论文部分内容阅读
looming war between Sudan and South Sudan has the whole world on edge. The African Union (AU), the intergovernmental Authority on Development, the United nations Security Council (UnSC), the Arab league and even the European Union have all asked the two countries to thrash out their grievances and not to return to war.
Top of that list of grievances is oil and the sharing of the colossal revenues that come from that crucial and lucrative resource, plus the delicate border demarcation.
South Sudan’s neighbors, especially Kenya and Uganda, with hundreds of their citizens making a living in the newly independent republic, do not fancy the prospect of war. The last bloody one, which ended in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, had spawned thousands of refugees and a security nightmare in the host countries.
From tiff to conflict
What began as a political tiff over the sharing of oil revenues earlier in the year, quickly degenerated into armed conflict, with both Sudan and South Sudan, not only having their armies engaged in fighting, but also battling in proxy wars through the armed groups operating in some areas of the two countries.
The egos of the two leaders Salva Kiir of South Sudan and omar al Bashir of Sudan are also at play, along with the egos of their respective people.
The violent flare-ups at the disputed oil-rich border of the two countries, Sudan’s aerial bombardment of South Sudan, and the flexing of military muscles by South Sudan when it captured the Heglig oil field in Sudan, all threatened to escalate into full-scale war.
on one hand, Juba (South Sudan’s capital) was busy recruiting soldiers, while the Khartoum (Sudan’s capital) was threatening war, saying it was going to oust the “insect regime” in Juba.
Juba had decided that unless its oil was assured safe passage to the market, through the Sudan pipeline, it was ready to wait for an alternative export route through Kenya that is likely to be up and running in two years. A February 10 memorandum of understanding for the cessation of hostilities was quickly shunted aside even before the ink on it had dried.
“The level of bitterness, anger and distrust on both sides has never been so high,” an alarmed AU Peace and Security Council noted in a report seen by ChinAfrica, dated April 24.
on may 2, the UnSC voted unanimously to impose non-military sanctions if peace through negotiation was not forthcoming. Russia and China unusually sided with the United States in the sanctions call. This was the strongest admonishment to date. The AU would oversee these negotiations.
China is a major investor in infrastructure in the two countries and is also one of the key buyers of oil from both countries.
Messy divorce
Adan Keynan, Chairman of Kenya’s Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations, took the view that the two nations had no option but to sort out their issues “peacefully.” He reckoned that sanctions were a “last resort” option.
“it is not in their interest to go back to war. There is a well-established framework within which they ought to negotiate and agree. if they take any other route, it will be escapist and fraught with many challenges,”Keynan told ChinAfrica alluding to the disputed resolution mechanisms set out in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
A war between them will be too disruptive for a region that has not known peace and stability since the 1950s.
“What the two nations went through is a messy divorce. The oil issues and the fact that most of that oil is in the South, whereas the north has the export route, was bound to blow up. if this is not fully sorted out, then, they(Sudan and South Sudan) will inevitably end up fighting. if they don’t do so [fight] now, they will do so in future,”Jomo Washiali, a deputy chief whip in Kenya’s Parliament told ChinAfrica.
Washiali has been to Juba and back, and by virtue of his sitting in Kenya’s House Committee on Transport and Public Works, is keen on having a multibillion dollar pipeline built between Kenya’s yet-to-be-built sea port in lamu, and South Sudan, and even Ethiopia.
“The fears of Khartoum are that South Sudan will decide to export their oil through Kenya’s lamu. That means loss of revenue. it is not a prospect they’re willing to take. That could explain their aggression [so that the South does not concentrate on the Kenya project],” said Washiali.
The negotiations over oil revenues and the border conflict have been tackled by the African Union High level implementation Panel (AUHiP), which also took on the job of addressing the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue nile states in Sudan.
Talks must go on
South Sudan’s Foreign minister nhial Deng nhial, in an interview in BBC’s Hardtalk, is of the view that Juba was ready to live without using Sudan’s pipeline for up to two years, as it waits for the lamu-South Sudan pipeline to be completed.
While oil accounts for 98 percent of Juba’s revenue, and keeping the oil taps closed might hurt the new republic that is busy trying to get to its feet, nhial insisted that South Sudan “can survive.”
“South Sudan has been at war for two to three decades. We’ve had nothing all that time. We can adapt. it will be tough, it will be difficult, but i think we will survive,” said nhial.
Juba’s stand is that the pipeline through Sudan will only be opened if Khartoum agrees not to confiscate the oil and if it also agrees to lower the “extortionate” transit fees.
According to the AU report on the row dated April 24, the negotiations “have addressed all the major issues of contention between the two states, and also the question of the armed conflict in the two areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue nile in Sudan.”
The roadmap to getting the two nations at the table, according to the AU and the rest of the international community, was quite straight forward: South Sudan should withdraw its forces from Heglig; Sudan should cease aerial bombardment of South Sudan; both parties should cease support of rebel forces fighting against the other state, and thereafter, they were all to sit down and learn to live as peaceful neighbors.
After the UnSC resolution, South Sudan’s minister of Cabinet Affairs Deng Alor stated his government’s “solemn commitment” to comply with the resolution, according to the Associated Press.
But Sudan’s Un Ambassador, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali osman, expressed reservations, saying peace will only be achieved if South Sudan stops “all forms of support and sheltering of proxy and rebel armed groups” and “until that is given a priority in the negotiations, it will be extremely difficult to proceed on any other matter” covered by the resolution.
