ISS Seminar Report: Perspective from South Sudan

Date: 2012-04-23

Venue: , ISS Conference Room , Block C, Brooklyn Court , 361 Veale Street , New Muckleneuk, , Pretoria

RSVP:
Sarah Malefo
Tel: 012 346 9500
Fax: 012 460 0997
Email: [email protected]

Seminar Report

Sudan and South Sudan at War: Explaining the Border Issues in Legal and Political Terms

CHAIRPERSON:       

• Festus Aboagye, Senior Research Fellow

KEY SPEAKER:         

• Dr Aleu Garang Aleu, Public attorney in the Ministry of Justice, Government of South Sudan.

RESPONDANT:

• Ding Lam Yual

Given the recent flare up of conflict between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan and the military confrontations over Heglig, the issue of border demarcations has taken an urgent dimension between these two countries. This seminar explored and explained the topic of the North-South border, and the impact of contesting the territorial control of a resource rich area on the future of these two neighbouring countries.

Participants noted that since 1956 the Sudanese and South Sudanese people had rarely known extended peaceful periods of existence. Indeed, it was remarked that war became part of the psyche of the states. This violent historical context has been further complicated by the absence of clear and agreed border demarcations between the two states.

The recent clash in Heglig, which is known as Pan Thau amongst South Sudanese, was discussed, as was South Sudan’s justification for occupying the Heglig area. South Sudan has proposed that the Republic of Sudan’s claim, based on a 2008 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that Heglig is part of the border state of South Kordofan, is misleading.

International media coverage was discussed, as was South Sudanese arguments that it was currently favouring Sudan. The result in South Sudan was a palpable anger at the seeming indifference of the international community, highlighted by sluggish United Nations responses to Sudanese aerial bombardments.

Participants critically discussed the reasons for the delays regarding the important and increasingly intractable demarcation problems. The late constitution of a Join Technical Committee (JTC) under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and a distinctive inertia derived from a lack of political will were highlighted as major factors behind the impasse. These delays are likely, in turn, to produce a major refugee crisis in the region.

Participants noted how many such contentious issues are being looked at in isolation, neglecting the more complex interlinked issues at stake, particularly future governance and inclusivity and how they will impact upon future human security. The residual problem of superfluous and accessible weapons throughout the region remains also remains largely unaddressed.

It was queried whether South Sudan had embarked on policies of economic suicide for the state. The long-standing brinkmanship tactics of both the Republic of Sudan and Republic of South Sudan have also not culminated in recognisably improved peace and security for the inhabitants of the border regions. The crippling effects of the cessation of oil exports was discussed and it was noted that incentives to produce and seek out alternatives were not yet viable. The proposed Lamu Port and Lamu Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor (LAPSSET) project, which would include a new port facility in Lamu, Kenya and funded by South Sudan, was compared with two proposed alternatives – a second pipeline through Ethiopia to Djibouti or a pipeline that would export oil to Atlantic ports through the DRC.

A key question upon which the remainder of the seminar hinged was how could a war be prevented. It was argued that from a South Sudanese perspective that there is no need for war and that sovereign integrity should be respected, despite infringements listed by its government such as aerial bombardments. It was noted that mediation of the conflict would remain difficult so long as the perception persists that the African Union High Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP) is weak and lacks leverage over Khartoum. This concurrent lack of faith in international institutions was likely to increase the perception that self-help was the best means of resolving the conflict. This however represents a diplomatic misstep on the part of South Sudan and it was argued that the government should attempt to rectify

Finally, parallels with Abyei were drawn. It it was noted that when the Abyei crisis in May 2011 occurred the UN established the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA). A similar outcome had not been considered at the present time for this conflict.

Seminar Report compiled by Timothy Walker, Conflict Management and Peacebuilding Division, ISS Pretoria Office.