Abstract
The aftermath of Southern Sudan's successful January referendum has been characterised by enthusiasm and a lack of violence. Yet the scale of the tasks ahead is still daunting. Political pluralism, the question of citizenship, oil revenues, sharing of debt, creating a Southern identity in an extremely ethnically diverse country are only some of the tremendous issues the South has to face on the home ground. Moreover, there is the outstanding issue of the contested Abyei region, as well as the fact that much of the border with the North has not been demarcated yet. On the foreign relations front, the issue of the revised Cotonou Agreement must be addressed along with integration into pan-African and other international organisations.
Keywords
There is no doubt that the Sudanese referendum of 9 January was a historic moment for Sudan, for Africa and, more importantly, also for democracy. The Southern Sudanese voted more than 98.9% in favour of self-determination. Voter turnout averaged 83% throughout the country, far beyond the 60% needed for the results to be legally valid. After more than 20 years of civil war, a peaceful separation was not to be taken for granted. The EU election observation mission, for which I was the European Parliament's Chief of Delegation, had the great opportunity to observe this referendum. 1 The referendum was a shining example of democracy in action. We praised, as did the entire international community, the professionalism and the very peaceful way in which the referendum was conducted. Hardly any violence was reported, only a few cases were noticed, and even these were isolated events caused by individuals. In our conclusions, we underlined the real enthusiasm of the Southern Sudanese but also the calm and peaceful way in which the referendum was held, leading us to believe that Sudan was, hopefully, putting an end to a tragic chapter in its history. The enthusiasm of the Sudanese, reflected in the clear result and the high turnout, goes hand in hand with enormous expectations. And we all agree that these expectations must not be disappointed. Sudan stands now at a turning point in its history.
The European Union sent an observation mission to Southern Sudan. On 2 July 2010 the European Parliament was invited by the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC) to send its own delegation. I led this delegation, composed of my colleagues Boguslaw Sonik (EPP), Joachim Zeller (EPP), John Attard-Montalto (S&D), Edward Scicluna (S&D) and Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). We arrived on 9 January, observed the polling stations in Khartoum, Juba and Terekeka, and left on 18 January, after I presented our conclusions in line with the position of Véronique de Keyser, Head of the EU mission.
The official declaration of the creation of the new country will be made on 9 July, corresponding to the date on which the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) comes into force. 2 Until then, anything can happen. Unfortunately, the road to independence has already been hampered by serious obstacles. On 13 March, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) Secretary-General Pagan Amum suspended talks with the National Congress Party (NCP) over key post-referendum issues, accusing Khartoum of plotting to overthrow the Southern government by backing proxy forces in the South. Since the beginning of February, many cases of violence have been reported. On 9 February, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) reported the death of 105 people, mainly civilians in the state of Jonglei, accusing the rebel militias of George Athor. This broke the ceasefire agreement of 5 January between the Southern government of Salva Kiir and George Athor's rebel movement [3]. In the Abyei area, 10 people were killed. Another 110 deaths in Jonglei were reported on 27 February. Since the beginning of March, around 20,000–25,000 people have fled the town of Abyei, heading south. The city of Malakal also witnessed numerous cases of violence on 6 March: 60 people, including women and children, were killed. A week later 42 more people were killed [1]. According to Southern officials, the killings were orchestrated by the militia leader known as ‘Captain Olonyi’. Commander George Athor declared that Olonyi was serving under his command.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005 by the government of Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. It included power- and wealth-sharing provisions, a commitment to hold multiparty elections and a self-determination referendum for the South.
This increase in violence might endanger the peace process. Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan, denounced the rebels as acting on behalf of Khartoum in order to destabilise the South. These allegations were denied by the Northern authorities, who accused the Southern authorities of supporting the rebels in Darfur. It is of the utmost importance that the authorities from both sides take immediate measures, first, to restrain the armed groups and to disarm the civil population and, second, to accelerate the pace of reform in order to consolidate the needed foundations for the emergence of two viable states. Otherwise Independence Day, on 9 July, will be strained by heightened tensions. Until 9 July, the implementation of the CPA agreement must remain a priority for both parties.
A significant number of issues need an urgent solution, for both internal and external reasons.
Internal solutions
The civil war and the current unrest that Northern and Southern Sudan are facing are rooted in profound structural problems. The authorities from the North and from the South will need to deal with the key problem of the instrumentalisation of the various ethnic, cultural and religious identities in Sudan. Both parts must move beyond the long-lasting conflict between Muslims and Christians. The decision of President Omar al-Bashir to make sharia law applicable throughout the whole country will not help lead to a peaceful solution, as Christians and Animists still form an important part of the population within the North. The CPA agreement acknowledged this diversity. It therefore has to be respected.
The same applies to the South, which also remains diverse. In an article published in the New African, Regina Jane Jere [2] recommends that the Southern authorities work on a ‘Southern identity’. She states the following: ‘Without a common Northern adversary, many fear fractures within the South. Leaders must work to bring together often disparate groups, including opposition forces and those outside the mainstream SPLM movement.’ Indeed, over the past decades it was clear that the SPLM movement had a tendency to be all-pervasive, the delimitation between institutions, security forces, army and party being unclear. The leading party has to build up a ‘Southern identity’, while still recognising and respecting the cultural, ethnic and religious diversity in the country.
