Home | Comment & Analysis    Saturday 5 May 2012

Note on Panthou/Heglig

separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

By Douglas H. Johnson

On May 5, 2012 –

THE COLONIAL BACKGROUND

The Rueng Dinka territory of Panaru is at the centre of the debate over the location of Panthou/ Heglig. The Rueng, who are now contained within Unity State in the Republic of South Sudan, neighbour the Ngok Dinka and originally were administered along with them as part of Kordofan Province. Their current location in Unity State, and the disputed location of Panthou/Heglig is the outcome of a series of administrative transfers in the early twentieth century.

At the beginning of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium the Rueng Dinka were found with their cattle as far north as Lake Keilak, in what is now South Kordofan.1 In 1907 it was reported that many of them had left ‘Fanaru [Panaru] in South Kordofan’ for Khor Atar in Upper Nile because of raiding by the Misseriya-Humr.2 By 1913 the Awet section of the Rueng were complaining about further incursions by the Misseriya-Humr on their lands around Lake Jau (or Abiad), where the Awet had settled ‘long before the Arabs came’.3

When the Nuba Mountains became a separate province in 1913 the Rueng sections were divided between the Nuba Mountains and Kordofan. One branch of Rueng was transferred to the neighbouring southern province of Bahr el-Ghazal in the early 1920s, and in1927, following the decision to re-absorb the Nuba Mountains Province into Kordofan, most of the rest of the Rueng were transferred there, too, on the grounds that they were more easily accessible to the administrators of Bahr el-Ghazal and that they were already in close contact with the Nuer of that province. The boundary rectification between the provinces was made at a local level meeting of the neighbouring District Commissioners.4 The Rueng were now split between Bahr el-Ghazal and Kordofan, where some Dinka remained as part of the Southern Kordofan District with its headquarters at Kadugli.5 By 1930, however, all Rueng were transferred to the administration of Upper Nile Province, and in 1931 the provincial boundaries were gazetted as follows:6

As a result of the transfer of the Rueng Ajubba the Rueng Await [Awet] and the Rueng Alorr sections of Dinka from Kordofan to Upper Nile Province, the boundary between these Provinces has been altered as follows:-
Commencing from a point on the existing Province Boundary midway between Debba Mongok and Debba Karam Nyet (Lat. 9º 21’ Long 28º 38’) the boundary runs in an easterly direction until it meets Khor Amadgora. Thence northwards to the Bahr el Arab to the Raqaba ez Zarqa at a point ½ mile west of Tibusia, thence along the Raqaba ez Zarqa to ‘Aradeib, thence eastward along Lat. 9º 45’ to the old Kordofan – Upper Nile boundary, thence north along that boundary and continuing along the old Kordofan N.M.P. boundary to Lat. 10º 5’ marked on the map ‘Clump of Heglig’ thence N. Easterly to a point 3 miles due west of the centre of Lake Abyad [Lake Jau], thence due east to
the eastern shore of the Lake, thence S.E. through the Fed Abu Finyer to the Rest House at the point where the Tonga-Talodi road crosses the Haqaba south of Abu Qussa, thence up that Raqaba to where it joins the existing Province Boundary.

This was the official provincial boundary line in effect when Sudan became independent on 1
January 1956 (see Map 1).

The Sudan Survey 1:250,000 maps 65-H and 65-L on which this boundary was marked (see Map
2), and on which all subsequent maps of the area are based, was last updated for topographical detail in 1937. The area bisected by the line is mainly a blank space. Aside from marking some water sources and the occasional clump of heglig trees Balanites aegyptiaca: hijlij in Arabic and thou in Dinka no villages or annual cattle camps, no place names of ‘Panthou’, ‘Aliny’ or even
‘Heglig’ are recorded. The reason is that this area lay outside administrators’ usual trek routes. The maps record the main lines of communication and main waterways. They document the limits of administrative knowledge, not the full scale of indigenous settlement.

OIL, NAME CHANGES AND ETHNIC CLEANSING

The discovery of oil in the late 1970s created immediate tensions between the central government in
Khartoum and the Southern Regional Government in Juba. Oil was declared a national resource, and official announcements from Khartoum were vague about the location of the main oil fields, stating only that they were located some 500 kms south of Khartoum. The first fields to be developed were given names such as ‘Unity’ and ‘Heglig’ which disguised their location, and the Chevron oil company based its headquarters in Muglad rather than Bentiu. In 1980 the national parliament attempted to redraw the boundaries of Upper Nile Province with the passage of legislation establishing new regional governments in northern Sudan, and the map accompanying the legislation annexed the oil fields to Kordofan. This map was withdrawn after protests from the Southern Regional government.

One of the first fields to be developed was at Panthou, meaning ‘the place (or village) of the Balanites aegyptiaca’ in Dinka. The name was changed to Heglig in Arabic. Nimeiri proposed to create a new Unity Region by amalgamating Western Upper Nile District, Abyei and parts of Southern Kordofan, but in the end only Western Upper Nile was renamed Unity when the Southern Region was abolished in 1983 and Upper Nile Region was reconstituted by re-uniting Upper Nile and Jonglei Provinces.

There was also controversy on the siting of an oil refinery to process oil from the field. The decision was made to site the refinery on the White Nile at Kosti, linked to the oil fields by a pipeline. In 1983, shortly before the Bor Mutiny and the outbreak of civil war, an official map of the route of the pipeline was released, showing it starting at the oil fields within Western Upper Nile District, but immediately routed out of Upper Nile into Kordofan, paralleling the Nile until it reached Kosti.7

The civil war brought an end to oil exploitation inside Upper Nile until the 1990s when the Sudanese Armed Forces and allied militias cleared large areas of their civilian populations. The establishment of Sudan’s oil industry in Unity State was accomplished through massive demographic displacement of its indigenous inhabitants, especially along the old provincial boundary lines. The territory of Panaru, in particular, was cleansed of its occupants to make way for the development and expansion of the oil industry.8

Up through 2003 it was generally understood that Panthou, or Heglig, was part of the Unity State administration, and the National Congress Party-appointed governor of Unity State, Dr. Joseph Monytuil described it as such in his 2003 annual report. In mid-2004, as the CPA negotiations were drawing to a conclusion, he was informed by Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie, then Minister of Federal Government Chambers in the office of the Presidency, that he was mistaken, and ‘that Heglig does not belong to Unity State as it appeared in your aforesaid map but it belongs to Western Kordofan State as indicated in the accompanying map approved by the National Survey Corporation, for information and correction of the map of Unity State referred to’.9 The accompanying map identifying this correction is not detailed enough to determine whether Heglig is located in relation to the 1931 provincial boundary line at 29° 32’ (and some seconds), or the line has been moved east in order to include Heglig in Western Kordofan.

