater regional autonomy have been the foundations of several negotiated agreements reached between northern and southern parties (which were either abrogated or left unimplemented), most notably the Addis Ababa accords of 1972.
Before producing a report on this topic, we need to revisit the situation in Sudan and update our assessment. In the interim, the civil war has continued unabated, and numerous efforts at mediation have proven unsuccessful. Significant realignments, however, have blurred the traditional North-South character of the conflict. The dominant Northern opposition parties have joined together and allied themselves with John Garang and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), while Riak Machar's Southern Sudan Independence Army (SSIA) has joined forces with the Khartoum government. Involvement of other countries in Sudan's civil war has further complicated this latest stage of the conflict.
While these changes have undoubtedly affected the dynamics of the war, many of the underlying issues remain. First, it is unlikely that either side can resolve the long-standing conflict through force, and a negotiated settlement remains the best hope for ending the fighting. Second, the content of such an accord would still need to address the basic institutional requirements for a stable multi-ethnic society in a post-conflict period, including provision for freedom of religion and belief, and non-discrimination in regard to religion, race and language. Whether such an agreement is possible today-one that would include some form of power-sharing arrangement and a more inclusive legal framework with particular reference to religion and identity-remains in question. This is particularly relevant since the requirements for such an arrangement appear to be so at odds with the particular interpretation of shari'a and Islam advocated by the National Islamic Front. Finally, self-determination for the South remains a heated question, despite the political re-alignments.
The Institute's September conference will re-examine these issues in light of current changes, and focus particularly on the extent to which religion and ideology remain a part of the conflict today. Has the alignment of the SPLM with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) fundamentally altered the dynamic and requirements for resolution of the conflict, or do long-standing tensions over a secular state remain? Does the political will exist for adopting a pluralist framework among the northern Sudanese, either within the NIF or the NDA? What are the implications for U.S. foreign policy?
The conference will begin with introductory remarks from the Institute of Peace representatives and Francis Deng of the Brookings Institution. The first panel will then proceed with a review of the NIF's Islamic objectives in Sudan. This panel will explore competing interpretations of Islam in Sudan, and how Islam should and does relate to politics in that country. Particular attention will be paid to the Islamization program undertaken by the current regime since 1989, and what kind of impact this has had on the continuing civil war. The second panel will then review the issue of religion and identity in the South, and, again, how this relates to the civil war and the previous discussion of Northern identity and religious affiliation. This section will provide a southern perspective on the issues identified in the previous panel.
The first day will conclude with a panel exploring the "second-tier" conflicts, looking in turn at the conflict between the southern factions and the similar tensions between the northern opposition parties and the ruling regime. Should a resolution of the civil war be attained, what are the implications of the current split in the southern forces for a future Southern Sudan? Are Nuer-Dinka tensions likely to increase or decrease under such a scenario? In regard to the North, the Northern political parties have never differentiated themselves to any great extent in regard to the issue of shari'a. If the current military regime were to step down, would the Northern parties be willing to embrace an interpretation of Islam and Islamic law consistent with international human rights standards and with southern demands for a restructured national character or self-determination leading to a new state?
The first panel of the second day will provide differing perspectives from Western analysts and academics on these same issues. The panelists will be asked for their analysis of the NIF's policies, the significance of religion in the civil war today, and, finally, the implications for resolving the conflict in Sudan. While these first four panels will provide differing perspectives on the general issue of religion and politics in Sudan, the remainder of the conference will focus specifically on issues of reconciliation and public policy. To this end, the panelists will be asked how relevant the principles of the previous peace agreements are to the current situation-particularly in regard to freedom of religion and greater regional autonomy. Assuming some relevance, three further questions will be posed: (1) to what extent can religious pluralism -- a separation of religion from the state apparatus -- be accepted in Sudan? (2) Is reconciliation between North and South viable? Finally, (3) what are the legal and institutional requirements for religious tolerance and pluralism in a post-conflict situation, either in a unified state or as two separate states.
Finally, the meeting will conclude with a review of U.S. foreign policy towards Sudan, and, particularly, the implications of the NIF's Islamization program for Western policy makers. If issues of religious identity and pluralism are significant in the ongoing civil war, what can U.S. policy do to address these issues? Specifically, what options are available to U.S. policymakers to (a) mitigate religious persecution in the country and (b) promote inter-communal reconciliation? Finally, to what extent is the current regime's support for militant groups tied to the NIF's interpretation of Islam, and how can U.S. policy address this?