Political pluralism seems therefore to be one of the key solutions. First, because it will enable citizens from both North and South to take an active part in the democratisation of their respective countries. Second, because enlarging the scope of political representation enables, over the long term, the renewing of elites. The wars that destroyed Sudan were decided by high-ranking politicians and military chiefs, yet it is the civilians who suffered the most from these crimes. Enabling people to vote is the essence of democracy. It has to be enhanced to include the regular participation of civil society in the entire democratic process. Opening and enlarging the political space is therefore essential.
Moreover, specific solutions will need to be found for the following issues:
Abyei is a border region contested by both sides, North and South, and for which the CPA agreement planned a referendum in order for the population to decide whether it should be part of the North or the South. It has not yet been possible to hold the referendum because the Misseriya—a nomadic community supported by the North—requested to be added to the voters list. The Dinka Ngok—a sedentary community supported by the South—have refused the Misseriya the right to vote. The disagreement has not yet found a solution. When the representatives of the Southern and the Northern Sudanese authorities expressed their views during the joint AFET (Foreign Affairs)–DEVE (Development Committee) meeting at the European Parliament on 7 February, it appeared clear that they were willing to reach a consensus by the end of March 2011. We are now at the beginning of April 2011, and it would be presumptuous to say that the negotiations have moved forward. Unfortunately, no significant resolutions have been reached.
Eighty per cent of the border between the North and the South still needs to be clearly demarcated. The current boundaries rely on the colonial demarcation. The negotiations are particularly contentious as the boundaries cross oilfields.
The issues of nationality and citizenship are of great importance. Many Southerners live in the North and vice versa, but the Khartoum government refuses to envisage the possibility of dual nationality, and the Juba government would be more inclined to leave the choice up to the people. Already 200,000 Southerners have fled from the North to the South. These returnees will need to be integrated into the South. The first step for this integration to be effective is to update their citizenship status. Measures will then be needed to guarantee a decent life: employment, housing, health and so on.
The issues of oil revenue and the ownership of Nile water are also at the heart of negotiations. The agreement on equal sharing of Southern oil revenues has to be re-evaluated, taking into account the new geo-strategic situation. The oilfields are mainly in the South, but many pipelines cross the Northern territory. A peaceful solution is needed. The same goes for the sharing of Nile river waters.
The division of the debt has been an issue since the beginning. Reaching an agreement satisfactory to both parties is essential. The North would like a part of its debt to be cancelled, whereas the South claims it was accumulated during the 1983–2005 civil war by the arms trafficking of the North.
The Khartoum government has suspended talks with Darfur and restarted its struggle against the rebel movements. The self-determination process for Southern Sudan is a source of great concern for the Khartoum government, as it fears that the western region could decide to do the same. The North recently accused the South of supporting the rebels in Darfur, sending the message that the issue is back on the agenda.
Ongoing bilateral talks are essential for the survival of both countries. South and North are interdependent—historically and culturally, of course, but also economically and in terms of energy. Everything depends on how North and South will manage to resolve the problems mentioned above. Their futures depend on their good will to take common action. They will then need to build up (the South) and reorganise (the North) their relations with their international partners.
External relations
On the one hand, the international community must keep an eye on these challenges facing both Northern and Southern Sudan. This is not to say that the international community must impose its conception of democracy, but rather that it must support peaceful ways to achieve it. According to this view, wide international visibility must be given to both countries. Southern Sudan, by becoming a member of international organisations such as the African Union (AU) or the United Nations (UN), will become accountable to its international partners.
With regard to the North, the burning issue of the refusal by Khartoum to ratify the revised version of the Cotonou Agreement of August 2009 must definitely be addressed. By making recognition of the Rome Statute a precondition, the revised version of the Cotonou Agreement makes cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) compulsory. But since 4 March 2009 Omar al-Bashir has been subject to an arrest warrant from the ICC on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In order for North and South to cooperate and to restore their relations in a peaceful manner, a solution to this specific issue needs to be found. Otherwise Salva Kiir will face the awkward situation of not being able to invite his counterpart, Omar al-Bashir, to the Independence Day official celebrations in Juba without dragging him before the ICC judge.
North and South will also have to engage in talks with their regional partners. In other words, the peace agreement of 15 January 2010 between Chad and Sudan, seeking to stop hostile activities coming from both territories, should be fully applied. The disarmament of the rebel forces from both territories should be carried out effective immediately, and a mediation process towards a peaceful solution to the conflict should be engaged. As mentioned above, Southern Sudan will also have to join the AU, facilitating thereby the dialogue with African countries.
On the other hand, international actors, such as the European Union, will have to be present on 9 July. We were present for the referendum; we will need to be present again in the future, first of all to show our support, and second to show that we are watching. The EU must not miss the opportunity to send a positive and strong message of encouragement, but it also must, as an important future donor for the development of Southern Sudan, present its conditions for the respect of human rights and dignity, freedom of thought and religion. Without presenting ourselves as the superior ones who impose their views on how Sudanese society should behave, we must rather show our partners that we will not tolerate more killings and human rights violations. Our credibility is now being challenged on what message will be sent. The EU is currently represented in Juba, but with very few resources. EU Special Representative (EUSR) Rosalind Mardsen has her headquarters in Juba. Southern Sudan will become independent on 9 July; the European External Action Service (EEAS) offices in Juba will have to be given the means for the role the EU wants to play on the ground.
Southern Sudan is at a decisive moment in its history. The enthusiasm and the euphoria of the population during the referendum must not be disappointed. The killings that occurred after the referendum do not announce anything good. The Sudanese people have suffered for too long the murders, forced displacements, discrimination and extreme poverty of the past. It is now high time for peace, freedom, prosperity and happiness.