It should be noted that the two protocols of the CPA affecting the division of oil revenues – the Wealth Sharing Protocol (7 January 2004), and the Abyei Protocol (26 May 2004) – were signed before the date of Nafie Ali Nafie’s letter (14 June 2004). Placing Heglig in Western Kordofan would therefore have been done in full knowledge that only the revenue from fields within South Sudan would be shared.

HEGLIG AND THE ABYEI BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

It has been commonly asserted that the 2005 Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC), of which I was a member, allocated Heglig to Abyei, and the 2009 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) finally determined that it was part of Sudan. Neither assertion is strictly correct.

The ABC was tasked to determine the territory of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred from Bahr el-Ghazal to Kordofan in 1905. We were enjoined repeatedly by the members of the government delegation not to take into consideration any developments in the territory that post- dated 1905. This meant in practice that the development of cotton cultivation in the Nyama area, the construction of the railroad passing through Meiram, and drilling of oil wells were irrelevant to our deliberations and were not to be a factor in our decision.

The maps we had at our disposal and which we examined for topographical, demographic and historical evidence therefore did not include details of the recent establishment of the oil industry in and around the area. We did ask the Sudan Survey Authority for copies of the most recent editions of the 1:250,000 maps to compare them with the historic maps we had consulted, but we never received the maps we requested.

Our understanding of the oral testimony we gathered from the Ngok and Rueng groups we spoke to was that Ngok and Rueng territories were contiguous, which is, in fact, how they are depicted on
the Sudan Survey 1:2,000,000 tribal map of Southern Sudan (Map 1)10. We knew from the historical records referred to above that the Rueng were transferred, bit by bit, from Nuba Mountains, Bahr el-Ghazal and Kordofan to Upper Nile, and that the province boundary drawn on the map in 1931 after the final transfer was complete represented the dividing line between Rueng and Ngok territory. We drew our boundary up to that line, which was also the provincial boundary line in existence in 1956.

The ABC did not push the boundary line east in order to include Heglig in Abyei. Heglig is mentioned only once in passing in our report (as part of an SPLM submission which we did not accept in full), and it does not appear on any of the maps accompanying the report.

If Khartoum moved the boundary to include Panthou/Heglig inside Western Kordofan (as is suggested by Nafie Ali Nafie’s 2004 letter and Map 3), that does not affect our decision in any way, since we were using the 1931 boundary as a fixed point on which we could anchor Abyei’s northern boundary line, not the boundary between Western Kordofan and Unity as it was in 2005. Panthou/ Heglig would have been included in the ABC award only if its location is west of the 1931 boundary line. If its location is in fact east of that line, then it could not have been included in the ABC award.

The PCA did not give the same weight to the oral and historical evidence as we did when reviewing the eastern border of the Abyei Area. Their decision to adjust the boundary was based on their assessment that we had not given sufficient reason in the ABC report for adopting the old Kordofan–Upper Nile boundary as the eastern boundary of the Ngok territory.

The PCA made no ruling about Panthou/Heglig itself, or about any other portion of the 1956 boundary line. To do so would have exceeded their mandate, and had the court exceeded their mandate no doubt the Sudan government would have objected.

The government of South Sudan asserted its claim over Panthou/Heglig shortly after the PCA ruling, stating that the issue of Heglig was still to be resolved in the North-South border demarcation process. They have repeated this in their submissions to the North-South Border Technical Committee and to the African Union High Implementation Panel.11

RESOLUTION

Given the history of the Panaru area outlined above any government or international body that declared that Heglig is ‘internationally recognized’ as part of Sudan has been premature at best and prejudicial to a final resolution at worst.

The question that has to be resolved, in the terms of the CPA, is whether Panthou/Heglig is east or west of the boundary line established in 1931. If east, it is part of Unity State; if west, it is part of Southern Kordofan. If it is part of Unity, it is part of South Sudan; if it is part of Southern Kordofan it is part of Sudan.

We know from the above summary that up through 2003 Heglig was generally assumed to be part of what is now Unity State. The boundary changes proposed in the national parliament in 1980 explicitly acknowledged this, as did the 1983 proposed route for the oil pipeline. If Juba can prove that Khartoum either moved the boundary or falsified the map in 2004 then they win their case.

But it must be remembered that map evidence is only a representation of the situation on the ground. Maps can be imprecise, inaccurate, or false. Testimony, whether documentary or oral, on how the area was administered since 1931 is as important, if not more important, in determining the jurisdiction over Panthou/Heglig. All such evidence should be considered in order to reach a fair and just solution to this dispute.

The full text of the article with maps is available at http://www.sudantribune.com/Note-on-Panthou-Heglig-by-Douglas,42490

Douglas H. Johnson was one of the international experts on the Abyei Boundaries Commission.



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.
  • 5 May 2012 09:06, by Michael Angelo

    Dr. Johnson,

    Thanks for your well explanation. I am quite sure Panthou belong to Unity State in South Sudan.

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 09:28, by Akol Liai Mager

    The Sudan Tribune editorial team.

    28 July 2009 05:38, by Akol Liai Mager

    What went wrong:

    1. GOSS should have raised the issue with ABC Commission on its Abyei Boarder from day 1 by telling the commission that Panthou is a Unity territory and not Abyei. I don’t know whether GOSS has done that or not someone may verify this.