Agenda
Tuesday, September 16, 1997
9:30 AM - Welcoming Remarks and Introduction
- Chester A. Crocker, U.S. Institute of Peace- David Little, U.S. Institute of Peace- Francis Deng, Brookings Institution
View the panel transcript
10:30 AM - Panel One:"Islam and Islamization in Sudan"
- Mohammed Mahmoud, Tufts University- Abdelwahab El-Affendi, University of Westminster- Respondent: Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Rhode Island College
View the panel transcript
12:30 PM - Lunch
2:00 PM - Panel Two: "Religion and Identity in the South"
- Francis Deng, Brookings Institution- Marc Nikkel, Episcopal Church- Respondent: Bona Malwal, Sudan Democratic Gazette
View the panel transcript
3:45 PM - Break
4:00 PM - Panel Three: "Intra-Regional Conflicts and the Implications for North-South Reconciliation"
- Wal Duany, Indiana University- Steven Wondu, Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement- Taisier Mohamed Ahmed Ali, Univ. of Toronto- Ann Mosely Lesch, Villanova University- Respondent: David Smock, U.S. Institute of Peace
View the panel transcript
Wednesday, September 17, 1997
9:00 AM - Panel One: "Western Perspectives on Religion and Politics in Sudan"
- Kate Almquist, World Vision- John Voll, Georgetown University- Respondent: Jemera Rone, Human Rights Watch
View the panel transcript
10:45 AM - Break
11:00 AM - Panel Two: "Religious Pluralism, Constitutional Issues and Reconciliation in Sudan"
- Peter Nyot Kok, Max Planck Institute- Adam Abdelmoula, Georgetown University- Respondent: Ann Mayer, University of Pennsylvania
View the panel transcript
1:00 PM - Lunch
2:30 PM - Panel Three: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
- John Prendergast, National Security Council- Roger Winter, U.S. Committee for Refugees- Ted Dagne, Congressional Research Service- Respondent: William Lowrey, Presbyterian Church (USA)
View the panel transcript
4:30 PM Concluding discussion and remarks from Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki
View the panel transcript
Conference Papers
"Islam and Islamization in Sudan: The Islamic National Front"(A Paper by Mohamed Mahmoud)
"The Limits and Dilemmas of 'Secular' Re-Islamisation Programmes: The Case of the Sudan"(A Paper by Abdelwahab El-Affendi)
"Sudan: The Authentic Portrait"(An Address by Ambassador Mahdi Ibraahim Mohamed, Embassy of Sudan)
"Religion and Politics in Sudan: A Humanitarian Agency's Perspective"(A Paper by Kate Almquist)
"An Ideology of Domination and the Domination of Ideology: Islamism, Politics and the Constitution in the Sudan"(A Paper by Adam M. Abdelmoula)
"The Challenges of Peace"(A Paper by Steven Wondu)
Overview
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in SudanA U.S. Institute of Peace Conference
September 16-17, 1997
David Little, Chester Crocker, Francis Deng and others welcome participants on the opening day.
Overview
The Institute of Peace hosted a two-day meeting on September 16-17, 1997 in Washington D.C. to examine the role of religion and ideology within the continuing civil war in Sudan. The first day of the September conference reviewed the larger issues of religious identity and intolerance in Sudan's civil war, with a particular emphasis on the policies of the National Islamic Front (NIF), while the second day focused more specifically on the requirements for resolving the civil war and the implications for U.S. policy. [Read the concept paper written for the conference.]
An overview of the conference agenda is provided below, including links to transcripts from each panel session. Several of the papers presented at the conference are also available below.
Conference Concept Paper
Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan: A U.S. Institute of Peace Conference
In October 1991, the Religion, Ethics and Human Rights program of the U.S. Institute of Peace held a meeting to examine the role of religion, nationalism and intolerance as sources of conflict in Sudan's continuing civil war. That conference was part of a larger series investigating how and why certain religious and fundamental beliefs create or contribute to hostility and war. The series has sought to better understand the role of religion within conflict and to identify means for easing the tensions created by religious nationalism.
