24 Nov 2009: ISS Today: Dying to Survive: Understanding Some of the Underlying Factors of Conflict in Abyei

24 November 2009: Dying to Survive: Understanding Some of the Underlying Factors of Conflict in Abyei

 

Muna A Abdalla, senior researcher Conflict Prevention Programme, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 

The new demarcation, according to the ruling of the Court of Arbitration the decision on the Abyei border in Sudan, deprives the Missiriya ethnic group from their traditional corridors to pastures and water that fall within the land traditionally belonging to the Dinka. During the dry season, cattle cannot survive without this access.

Bookmark with:

Facebook
del.icio.us
Digg It!

 

The demarcation process started last week with the drawing of two points in the South of Abyei. There was no resistance because there are no disputes over this side of the border. If the rest of the demarcation goes ahead, however, the Missiriya have no choice but to move southward in search for water and pasture. Although they are granted grasing rights by the Court of Arbitration, their movements are likely to be restricted by the rigid border, which they do not recognize and they are likely to fight to gain access to resources beyond this border.  

 

The current administration of Abyei is characterized by overlapping institutional authorities and political constituencies, which makes it complex and fiercely contested. While the international community is pushing for the implementation of the ruling of the International Tribunal on the Abyei border, there is a whole set of dynamics going on and working in the exact opposite direction. The rush to implement the decision seems to push the population concerned, the Missiriya and Dinka ethnic groups, into a fierce conflict. To understand the basis for such conflict, one should look at the factors that will force the Missiriya to adopt an extreme stand and prepare to die in order to prevent such demarcation from taking place. 

 

The Missiriya are nomadic agro-pastoralists who keep cattle and maintain considerable mobility and flux in the composition of their settlements and camps. The pattern of their movements has been imposed by the availability of water and grazing. These movements have always put them in direct confrontation with the Dinka Ngok. In addition, the plurality of land tenure systems that include public, private and communal ownership did not make their life any easier. Although the two groups have historically shared a symbiotic relationship and lived side by side, the long-term conflict between them goes back many generations. Frequently, this long-standing conflict has developed into dangerous bouts of violence, setting off vicious cycles of attacks that may involve heavily armed combatant forces, burning of villages and the abduction of cattle, women, and children.

 

The Missiriya are believed to have committed numerous atrocities in this regard compared to their rivals. However, the relationship between the two groups has almost always bounced back to cooperation allowing them to overcome bitter and brutal encounters. Customary arrangements have actually managed to take care of the differences in interests for generations.

 

But, with the shadow of the rigid demarcation on the horizon, it becomes clear that moving between the territories will no longer be as possible as before. With the degradation of natural resources and the variability of rain, the inability to move southward during the dry season means that the Missiriya will not be able to feed their cattle. The border created by the special Abyei Protocol, stipulated by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005, reduced the Missiriya’s access to some of their traditional and vital grazing lands, water and markets. In July 2009, the Court of Arbitration redrew the border of Abyei reducing its total area compared to what was proposed by the Abyei Boundary Commission. Still, the Missiriya people have lost their vital access to water and pasture particularly in Bahr al Arab areas, eastern areas and southern Sittiab, Diffra and the Ragaba. The inability to use their traditional routes will mean that they lose their cattle and their livelihood altogether. Therefore, the Missiriya have decided that the ruling of the Court of Arbitration was unjust and declared that they will not abide by it.

The Missiriya insist on the 1956 border and the Dinka insist on 1905 border.  Therefore, when the demarcation comes to the North of Abyei, the Missiriya are likely to resist it. Furthermore, come December 2009, the Missiriya will have to move with their cattle to the heart of the Dinka Ngok land, a traditional route that they followed for years, and they will go there no matter what will happen to them.  As a Missiriya man told me “it is noble cause to die fighting for your survival and we are going for it”.

 

Time is running out fast and mediated negotiations between the two groups are often wedged between accusation, distrust and past grievances. The mediating bodies are not achieving tangible success on this front. Neighboring ethnic groups who were asked to mediate between the two including the Dajo, the Nuer, the Dinka Higair, the Dinka Malwal, the Rizigat, the Tug and the Nuba could not achieve any success either. What complicates the matter most is the involvement of several other parties with their own interests that will frustrate any peaceful settlement. The militias whose existence, wealth and power depend on the prolongation of conflict in the area will do what they can to hinder the peace process. Both parties are believed to be supported by some external force beyond the group itself. The Missiriya are convinced that the Dinka Ngok are supported by the Southern People’s Liberation Movement and the Dinka Ngok are convinced that the Missiriya are backed up by the National Congress Party. The proliferation and use of small arms and light weapons have also contributed to increasing insecurity and impunity in the area as a whole and will for sure turn any future conflict into a real war.  

The international community should be aware of the simmering situation and should work to prevent it. Transforming disputes into cooperation between the two conflicting political jurisdictions was possible in the past. It is time to go back to the traditional methods of conflict resolution including the implementation of the soft border instead of the hard border that restrict and limit livelihood options of the populations.