    2. GOSS should not take an early Oath/Pledge to accept something t

    repondre message

    • 5 May 2012 09:31, by Akol Liai Mager

      3. The issue of Boarder dispute between New and Old Sudans is not an SPLM duty alone, it is a GOSS duty with assistance of all parties within or out of GOSS including INF/DC. Now, GOSS have not lost the case, it just needs to challenge court ruling on Panthou and come forward with evidences to convince the court about Panthou belonging to Unity State.

      repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 09:35, by Akook

    A great inside of all the confusion from Douglas. Truth is just natural esp if it’s a documented one.

    UK might not want to come up openly and say the truth because Egypt constraint them, but their independent and informed thinkers such as Doughlas will always be telling the truth. What matters is whether or not, Southerners, not the gallant SPLA but a crumbling Kiir leadership could afford to..

    repondre message

    • 5 May 2012 09:38, by Akook

      defend southerners right under the blistering pressures of the world’s diplomacy. It’s particularly worrying indeed but however weak our government is, at international stage i know the resilience of the Southerners to claim and must achieve what’s belong to them!!

      repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 09:39, by Akol Liai Mager

    Thanks Douglas for your records-track Article. I still stand by my comments that I made about three years back on the ruling of Abyei. My view today is that, the "stick & Carrot" that the US government talked about with Khartoum means South Sudan’s Oil rich territories are the American Carrot. Mark this point and let’s move on.

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 13:12, by mohammed ali

    First of all, you are the cause of the problem.This was ruled by an international court, which discarded your report and was considered neither honest nor fair. You had a mandate, you had exceeded it! If you are honest you wouldn’t have exceeded your mandate.All this blood shed was due to your dishonesty......con

    repondre message

    • 5 May 2012 13:18, by mohammed ali

      Your prejudesed and biased in your report, as you are now! The SPLA included Heglig in Abeyei to you and again to the Hague. Now you want to say, no it belongs to unity state.Isn’t that laughable? You are simply playing games.Even before session, when the SPLA was part of the GNU and the minister of oil was an SPLA member, Heglig oil went 100% to Sudan.In the recent negotiations in Addis Ababba ..

      repondre message

      • 5 May 2012 13:26, by mohammed ali

        ..the SPLA didn’t include Heglig in the negotiation.The reason to attack Heglig by the SPLA is not because it belong to SS.They didn’t made that claim before they shut down their oil.After shutting down their oil, they felt the pain and decided to shut our oil.You can’t make 2 claims for one thing and no court will look at such a claim.It is not importantant that you mentioned Heglig once or twice

        repondre message

        • 5 May 2012 13:36, by mohammed ali

          It is importantant that the SPLA included Heglig into Abeyei twice, which they consider as within the boundries of SS.The court ruled that it was not part of Abyei and hence outside the claim of the SPLA as within SS.Now, you come to say..no..noit is not part of Abeyei,it is part of unity state!Any person who knowes the ABC of law will tell you this is stupid & impossible to any court to listen to

          repondre message

          • 5 May 2012 14:25, by mohammed ali

            The Sudanese pple accepted to didvide the country, though as it is obvious now it is not the best solution of Sudan problems, for the sake of peace.Now after the agression and occupation of Heglig , the Sudanese people had never been united as today.Not a single centemeter will be taken out even if NCP or Basheer gave it up.Heglig will remain part of Sudan, Basheer will go if made any concession!

            repondre message

            • 5 May 2012 16:58, by Ruach

              Mohamed Ali.You are very noisy like your Sultan Bashir

              repondre message

    • 5 May 2012 17:15, by Rommel

      Mohammed Ali:

      The palpable irony in your accusations of apparent dishonesty on the part of Dr. Douglas Johson is extremely amusing. Lying seems to be second nature to you -and here you are- excoriating others for apparent dishonesty. You don’t seem capable of honesty, you don’t know the meaning of the word! I will prove to others (even to you)that you have lied in the following post.

      repondre message

      • 5 May 2012 17:28, by Rommel

        You posited an argument that is far too easy to disprove and dispatch with, that I wonder if you need time alone to sharpen up on your woeful attempts at deception. Your claim that Khartoum received 100% of the revenue from Heglig during the interim period is demonstrably false; and can be demonstrated as such from material even from this website.

        repondre message

        • 5 May 2012 17:43, by Rommel

          The revenue from the Heglig oil field was in fact shared between the respective parties during the interim period up until the NCP’s expedient and purposeful misinterpretation of the Hague ruling on *Abyei* in July 2009.

          You evidently have a long-standing aversion to learning through reading, and being as magnanimous and considerate as I am... you only need to read the first sentence:

          repondre message

          • 5 May 2012 17:44, by Rommel

            Quote:

            July 24, 2009 (KHARTOUM) — The Sudanese government announced that it will stop remitting payments to the South on the oil revenue from the Heglig oil fields following a court ruling on the borders on the Abyei region.

            http://www.sudantribune.com/Rifts-emerge-between-Sudan-s,31922

            repondre message

            • 5 May 2012 17:48, by Rommel

              From the article.

              Quote:

              The wealth sharing provisions of the CPA stipulate that fifty percent (50%) of net oil revenue derived from oil producing wells in Southern Sudan shall be allocated to the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) as of the beginning of the Pre-Interim Period and the remaining fifty percent (50%) to the National Government and States in Northern Sudan.

              repondre message

              • 5 May 2012 17:56, by Rommel

                Why did the NCP ’share’ the proceeds from the "Heglig" oil field with *southern Sudan* for four years when the CPA only mandated a sharing of oil revenue from oil fields in the south!? Was the NCP impelled by uncharacteristic altruism, philanthropy and grace!? Please do tell, I am just dying to know!

                repondre message

                • 5 May 2012 18:12, by Rommel

                  I assume that you are aware that Khartoum did not have to share revenue from oil fields found in the North, no?