So far the situation is fragile and all eyes are on how Sudan and South Sudan will yield to the international pressure to resume negotiations. As Kenya’s President Kibaki, whose administration has close ties with both Juba and Khartoum, said, the two countries must not go back to war. The region can’t afford another war.
Top of that list of grievances is oil and the sharing of the colossal revenues that come from that crucial and lucrative resource, plus the delicate border demarcation.
South Sudan’s neighbors, especially Kenya and Uganda, with hundreds of their citizens making a living in the newly independent republic, do not fancy the prospect of war. The last bloody one, which ended in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, had spawned thousands of refugees and a security nightmare in the host countries.
From tiff to conflict
What began as a political tiff over the sharing of oil revenues earlier in the year, quickly degenerated into armed conflict, with both Sudan and South Sudan, not only having their armies engaged in fighting, but also battling in proxy wars through the armed groups operating in some areas of the two countries.
The egos of the two leaders Salva Kiir of South Sudan and omar al Bashir of Sudan are also at play, along with the egos of their respective people.
The violent flare-ups at the disputed oil-rich border of the two countries, Sudan’s aerial bombardment of South Sudan, and the flexing of military muscles by South Sudan when it captured the Heglig oil field in Sudan, all threatened to escalate into full-scale war.
on one hand, Juba (South Sudan’s capital) was busy recruiting soldiers, while the Khartoum (Sudan’s capital) was threatening war, saying it was going to oust the “insect regime” in Juba.
Juba had decided that unless its oil was assured safe passage to the market, through the Sudan pipeline, it was ready to wait for an alternative export route through Kenya that is likely to be up and running in two years. A February 10 memorandum of understanding for the cessation of hostilities was quickly shunted aside even before the ink on it had dried.
“The level of bitterness, anger and distrust on both sides has never been so high,” an alarmed AU Peace and Security Council noted in a report seen by ChinAfrica, dated April 24.
on may 2, the UnSC voted unanimously to impose non-military sanctions if peace through negotiation was not forthcoming. Russia and China unusually sided with the United States in the sanctions call. This was the strongest admonishment to date. The AU would oversee these negotiations.
China is a major investor in infrastructure in the two countries and is also one of the key buyers of oil from both countries.
Messy divorce
Adan Keynan, Chairman of Kenya’s Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations, took the view that the two nations had no option but to sort out their issues “peacefully.” He reckoned that sanctions were a “last resort” option.
“it is not in their interest to go back to war. There is a well-established framework within which they ought to negotiate and agree. if they take any other route, it will be escapist and fraught with many challenges,”Keynan told ChinAfrica alluding to the disputed resolution mechanisms set out in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
A war between them will be too disruptive for a region that has not known peace and stability since the 1950s.
“What the two nations went through is a messy divorce. The oil issues and the fact that most of that oil is in the South, whereas the north has the export route, was bound to blow up. if this is not fully sorted out, then, they(Sudan and South Sudan) will inevitably end up fighting. if they don’t do so [fight] now, they will do so in future,”Jomo Washiali, a deputy chief whip in Kenya’s Parliament told ChinAfrica.
Washiali has been to Juba and back, and by virtue of his sitting in Kenya’s House Committee on Transport and Public Works, is keen on having a multibillion dollar pipeline built between Kenya’s yet-to-be-built sea port in lamu, and South Sudan, and even Ethiopia.
“The fears of Khartoum are that South Sudan will decide to export their oil through Kenya’s lamu. That means loss of revenue. it is not a prospect they’re willing to take. That could explain their aggression [so that the South does not concentrate on the Kenya project],” said Washiali.
The negotiations over oil revenues and the border conflict have been tackled by the African Union High level implementation Panel (AUHiP), which also took on the job of addressing the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue nile states in Sudan.
Talks must go on
South Sudan’s Foreign minister nhial Deng nhial, in an interview in BBC’s Hardtalk, is of the view that Juba was ready to live without using Sudan’s pipeline for up to two years, as it waits for the lamu-South Sudan pipeline to be completed.
While oil accounts for 98 percent of Juba’s revenue, and keeping the oil taps closed might hurt the new republic that is busy trying to get to its feet, nhial insisted that South Sudan “can survive.”
“South Sudan has been at war for two to three decades. We’ve had nothing all that time. We can adapt. it will be tough, it will be difficult, but i think we will survive,” said nhial.
Juba’s stand is that the pipeline through Sudan will only be opened if Khartoum agrees not to confiscate the oil and if it also agrees to lower the “extortionate” transit fees.
According to the AU report on the row dated April 24, the negotiations “have addressed all the major issues of contention between the two states, and also the question of the armed conflict in the two areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue nile in Sudan.”
The roadmap to getting the two nations at the table, according to the AU and the rest of the international community, was quite straight forward: South Sudan should withdraw its forces from Heglig; Sudan should cease aerial bombardment of South Sudan; both parties should cease support of rebel forces fighting against the other state, and thereafter, they were all to sit down and learn to live as peaceful neighbors.
After the UnSC resolution, South Sudan’s minister of Cabinet Affairs Deng Alor stated his government’s “solemn commitment” to comply with the resolution, according to the Associated Press.
But Sudan’s Un Ambassador, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali osman, expressed reservations, saying peace will only be achieved if South Sudan stops “all forms of support and sheltering of proxy and rebel armed groups” and “until that is given a priority in the negotiations, it will be extremely difficult to proceed on any other matter” covered by the resolution.
So far the situation is fragile and all eyes are on how Sudan and South Sudan will yield to the international pressure to resume negotiations. As Kenya’s President Kibaki, whose administration has close ties with both Juba and Khartoum, said, the two countries must not go back to war. The region can’t afford another war.