Friday, March 29, 2024

Sudan Tribune

Plural news and views on Sudan

Where is the priority of Southern Sudannew capital city

Is a new capital city for Southern Sudan the priority before the referendum in 2011?

By Jacob K. Lupai*

May 2, 2007 — In establishing a new capital city usually there are what may be considered valid reasons for a country to relocate its capital city. For example, Nigeria moved its capital city from Lagos to Abuja because of some of the reasons that include inadequate land for expansion, urban crises, lack of proper cosmopolitan orientation, lack of locational centrality and urban congestion. However, it was not clear what were the reasons for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement’s (SPLM) to propose to relocate the Southern Sudan capital city of Juba to Ramceil. I am not even sure where Ramceil is in Southern Sudan.

Ramceil appeared to have come out as one of the SPLM’s top projects. However, the project was never heard of when the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) was formed but only recently has the project been resuscitated to become a current issue of significance. Instead of Ramceil the proposal these days is Kondokoro which is about a stone throw from Juba the current capital city of Southern Sudan. It is not clear how the decision was made for Kondokoro to become the new capital of Southern Sudan. Presumably a broad based southern national committee might have been formed with the task of identifying and proposing sites for a new capital of Southern Sudan. Nonetheless it was obvious that consultations were yet to be conducted between the indigenous inhabitants of Kondokoro and the GOSS.

Not to undermine the proposal of a site for a new capital of Southern Sudan, the question one may ask is, is a new capital city for Southern Sudan the priority before the referendum in 2011? Southern Sudanese have always lived together since time immemorial without worrying about a specifically designated capital. They lived together in the three major administrative capitals of the then provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile which were more or less independent of each other but answerable to Khartoum in Northern Sudan. Southern Sudanese of different nationalities lived in Juba in harmony until the Addis Ababa Agreement when greed appeared to have turned southerners against each other.

The concept of a capital for Southern Sudan is a fairly recent phenomenon. It was brought about by the Addis Ababa Agreement that was considered a solution to the southern grievances of marginalisation in the land of their birth. Juba the capital of the then Equatoria Province because the capital of Southern Sudan known as the Southern Region according to the Addis Ababa Agreement. As mentioned above before the Addis Ababa Agreement Southern Sudan was composed of three provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile with their capitals of Wau, Juba and Malakal respectively. In the Addis Ababa Agreement there might have been valid reasons for the selection of Juba as the capital of the then Southern Region. Among the three southern provinces Juba might have stood out as the potential capital of Southern Sudan.

In 1947 Juba hosted the first conference of its kind to decide the fate of Southern Sudan in what seemed to have been the Sudan’s march to independence from colonial rule. This might have endeared Juba to become the future capital of Southern Sudan. Juba as the capital of Equatoria has a strategic location in terms of border trade for Southern Sudan. Equatoria is the only region in Southern Sudan that has no borders with Northern Sudan. Equatoria instead borders Ethiopia and Kenya in the east, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo in the south and the Central African Republic in the west. The advantages in trade with the neighbouring countries are enormous and this might have probably made Equatoria so attractive that its capital of Juba was selected also as the capital of Southern Sudan. However, Equatorians were and still are the most suspected and feared as ardent separatists, understandably so, by the Arabs whose sole interest in the South is for its abundant wealth. This might also explain why the 1947 conference was held in Equatoria, to crash the spirit of separation and indeed in the eyes of the Arabs the conference was a success as separation was never entertained. To be fair in the conference southerners from the other provinces had reservations about a united Sudan. Nonetheless that was the beginning of a turbulent era that has lasted for half a century in Sudan’s modern history.