                  Was the NCP’s sharing of oil revenue from this territory with *southern Sudan* for four years, not a salient acknowledgment by the NCP that "Heglig" was indeed part of the south!? !? I’ll give you sufficient time to come up with a colourful and wholly self-reassuring lie.

                  repondre message

                  • 5 May 2012 18:26, by Rommel

                    A lie that in the end convinces no one else but you; a lie that eventually lures, traps and sinks you deeper into the irredeemable morass of self-delusion; a lie that makes you a contemptible and derided laughing stock; a lie that makes you a prisoner to yourself... to your vices, to your moral & intellectual bankruptcy and complete failure.

                    repondre message

                    • 5 May 2012 18:51, by Rommel

                      Let’s say for the sake of argument that the professional conduct expected of Dr. Douglas Johnson was in fact compromised and vitiated by his personal prejudices...

                      .. but what of the 1931 and 1956 maps? Were they also prejudicial!? Was Human rights watch prejudicial when it documented the displacement of the Ruweng Dinka from "Heglig" in 1992-93 and 1999!?

                      repondre message

                      • 5 May 2012 19:02, by mohammed ali

                        Rommel, you are still alive and still fond of self augumentation.I missed your honesty during Heglig when you claimed that youwill not withdraw! Yes this what I mean after the court ruling Heglig was not divided with the South. The south didn’t object.The question will be: why they didn’t object?If you are honest , you would have asked that question. Apperantly , you are not! ....con

                        repondre message

                        • 5 May 2012 19:13, by mohammed ali

                          ..More-over you ignored all the points and stick one point which you misunderstoo!To add to your pain, your goverment on 17 April 2012 signed the agreement to stop hostility that the disputeted areas are 4 "FOUR" areas only! This did not include Heglig! This was signed by the demaration committee members of SS, S & AU representatives.This why the UN,AU, US and all the world ;called you to withdraw

                          repondre message

                          • 5 May 2012 19:22, by mohammed ali

                            ..I just put it to blank without any colours! Show me your colours &...honesty! Why did your fools in the government signed this document? Is it logical now to change your mind.The rule of the Hague was " arbitration" which is never 100% in favour of one side.They try to satisfy both side.This why we accepted it.You yourself you said " we have associated ourself to...."

                            repondre message

                            • 5 May 2012 19:35, by mohammed ali

                              Rommel..Are these the people to who you associated yourself? In such a case would it at all be " honest" to consider them as fair, just, non-biased or honest!Be honest firs with yourself!Tell me that your government signed or didn’t signed that there are only 4 " FOUR" disputed ares which didn’t include Heglig, with your best " colour".The aim to attack heglig , was obvious though very stupid.

                              repondre message

                              • 5 May 2012 19:48, by mohammed ali

                                The war in itself is an act of stuipidity!Tell me what gain you got or will get out of it; 2000 soldiers perished for nothing , absolutely nothing! Did you exhauste all diplomatic routes, obviously not.Pagan was in Khartoum to invite Basheer, 2 days later you attacked Heglig. Tell me " with your honesty" is this a rational behaviour.Is it sane at all!

                                repondre message

                                • 5 May 2012 21:42, by Rommel

                                  Mohammed Ali:

                                  You are attempting to excoriate us as if it’s already been established that we initiated the engagement, when in fact multiple accounts pertaining to this clash have pointed to Khartoum. That we were responding to a second round of military aggression, launched by the SAF from Aliny.

                                  The casualty numbers you have provided are without provenance.

                                  repondre message

                      • 5 May 2012 19:16, by Rommel

                        This is what Human rights watch reported in 2003 on the displacement of the Ruweng Dinka from "Heglig".

                        Quote:

                        The government and its muraheleen allies then undertook a five-month offensive to dislodge the civilians permanently. From November 1992 (a month before the sale to Arakis and State Petroleum) through April 1993, these forces looted, burned, killed, and abducted people around

                        repondre message

                        • 5 May 2012 19:20, by Rommel

                          the town of Heglig in Block 2.

                          This is what the coalition of international justice wrote in its 2006 report on Heglig:

                          As noted above, beginning half way through the dry season of 1991-2 and restarting in November 1992, (and continuing through the the whole of the dry season of 1992-3) government forces

                          repondre message

                          • 5 May 2012 19:21, by Rommel

                            together with Arab murahaleen allies began an offensive of looting, burning and abduction, resulting in the destruction of at least 57 hamlets in the Heglig area.

                            repondre message

                            • 5 May 2012 19:22, by Rommel

                              This is what the UN Special Rapporteur, Leonardo Franco reported in 1999:

                              Quote:

                              As recently as May 1999, many villages on the eastern edge of Heglig were attacked and burned to the ground by the Sudanese army, causing the displacement of some 1,000-2,000 civilians.

                              repondre message

                              • 5 May 2012 19:24, by Rommel

                                Mohammed Ali:

                                I have on many occasions asked you -and rather politely- that you end your practice of misquoting institutions of international significance, but evidently to no avail.

                                How many times have I proven you a liar, and at best a man bedevilled by incorrigible ignorance!? The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) did not rule that Heglig does not belong to South Sudan!

                                repondre message

                                • 5 May 2012 19:25, by Rommel

                                  It said nothing of the sort! The PCA was afforded a very limited, and very specific mandate; it was tasked only with determining the extent of Abyei as it stood at the date of its transfer from Bahr el Ghazl to Kordofan in 1905 by the Condominium government. The PCA defined Abyei in a way that moved both the Heglig (and Bamboo) oil sites to the east of Abyei’s eastern boundary.

                                  repondre message

                                  • 5 May 2012 19:29, by Rommel

                                    But with respect to Heglig, this is all it did. It did not place Heglig in northern Sudan or South Sudan; it simply said that Heglig lies to the east of Abyei:

                                    This is what the Hague actually said:

                                    repondre message

                                    • 5 May 2012 19:30, by Rommel

                                      “The eastern boundary of the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905 runs in a straight line along longitude 29° 00? 00” E, from latitude 10° 10? 00” N south to the Kordofan – Upper Nile boundary as it was defined on 1 January 1956.”