The Institute's 1991 conference highlighted the historical role of religious identity and intolerance in Sudan's civil war. While the war is not simply a matter of religious differences, it was argued that the various factors contributing to the conflict have found expression in religious terms. The struggle for political authority and economic resources has been closely tied to communal tensions between North and South. Since religion has been so significant in defining communal identity, issues such as racial discrimination and the disparity in wealth and power between North and South have been seen by many as inseparable from religion.
The potency of religion within this context is derived from both its influence on ethnic identity and the close link between nationalism and religious beliefs. These two issues come together in what Francis Deng has called the "war of visions" for the country. The predominantly Muslim North has historically perceived Sudan as a single country composed of one people divided by colonial powers. Northern policies have subsequently sought to "re-unite" the country through a process of Arabization and Islamization. Such policies, however, have generated antagonism among the southern population whose indigenous cultural values combined with Christianity to create a common identity, one defined largely in opposition to Northern attitudes and policies. Because government policy since independence has by and large disregarded Sudan's multi-religious character and the South's contrasting identity, conflict and civil war has remained endemic.
Southern opposition groups have consistently opposed the North's efforts of forced unity, and have argued for either complete separation from the North or a secular political structure coupled with a restructuring of Sudanese national identity. Significantly, freedom of religion and greater regional autonomy have been the foundations of several negotiated agreements reached between northern and southern parties (which were either abrogated or left unimplemented), most notably the Addis Ababa accords of 1972.
Before producing a report on this topic, we need to revisit the situation in Sudan and update our assessment. In the interim, the civil war has continued unabated, and numerous efforts at mediation have proven unsuccessful. Significant realignments, however, have blurred the traditional North-South character of the conflict. The dominant Northern opposition parties have joined together and allied themselves with John Garang and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), while Riak Machar's Southern Sudan Independence Army (SSIA) has joined forces with the Khartoum government. Involvement of other countries in Sudan's civil war has further complicated this latest stage of the conflict.
While these changes have undoubtedly affected the dynamics of the war, many of the underlying issues remain. First, it is unlikely that either side can resolve the long-standing conflict through force, and a negotiated settlement remains the best hope for ending the fighting. Second, the content of such an accord would still need to address the basic institutional requirements for a stable multi-ethnic society in a post-conflict period, including provision for freedom of religion and belief, and non-discrimination in regard to religion, race and language. Whether such an agreement is possible today-one that would include some form of power-sharing arrangement and a more inclusive legal framework with particular reference to religion and identity-remains in question. This is particularly relevant since the requirements for such an arrangement appear to be so at odds with the particular interpretation of shari'a and Islam advocated by the National Islamic Front. Finally, self-determination for the South remains a heated question, despite the political re-alignments.
The Institute's September conference will re-examine these issues in light of current changes, and focus particularly on the extent to which religion and ideology remain a part of the conflict today. Has the alignment of the SPLM with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) fundamentally altered the dynamic and requirements for resolution of the conflict, or do long-standing tensions over a secular state remain? Does the political will exist for adopting a pluralist framework among the northern Sudanese, either within the NIF or the NDA? What are the implications for U.S. foreign policy?
The conference will begin with introductory remarks from the Institute of Peace representatives and Francis Deng of the Brookings Institution. The first panel will then proceed with a review of the NIF's Islamic objectives in Sudan. This panel will explore competing interpretations of Islam in Sudan, and how Islam should and does relate to politics in that country. Particular attention will be paid to the Islamization program undertaken by the current regime since 1989, and what kind of impact this has had on the continuing civil war. The second panel will then review the issue of religion and identity in the South, and, again, how this relates to the civil war and the previous discussion of Northern identity and religious affiliation. This section will provide a southern perspective on the issues identified in the previous panel.
The first day will conclude with a panel exploring the "second-tier" conflicts, looking in turn at the conflict between the southern factions and the similar tensions between the northern opposition parties and the ruling regime. Should a resolution of the civil war be attained, what are the implications of the current split in the southern forces for a future Southern Sudan? Are Nuer-Dinka tensions likely to increase or decrease under such a scenario? In regard to the North, the Northern political parties have never differentiated themselves to any great extent in regard to the issue of shari'a. If the current military regime were to step down, would the Northern parties be willing to embrace an interpretation of Islam and Islamic law consistent with international human rights standards and with southern demands for a restructured national character or self-determination leading to a new state?
