Home | Comment & Analysis    Friday 1 February 2013

Reflections about AU recent decision on Abyei


By Tim Flatman

January 31, 2013 - In continuing to endorse Thabo Mbeki’s proposal to resolve the status of Abyei, but deciding not to follow through on its earlier commitment to refer it to the UN Security Council, the African Union has effectively declared itself, at the Heads of State level, competent to enforce the proposal and carry out a referendum itself should the Government of Sudan continue to obfuscate and delay implementation of its Agreements.

Already GoS’ chief negotiator Idris Abdel-Gadir has bragged about his confidence that no disputed issues will be referred to the UN Security Council even if no progress is made by July, claiming the African Union Peace and Security Council meeting as a victory. The Communique of the 353rd Peace and Security Council meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government/Sudan-South Sudan has given Presidents Bashir and Kiir until the Council meeting in March to continue negotiations.

A typical strategy by the Government of Sudan would be to avoid a meeting between the Presidents until the deadline is looming, then raise a new demand which they know will be unacceptable to the Ngok and/or South Sudan and present the impasse to the international community as a “neutral” sticking-point requiring further talks. An alternative strategy would be to link progress on Abyei to progress on another issue which cannot immediately be resolved.

If this seems a jaundiced view of Sudanese diplomatic strategy, it should be recalled that this is exactly how GoS behaved in the run-up to the Council meeting itself. With Prime Minister Meles Zenawi dead and unable to verify the Ngok claim GoS promised to nominate a Ngok to the position of speaker in Abyei Legislative Council, and the Mbeki proposal having depoliticised the issue by giving a final judgement on the issue of voter eligibility in an upcoming referendum, the South Sudanese agreed to allow a Misseriya to take the role, in the interests of pragmatism and demonstrating to Misseriya that their rights will be respected should the referendum proceed with the expected result. With this issue resolved, there were no barriers to confirming Abyei Area Administration immediately. Formal recognition of Abyei Area Administration would have been a boon to those organising support for the >20,000 who have already returned to Abyei town or their villages north of the river Kiir, and to the thousands in camps in Wau and elsewhere who are waiting for transport to return immediately. However, the Sudanese Government chalked the concession up as a victory, and proceeded to make a further demand (of further Misseriya representation) that had no basis in any agreement previously signed, in order to prevent Abyei Area Administration from being confirmed and hold the entire process up.

The Communique of the 353rd Council meeting stops short of calling Sudan out by name, but it does condemn this kind of behaviour. It emphasises its disappointment at the failure to implement fully the 20 June 2011 Temporary Arrangements Agreement in all its aspects. This is significant because South Sudan has, with the acceptance of an NCP nominee to the position of Speaker on Abyei Legislative Council, fulfilled all its commitments under that agreement. Sudan has not, the two most significant aspects being the failure to confirm Abyei Area Administration and the failure to remove its troops entirely from Abyei Area. South Sudan is therefore in the admirable and convenient position of having fulfilled all its commitments and being able to insist that the other partner does likewise. South Sudanese negotiators should not sign further agreements on Abyei that impose further demands on them, or they will lose their high ground and allow Sudanese negotiators to assert moral equivalence and claim there are obstacles on both sides once more. Indeed, the Communique of the 353rd Council meeting reflects this logic, repeatedly stressing the importance of unconditionally implementing all Agreements signed in their entirety rather than making new Agreements. In this, the African Heads of State have clearly sided with South Sudan. The Communique also, helpfully, condemns the linking of implementation of agreements already signed to resolving issues of dispute, implicitly calling out another favourite NCP strategy.

However, the most encouraging aspect of the Communique was the demand that the Presidents negotiate over the formation of the Abyei Area Referendum Commission on the basis of the AUHIP 21 September 2012 proposal, a proposal which GoS has of course rejected! This indicates an assumption, at the Heads of State level that the path set out in the Mbeki proposal must be followed regardless of the protestations of the Sudanese Government, and a close eye must be kept on timescales. The Sudanese Government has two months to find a way of proceeding on the basis of the Mbeki proposal that is acceptable to them. If they do not, the African Union must put a Referendum Commission in place themselves and conduct a referendum. That this is a realistic possibility is confirmed by informal reports by those present in Addis. Lest it seems fanciful, we should remember that the proposal itself contains mechanisms for proceeding if there are seemingly impassable disputes between the parties, through an Abyei Referendum Facilitation Panel set up not by the Presidents of Sudan and South Sudan but by the African Union, and by the African Union reserving the power to choose the Chair of the Abyei Area Referendum Commission, with the casting vote on matters of dispute, itself. The Referendum Commission should start its work with enough time to carry out its work even if the Government of Sudan decides not to exercise its right to appoint Commissioners to it.