                                      repondre message

                                      • 5 May 2012 19:31, by Rommel

                                        This ruling did nothing to settle where the “1 January 1956 border” actually lies. It had no mandate to make such a determination, and did not attempt to do so. If you wish to contend that the limited mandate of the PCA on Abyei did indeed demarcate the general North-South border...that would necessarily have you concede that the PCA ruled that Abyei belongs to South Sudan.

                                        repondre message

                                        • 5 May 2012 19:43, by Rommel

                                          You seem to be operating under the notion that areas left outside the Abyei belong to Khartoum... what then of the areas included in the Abyei area? Do they then belong to Juba? The PCA determined the extent of the Abyei area, and only the Abyei area.

                                          repondre message

                                          • 5 May 2012 19:58, by Rommel

                                            The people of Abyei and the people of "Heglig" go by the same name - Ngok; their territories overlap and were depicted as such on maps from 1905 onwards; the Ngok of Abyei are referred to as Jok-Ngok, while the rightful owners of "Heglig" are referred to as Ruweng-Ngok. The Achaak clan of Abyei lived as a minority in "Heglig" with the dominant Mijuan clan of Ruweng for centuries.

                                            repondre message

                                • 5 May 2012 19:55, by mohammed ali

                                  Rommel, when you lie to yourself that doesn’t you have proved me a lier. You simply lied to yourself and in your state of grandiose thought " you have proved something" Grandiosity and megalomania are symptoms of deep inferiority complex! You never talk politely, you imagine that! I have tried in vain to tame you, but it seems nature will alwayes prevails!

                                  repondre message

                                  • 5 May 2012 20:04, by Rommel

                                    Mohammed Ali:

                                    Did I not just prove that you lied with respect to your assertion that Khartoum was receiving 100% of the oil revenue from the "Heglig" oil field during the interim period!? I even provided a source for all to see! You clearly require psychological assessment and/or help! It’s amusing that you would try to projeect your pathology upon me.

                                    repondre message

                                    • 5 May 2012 20:10, by Rommel

                                      Was Human rights watch lying to itself when it documented the displacement in "Heglig"? Was the UN Special Rapporteur in 1999, Leonardo Franco lying to himself when he documented the displacement of the Ruweng Dinka from "Heglig"!? Was the Harker report lying to itself!? I can go on Mohammed.

                                      The derange always believe that it is others that are insane. Seek help, Mohammed.

                                      repondre message

                                    • 5 May 2012 20:13, by mohammed ali

                                      Rommel, you are trying to cheat yourself , what I said is that after the ruling and the minister of oil was from SS; Sudan was taking heglig’s oil revenues 100% , with no objection from SS. Did they object? Why they didn’t object.Escaping answering these questions by directing personal proves your quality as human being and you can not force me to decend to that low level. It is not my up-bringin!

                                      repondre message

                                      • 5 May 2012 20:25, by mohammed ali

                                        Rommel,your government signed that they have only 4 " FOUR" disputed ares,did they? Was Heglig included? Why then they jumped to attack Heglig.The UNSC, US, AU & EU understood the ruling of the Hague as ruling that Heglig is outside SS.If you understood it differently then you better check your brain!You can’t say one day it is part of Abeyei and one day is part of unity state, that is laughable

                                        repondre message

                                      • 5 May 2012 20:28, by Rommel

                                        Mohammed Ali:

                                        Are you capable of comprehension at all, Mohammed? The heading of the article I provide itself alludes to a disagreement between the respective parties with regards to remittance on revenue from the "Heglig" oil field. If that’s not sufficient for you... read this:

                                        http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-s-SPLM-threatens-to-refer,31945

                                        repondre message

                                        • 5 May 2012 20:51, by mohammed ali

                                          Rommel, answer my questions if you are capable of any comperhension. Prove to me your capabilities? Answer them with your usual "honesty". My comperhension is just like the rest of the world, " Heglig occupation is illeagal, you have to withdraw uncondtionally" If your " comperhension" is diffrent, then you have to look up for medical help!

                                          repondre message

                                          • 5 May 2012 21:06, by Rommel

                                            Mohammed Ali:

                                            Repeating to me what I had previously directed to you is amusing, if not anything else. That Khartoum seems to have convinced actors of international significance is disconcerting, but ultimately immaterial with regards to whom "Heglig" belongs. The 1931 map and the original 1956 map (provided in this article), as well as the documented evidence of displacement of the Ruweng Dinka

                                            repondre message

                                            • 5 May 2012 21:20, by Rommel

                                              from their homes in "Heglig" is what ultimately matters. The statements and demarches of foreign governments are eclipsed by the 1931 map and the 1956 map. I have provided evidence that the Ruweng Dinka were expelled from Aliny in 1999, renamed "Heglig" in 1982.

                                              repondre message

                                      • 6 May 2012 13:56, by Rommel

                                        Mohammed Ali:

                                        You do realise that we can refer back to what you have written by merely scrolling up the page? It seems that not only are you incapable of properly quoting others... you can’t even quote yourself correctly.

                                        Carefully read the post that I am citing, the one that demonstrates your complete lack of scruples.

                                        repondre message

                                        • 6 May 2012 14:12, by Rommel

                                          This is what you wrote.

                                          Quote:

                                          Even before session, when the SPLA was part of the GNU and the minister of oil was an SPLA member, Heglig oil went 100% to Sudan.

                                          Where in the above text did you provide the caveat clearly explaining that your assertion was in regards to developments following the ruling!?

                                          repondre message

                                          • 6 May 2012 14:24, by Rommel

                                            the only word relating to time in that small highlighted paragraph is the word "before"; a word I am quite sure you understand to be the antonym of *after*. This is what you said:

                                            Even before session

                                            What "session"? Read your own posts, mohammed!