The first panel of the second day will provide differing perspectives from Western analysts and academics on these same issues. The panelists will be asked for their analysis of the NIF's policies, the significance of religion in the civil war today, and, finally, the implications for resolving the conflict in Sudan. While these first four panels will provide differing perspectives on the general issue of religion and politics in Sudan, the remainder of the conference will focus specifically on issues of reconciliation and public policy. To this end, the panelists will be asked how relevant the principles of the previous peace agreements are to the current situation-particularly in regard to freedom of religion and greater regional autonomy. Assuming some relevance, three further questions will be posed: (1) to what extent can religious pluralism -- a separation of religion from the state apparatus -- be accepted in Sudan? (2) Is reconciliation between North and South viable? Finally, (3) what are the legal and institutional requirements for religious tolerance and pluralism in a post-conflict situation, either in a unified state or as two separate states.
Finally, the meeting will conclude with a review of U.S. foreign policy towards Sudan, and, particularly, the implications of the NIF's Islamization program for Western policy makers. If issues of religious identity and pluralism are significant in the ongoing civil war, what can U.S. policy do to address these issues? Specifically, what options are available to U.S. policymakers to (a) mitigate religious persecution in the country and (b) promote inter-communal reconciliation? Finally, to what extent is the current regime's support for militant groups tied to the NIF's interpretation of Islam, and how can U.S. policy address this?
Agenda
Tuesday, September 16, 1997
9:30 AM - Welcoming Remarks and Introduction
- Chester A. Crocker, U.S. Institute of Peace- David Little, U.S. Institute of Peace- Francis Deng, Brookings Institution
View the panel transcript
10:30 AM - Panel One:"Islam and Islamization in Sudan"
- Mohammed Mahmoud, Tufts University- Abdelwahab El-Affendi, University of Westminster- Respondent: Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Rhode Island College
View the panel transcript
12:30 PM - Lunch
2:00 PM - Panel Two: "Religion and Identity in the South"
- Francis Deng, Brookings Institution- Marc Nikkel, Episcopal Church- Respondent: Bona Malwal, Sudan Democratic Gazette
View the panel transcript
3:45 PM - Break
4:00 PM - Panel Three: "Intra-Regional Conflicts and the Implications for North-South Reconciliation"
- Wal Duany, Indiana University- Steven Wondu, Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement- Taisier Mohamed Ahmed Ali, Univ. of Toronto- Ann Mosely Lesch, Villanova University- Respondent: David Smock, U.S. Institute of Peace
View the panel transcript
Wednesday, September 17, 1997
9:00 AM - Panel One: "Western Perspectives on Religion and Politics in Sudan"
- Kate Almquist, World Vision- John Voll, Georgetown University- Respondent: Jemera Rone, Human Rights Watch
View the panel transcript
10:45 AM - Break
11:00 AM - Panel Two: "Religious Pluralism, Constitutional Issues and Reconciliation in Sudan"
- Peter Nyot Kok, Max Planck Institute- Adam Abdelmoula, Georgetown University- Respondent: Ann Mayer, University of Pennsylvania
View the panel transcript
1:00 PM - Lunch
2:30 PM - Panel Three: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
- John Prendergast, National Security Council- Roger Winter, U.S. Committee for Refugees- Ted Dagne, Congressional Research Service- Respondent: William Lowrey, Presbyterian Church (USA)
View the panel transcript
4:30 PM Concluding discussion and remarks from Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki
View the panel transcript
Conference Papers
"Islam and Islamization in Sudan: The Islamic National Front"(A Paper by Mohamed Mahmoud)
"The Limits and Dilemmas of 'Secular' Re-Islamisation Programmes: The Case of the Sudan"(A Paper by Abdelwahab El-Affendi)
"Sudan: The Authentic Portrait"(An Address by Ambassador Mahdi Ibraahim Mohamed, Embassy of Sudan)
"Religion and Politics in Sudan: A Humanitarian Agency's Perspective"(A Paper by Kate Almquist)
"An Ideology of Domination and the Domination of Ideology: Islamism, Politics and the Constitution in the Sudan"(A Paper by Adam M. Abdelmoula)
"The Challenges of Peace"(A Paper by Steven Wondu)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)