GoS will, of course, try to paint such a course of action as “unilateral”. The response will point out that it is simply an attempt to implement, in the light of GoS’ failings, Agreements which have already been made in line with the Communique of the 353rd Council meeting, and invite the Sudanese Government to participate in doing so.

For its part, the Government of South Sudan must insist that the October deadline for a referendum is non-negotiable. If the African Union does not discharge its responsibilities as outlined above, the community in Abyei is capable of conducting its own referendum and inviting observers from around the world to monitor it and ensure it is free and fair. Allies, both state and non-state actors (including faith-based organisations) should already be considering how they could respond to such a call, and mobilising training to cover the eventuality that the “experts” (Carter Centre, etc) do not, in the light of political pressure, respond to such a call.

In the meantime, the primary duty of Ngok community leadership and international NGOs is to facilitate the return of those still waiting for transport back to Abyei, and to support those returnees already there in rebuilding their community. There have been fine words from the international community to this end, but in practice the vast majority of useful work has been done by the community (and especially the local church) and not by INGOs, an ideal in theory but in practice hamstrung by lack of resources and co-operation from those in a position to come alongside and assist.

Tim Flatman can be contacted on his twitter account: @Tim_Flatman

The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysis' section are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email it to comment@sudantribune.com

Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information and political affiliations.
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 1 February 2013 11:40, by Mohammed Ali 2

    Tim Flatman, seems beating the drums of war again!If Mbeki’s proposal is that valuable, I would like to remined you that , he had a more concilatory proposal which was accepted by the government of South Sudan.That proposal was in line with Gration proposal.Now , war mongers like yourself after succeeding in pushing Gration out and putting pressure on Mbeki to change his initial proposal, are ....

    repondre message

    • 1 February 2013 12:02, by Mohammed Ali 2

      cont:are beating the drums of war again and seems that they wont be satisfied untill they see blood!It is not up to the government of Albasheer or anyone on the top in Khartoum.The Messeria themselves said very clearly that they will fight their war even against the government of Sudan.Any solution which does not satisfy both communitis, by war mongers like you from outside,will not be accepted.

      repondre message

      • 1 February 2013 12:38, by Nibs

        Mohamed Ali2,it’s obvious that you’re not aware of what you’re saying.south sudanese didn’t accept Gration’s proposal in the first place.it lack legitimacy.justice must be serve,abyei is for Ngok dinka only.messeriyia are season migrates.has not right whatsoever to Participate in referendum....

        repondre message

        • 4 February 2013 18:45, by Mohammed Ali 2

          Nibs: who said SS accepted Gration proposal? They didn’t!

          repondre message

      • 1 February 2013 23:46, by zulu

        This is a tacit observation which neither Tim has reached on his own, but the character manifestation by GoS has been a perverse and in now commentary by Tim invites war at all. Assuming that is the case, what benefit does Tim gain? Your government should stop orchastrating crying foul when it is bound to abide by all agreed issues.

        repondre message

Comment on this article

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.

Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis

Egypt’s Strategic Water Security: The myth and the truth 2017-03-24 08:19:56 By Ermias Hailu Following to the end of the second world war Egypt’s failure to integrate Eritrea to its territories, due to Emperor Haile Selassie’s superior diplomatic skills, the then Pan- Arab (...)

South Sudan famine is a wake-up call to revive dead peace deal 2017-03-20 15:57:01 By Brian Adeba News that a famine has been declared in South Sudan is yet another stark reminder of the ever evolving nature of war-induced fragility in Africa’s newest country. As the world (...)

Africa’s next level of economic transformation 2017-03-20 05:57:00 By Jim Yong Kim The G20 finance ministers met last week in Germany to discuss critical challenges facing the global economy, from climate change to migration to humanitarian emergencies like the (...)


Latest Press Releases

Statement by South Sudanese Communist Party on the National Dialoguel 2017-03-22 05:44:42 The Communist Party of South Sudan On the Initiative of the National Dialogue The initiative taken by the President of the Republic of South Sudan declaring a need for a national dialogue is an (...)

An Appeal to President of the Republic of South Sudan 2017-03-15 07:22:45 Dear. Mr. President, I write to appeal to you for the release of political detainees now in the custody of the National Security Service at Jebel and other detention facilities. In doing this, I (...)

Militias of Bashir’s Regime and the Proxy War (1) 2017-02-08 21:49:09 Sudan Democracy First Group Militias of Bashir’s Regime and the Proxy War (1) War in the Blue Nile: Militias in the hunt of refugees and displaced population Introduction Throughout its rule, (...)


Copyright © 2003-2017 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.