                                            repondre message

                                  • 5 May 2012 20:07, by mohammed ali

                                    Ruling is final was accepted by SS and hence they did not object when the oil from Heglig was 100% taken by Sudan and this why did not include it in the 4"four" areas which they dispute.You claimed in the Hague that Abyei area belongs to SS and you included in your claim Heglig. Heglig was taken out of that rule.The whole world had accepted that" Arbitration"which will never be 100% in either side

                                    repondre message

                                    • 5 May 2012 20:34, by Rommel

                                      The SPLM did object to it being denied remittance on revenue from the "Heglig" oil field! You have to reference facts before posting your arguments. Don’t imagine for a minute that repeating a lie over and over again provides it with an iota of credence. I have provided evidence that the Ruweng Dinka were displaced from Heglig and that 57 villages of the Ruweng Dinka were destroyed as recently

                                      repondre message

                                      • 5 May 2012 20:39, by Rommel

                                        as 1999 in "Heglig". This is our land as depicted in the 1931 map and the 1956 border map. Aliny is not your land; the Misseriya only started arriving in the mid 1980s... they have no legitimate claims to this territory.

                                        repondre message

                                        • 6 May 2012 23:27, by Mohamed

                                          They all arrived to this waterless land after oil field development by Chevron in the 80’s.
                                          The Dinka, messeriya, Nuer, Shaygiya, Halfaween, Nuba, Danagla, Bargu....all of them.
                                          before oil discovery it was a no mans land.
                                          Land without water and shade.

                                          repondre message

                                      • 5 May 2012 21:01, by mohammed ali

                                        They did not object and you know it! This a very fresh lie! LOOK up at your own posting! You said SS was recieveing Heglig’s revenue for four years; what about the 2 years.These are your own words. You have proven nothing. Human Right watch! Tell them to go the Pibor were genocide occured with the support of your president who disseminated ignorant false comments against his own pple.

                                        repondre message

                                        • 5 May 2012 21:15, by Rommel

                                          Mohammed Ali:

                                          The SPLM did object to the termination of remittance from the Heglig oil field - that I have already proven with the provision of an article. It’s amusing that you’re deflecting attention away from excerpts from the four reports documenting the displacement of the Ruweng Dinka from Aliny.

                                          You are hilarious, Mohammed.

                                          repondre message

                      • 6 May 2012 23:21, by Mohamed

                        Rommel speaks of Documentation?
                        Please present us with the documentation you speak of Rommel.
                        I believe satellite imagery has proved to the whole world a growth in Dinka villages after oil production in the whole region.
                        These images were presented in argument to Human Rights claims.
                        And they were thus silenced.
                        http://www.mediamonitors.net/espac4.html

                        repondre message

                    • 5 May 2012 20:38, by mohammed ali

                      Rommel,this a typical poem of the"delusion of the grandiose"!Answer my questions;I wont decend to that low level of personal insult.Did your government signed that only 4 areas are disputed? Was Heglig included? Was that in a seize fire agreement just few days before the attack of Heglig?Was the attack of Heglig just few days from Basheer visit to Juba to discuss among other things the only 4 area

                      repondre message

                      • 5 May 2012 20:50, by Rommel

                        Mohammed Ali:

                        Provide me with a credible (*English*) source that has only four areas under contestation. From now onwards, I will only respond to your claims if they are accompanied by a source. Provide me with the source. You are in no position to talk about avoidance; you have not even addressed the reports from Human rights watch, the coalition of international justice and the Harker report.

                        repondre message

                        • 5 May 2012 21:12, by mohammed ali

                          Rommel, what will you do I f I provide you with a credible source that your government offered 4 disputed ares which don’t include Heglig? What will you do? Let us be precise?

                          repondre message

                          • 5 May 2012 21:28, by Rommel

                            What will I do should you provide the requested matterial? My disposition will mirror your own; you stated earlier to the effect, that the Sudanese people will not concede an inch of "Heglig" (the land of the Ruweng Dinka); and should Bashir give it up... he will be removed. Well that’s how I feel. I have despised Salva Kiir and his ’government’ since Dr. John Garang’s death in 2005.

                            repondre message

                            • 5 May 2012 21:33, by Rommel

                              What matters to me is the truth. The truth as depicted in the 1931 map; the truth that the Ruweng Dinka were displaced from Aliny ("Heglig") in 1999 as documented by Human rights watch, the UN Special Rapporteur, Leonardo Franco, the Harker report, the coalition of international justice and a plethora of other such reports. The truth is above all else.

                              repondre message

                              • 6 May 2012 00:46, by mohammed ali

                                Rommel, ok, we all want the truth. Nobody can be against the truth. Why is war for then? Did we exhausted all the diplomatic , negotiative and othe peace avenus? Basheer was going to Juba and suddenly Heglig was occupied for the 2nd time. Well for god sake is this sane.Borders should not big a very big issue, we dispute about it me you, but the real pple on the ground don’t what is border and they

                                repondre message

                                • 6 May 2012 00:53, by mohammed ali

                                  don’t know what is the meaning of border, wheather they are from S or N.They are going to suffer,not me or you.Don’t tell me resources, did they benifit of the resources which present now? Nothing. We don’t need war.War is a disgrace. You can’t get everything you want & I cant get everything I want.A solution is possible.War will be followed by hatred.No progress will take place in such a situaton

                                  repondre message

                                  • 6 May 2012 05:27, by Rommel

                                    Mohammed Ali:

                                    You have attempted to distort the dynamics between the tribes on the border, and have laughably tried to depict them as people ingnorant of their respective interests and to the extent that they are conspicuously invested into the process and outcome of the border demarcation.

                                    repondre message

                                    • 6 May 2012 05:35, by Rommel

                                      Tribes on both sides of the border have been lobbying their respective governments to not accede an inch on the disputed border; the Misseriy rejected the PCA ruling on Abyei, impeding progress on the border demarcation by threatening the use of violence. Stop trying to belittle the importance of one’s inheritance; its importance is second only to God.

                                      repondre message

                                      • 6 May 2012 07:18, by Rommel

                                        If the purported solution does not entail the full recovery of my land as depicted on the map of 1931 and the map of 1956... then I am obliged to reject it. Suppose you were a member of the Ruweng Dinka, and witnessed the displacement of your people from Aliny in 1999... would you want your representatives to compromise on this very issue.

                                        repondre message

                            • 7 May 2012 12:31, by DHARCHEP

                              Mr Rommel,

                              First of all,do you Dinka Ruweng? My friend,I am from Dinka Ruweng Community of Biemnom County in Unity State. Frankly speaking, Dinka Ruweng was not displaced in 1999. That is a wrong assumption. Dinka Ruweng of Biemnom was displaced on April 16,1983 when their Paramount Chief Mr KUR KUOT was killed in Biemnom. Dinka Panaruu are not Ruweng at all. Ruweng composes of SIX Clans namely:

                              repondre message

                              • 7 May 2012 12:41, by DHARCHEP

                                Part of the article:

                                Dinka Ruweng Community of Biemnom(Abiemnom)composes of Six clans namely: Mijuan, Amaal, Abaang, Thiyeer, Manteeng,and NgongChill. These are the six clans which make up what is called the Dinka Ruweng Community in Unity State.Dinka Panaruu on the other hand,had no border with Dinka Ngok of Abyei completely.

                                repondre message

                                • 7 May 2012 14:34, by Rommel

                                  DHARCHEP:

                                  I’ll start with the first question that you directed towards me. I am not from Dinka Ruweng of Abiemnom county - I am from Twic-east.

                                  I have read extensively on the displacement of the Ruweng Dinka from their lands; a displacement that coincided with the second civil war in the 1980s and resulted in the gruesome beheading of Kuot Kur Kuot.

                                  repondre message

                                  • 7 May 2012 14:51, by Rommel

                                    The people of Abiemnom county have suffered infinitely more than any other community in South Sudan, losing 50% of their population due to their unremitting commitment to the struggle. The vast majority of our people do not know the heavy price you have paid for your loyalty and bravery; that the Ruweng Dinka of Biemnom were the vanguard force in Unity state

                                    repondre message

                                    • 7 May 2012 15:10, by Rommel

                                      resisting Paulino Matip’s militia, the enroachments of the Misseriya, the raids of the Murahaleen and the PDF and the inhumane clearing operations perpetrated by the SAF. My research into the history of your brave people is complicated by Panaruu’s immoral adoption of your tribal appellation - an action that is nothing short of identity theft & fraud.

                                      repondre message

                                      • 7 May 2012 15:39, by Rommel

                                        I know that your people feel a sense of abandonment; I know that the people of Biemnom strenuously lobbied the SPLM/A to not confuse the issue of Abyei with that of Toor Aliny as far back as Naivasha. The prominent sons of Abyei -Deng Alor & Luka Biong Deng- should at this point acknowledge that they have done wrong by you.

                                        Thank you for your loyalty, bravery, valor and commitment.

                                        repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 14:59, by Akook

    Mohamed, Doughlas is just a professional who is saying what he exactly knows and you can see him even mentioning geographical axis in minutes, degrees et al., You better can take away ur shameful madness of Khartoum away from him.

    mind you, we will in South, do what you guys are doing. if you spare Bashir to death (ICC..)CUZ of Panthou then we will have every right to dump Kiir too, esp if he..

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 15:07, by Akook

    repeat the same mistake of withdrawing our forces from Panthou. Panthou is becoming much bigger than Kiir, he should know that clearly. We have other articulate leaders who presents well in every way Khartoum understands..,which is only bullet

    repondre message

    • 5 May 2012 23:11, by Mohamed

      1,200 innocent SPLA soldiers died in Heglig with that bullet, were you even associated to one of them?
      I bet you are one of the Juba Armani bunch.
      Sending innocent soldiers to fight wars that have no meaning other than protect you or your fathers’ existence in the most corrupt government our world has ever seen.

      repondre message

      • 6 May 2012 04:53, by Akook

        Mohamed Ali,it was a war and pple including SPLA and northerners had died alike
        We don’t buy your magic superficial numbers of 1000 SPLA killed since we are very much aware of your dirty military tactics of coming with SPLA uniforms and insignia to only dressed up your own dead fellows and allowed for the first time inetrnational journalist to take their photos claiming they were all spla..

        repondre message

        • 6 May 2012 05:02, by Akook

          Isn’t it shame on you, but im not surprise since pple are aware of your gov. genocidal state of mind. If indeed you were succeeding, how com Bashir never follow us all the way to Juba as he proclaimed. Not say inter-comm, you are just a bunch of criminals there and only to listen to them over Panthou when u kno u are being beaten. Why didn’t agree with internatonal comm over Darfur for yrs.

          repondre message

        • 7 May 2012 09:08, by Mohamed

          You are right Akook, many human beings died, either North or South.
          If you think deep inside , each one of them had a life with kids , family, dreams etc. Believe me, the SAF did not put SPLA uniforms on the dead Sudanese soldiers. Think of changing clothes to a dead man....unthinkable especially if he is dead for 2 days in the sun.

          repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 16:09, by abraham

    Mohammad Ali,
    It’s over whether Khartuom like it or not.

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 17:33, by Gordon

    Let’s assume that in this specific case, proceedings have ended and a judgment has been handed down. Will the losing side accept the judgement? Never! So you better solve the problem by negotiations before you are returning to war, becoming both weaker and weaker, - until Egypt will remember that Sudan has been her territory for centuries…

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 22:43, by Mohamed

    I wonder how much Pagan Amum paid Douglas in his recent trip to England when they met more than twice to negotiate this article?
    Heglig is an uninhabitable land with no water sources.
    Ngok Dinka live near the rivers and lakes.
    Any historian will explain this clearly.
    And any geography student can analyze the topography of Heglig.
    No water!

    repondre message

    • 6 May 2012 02:33, by acuil deng

      Mohammed

      Ngok Dinka don’t live near any lakes. In addition, how bad is your geography to put such a horrible mistake for everyone to read while arguing about Panthou not being part of South Sudan? Your argument is invalid, because you need to pass your geography classes, and let alone you trying to discredit Mr. Douglas B. Johnson.

      repondre message

      • 6 May 2012 22:54, by Mohamed

        Ngok Dinka live in Abyei near the river.
        Rweng Dinka live in Biemnom near the river.(east of Abyei)
        Panaru Dinka live towards the swamps and marshes near lake Jau and some along the lake itself. Panaru means "treeless land" and that is exactly what these swamps near Lake Jau are.
        Which water is near Heglig for any tribe to live by?

        repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 22:48, by Mohamed

    If Mr. Douglas H. Johnson was not bribed into falsifying this article, is it proper for somebody in an arbitration committee to write or even speak of his personal assumptions outside of the doors of the committee meeting?
    He should be investigated for breaking the code of honor.
    Assumptions in arguments such as this create bloodshed.

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 22:54, by Mohamed

    If you look at the bigger picture, the border of Sudan is not even the 1956 border line. The border is further South tu Uganda, Kenya and CAR.
    In pursuit of peace and in believing the Western worlds intentions towards realizing that peace Sudan gave up 1/3rd of her territory and 75% of her oil resources. Unforunate true failure of the SPLM to manage that new one third with the given spent money...

    repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 23:00, by Mohamed

    ... And ongoing corruption,
    The only way to cover up that failure is to make up a new story named
    "Panthou".
    Would’ve been much more logical to develop the newborn country with the billions of dollars already earnt and spent.
    Where has all this money been spent?
    In the newly named state of "Panthou"?
    Get serious. I must agree it is a good coverup for all the corruption by the Armani bunch in Juba

    repondre message

    • 6 May 2012 06:06, by jur_likang_a_ likan’g

      Mohammed must learn to be a man of integrity. Avoid misinforming people about issues of significance. The issue of Heglig(Panthou)is a matter that old maps of the place and the boundaries of the areas of the communities that were settled there then can settle and that is what the Khawaja has done. He does not deserve names and blames. He is humane and see things from a point of integrity.

      repondre message

      • 6 May 2012 23:01, by Mohamed

        Sorry , but this Khawaja has lost his credibility. Once you become a member of an arbitration committee it is wrong for you to make presumptions. Even the author in the end of his article states clearly that maps are imprecise and wrong. Sounds like he wants to alter the British maps to make way for Pagans bribe to him last week.
        Probably, the final payment will be made after alteration of maps.

        repondre message

  • 5 May 2012 23:06, by Mohamed

    At least in North Sudan people of all political affiliations and ethnic groups have Internet access and can comment or enter discussion boards.
    All the Southern fellows we see here in these discussions are beneficiaries of this oil money in South Sudan.
    98% of South Sudan’s money comes from oil to be spent on 2% of the population and to be fair, also in protection of that 2% (as in SPLA).

    repondre message

    • 6 May 2012 01:49, by Zionist

      Mohammed Ali

      You sound extremely vulgar, arrogant and less convincing. Therefore you should be completely avoided or abandoned, so that other people can benefit from other healthy arguments on this forum.

      repondre message

  • 6 May 2012 19:56, by Northern Sudanese

    stop speaking crap insects

    Heglig is part of sudan and will always be. if you want it, come and get it

    repondre message

    • 7 May 2012 20:09, by Ngomlieljalab

      Nothern Sudanese

      You are a son of bashir’s concubine by repeatedly using this vague word ’insects’ as your step-father bashir did

      repondre message

  • 6 May 2012 20:16, by DHARCHEP

    Mr Douglas Johnson,

    We don’t have Ruweng Dinka of Panaruu. The only Ruweng Dinka we know is the Dinka Ruweng Community of Biemnom in Unity State which is composed of Six clans namely:
    Mijuan, Amaal, Abaang, NgongChill, Manteeng and Thiyeer. The Late Paramount Chief of the Dinka Ruweng is called KUR KUOT.

    Thanks
    By Dharchep Miyar Dharchep

    repondre message

  • 28 July 2012 19:01, by danaray79

    Truly impressive and nice information. Thanks for sharing. Essay Writing.

    repondre message



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



Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis


Will sanctioned officials participate in South Sudan revitalized cabinet 2020-02-23 21:13:05 By Tito Anthony I asked myself this questions on 20, February 2020 will I see Sanctioned Individuals or official back to R-TGONU again? Actually, I failed to answer it, but I wonder if the (...)

Why a national court may be good option for Sudan’s al-Bashir 2020-02-21 11:12:28 By Iffat Rahman My friend on the Hill forwarded me a request to attend an event with Prime Minister of Sudan, Abdallah Hamdok. It was one of his several visits to DC and the purpose was clear: (...)

Remove Sudan from the terror list 2020-02-19 07:04:27 By David L. Phillips Khartoum – Sudanese deserve to be rewarded for overthrowing the dictator Omar al-Bashir. Without a peace dividend, the economy will remain stagnant and shadowy forces from (...)


MORE






Latest Press Releases


S. Korea supports UN communities building resilience project in Sudan’s Blue Nile 2019-09-09 09:26:41 UNDP Sudan September 5, 2019 (KHARTOUM) - An agreement was signed on 5th of September between the Korean Ambassador, His Excellency. Lee Ki-Seong and Dr. Selva Ramachandran, Resident (...)

Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders back calls for civil rule 2019-04-26 10:22:06 Press statement by 55 Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders on Sudan Sit-in and Peaceful Protest Khartoum -24/04/2019 We, the undersigned (55) Sudanese lawyers and human rights defenders, (...)

South Sudan’s Lafon youth condemn killings of civilians by Pari community 2019-04-03 21:54:29 Press Statement on the Fighting between Pari/ Pacidi and Lotuko/Lokiri on 24/3/2019 Release by The Lafon County Youth Union: We, the Lafon County Youth Union hereby condemn the atrocities and (...)


MORE

Copyright © 2003-2020 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.