The 1947 conference in Juba was not convened to seek the opinions of southerners on unity but rather to sell the concept that was well articulated for a united Sudan. The conferees eloquence in advocating a united Sudan must have been overwhelming to the semi-literate and probably illiterate southerners especially when the convenor of the conference Sir James Robertson the civil secretary and the chairman of the conference who might have been trusted by southerners seemed to have thrown his lot with the northerners for a united Sudan. Sir James Robertson asserted that northerners would not seek opportunities of exploiting backward tribes in the south. What has happened between 1947 and 2005 is a very long story indeed. Suffice to say that the fateful decision to inclined for a united Sudan cost the south dearly and the effects of that fateful decision are still very visible. What the Deputy Governor of Bahr el Ghazal said in the 1947 conference to the northerners is still as valid as he had said then. The Deputy Governor said to the northerners that the southerners would never willingly join the north until they the northerners should prove by their acts, not merely by words, that they had undergone a change of heart. What the Deputy Governor said in 1947 is still true today, 60 years later.

The South has just come out of a long war. Development-wise the much expected dividends of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) are very far from being attained. In an interview in South Africa the SPLM Secretary General expressed his utter frustration with the stubbornness of the National Congress Party (NCP) of Omar al Bashir in that the NCP has rejected the experts’ report on the Abeyi issue, there is no transparency in the oil sector, the NCP is arming militia groups with impunity and the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) are still occupying Southern Sudan contrary to the CPA. One may wonder how the CPA fares in the priority list of the NCP. However, one thing seems to be clear that the NCP is not interested in the implementation of the CPA. In fact it seems the CPA is being systematically scrapped as the NCP appears to have thrown in the towel in making unity attractive. It is instead southerners who seem to make some of the loudest noises for unity while the NCP understandably so seems to very busy plotting the total collapse of the CPA. The southern response is nothing but to complain and the NCP is more than happy to turn a deaf ear with borrowed confidence. The north-south borders were already there at independence. It is the SPLM to assert the south-north borders as of 1st January 1956.

Revisiting the proposal for a new capital of Southern Sudan, in principle there is no much dispute. People are excited of new developments. The issue is are southerners already out of the wood that they have the luxury of a new capital. Also, relocation of a capital is not a matter of an individual’s whim. There are likely to be some other considerations to contend with. For example, why is Malakal or Wau not a candidate for selection as the capital of Southern Sudan There should also be a number of sites proposed so that wider consultations are conducted to select the most appropriate site At any rate the present GOSS has a huge responsibility for protecting the CPA that getting involved in such a project of a very high magnititude as the construction of a new capital with unreliable budgetary allocations may be a nightmare. The GOSS is even unable to rehabilitate Juba the old capital. How will the GOSS cope with the mammoth task of a brand new capital while it has been in a seat of derelict capital with what appears to be sheer incompetence.

Resources are naturally a limiting factor. The GOSS is already complaining of budget deficit. Probably the construction of the new capital will be covered with loans. However, reliance on loans for of buildings which may not generate revenues is not the same thing as investing in development projects that will be self-financing. Borrowing to invest in revenue generating projects may be the way to go for a poor region like Southern Sudan which is at the mercy of the fluctuating oil share which is the secret of the NCP.

When there is money for a new capital that is still under planning and a long way up why shouldn’t the money be invested in first class roads, construction of hospitals, schools, nice clean market areas, clean drinking water and sanitation systems, railway lines to connect with neighbouring countries for booming trade to generate revenue and investment in development projects and airlines for domestic and international routes to generate the needed money for development. This is likely to be a good investment for a vibrant economy to eventually generate the necessary resources for the construction of a new capital for Southern Sudan.

It took Nigeria twenty years after independence to start building a new capital and ten years to move to the new capital which is still having new structures going up. Presumably it may be a good idea to consider the construction firm that built the Nigerian new capital. One may not be sure what experience does the Ugandan company have in the construction of new capital cities. However, contract for the construction of the new capital city should be open to overseas companies with track records of city planning and construction.

It is not clear why is the hurry for a new capital when it is abundantly clear that the CPA is under threat of being scrapped. Every bit of resources should be mobilised for the protection of the CPA. God forbid, but clearly war may not be avoided. The NCP is ready for it. The evidence is the NCP’s blatant refusal to redeploy their troops from the South, their refusal to settle the Abeyi issue, their refusal to demarcate the south-north borders, the lack of transparency in sharing the oil revenues and their arming of the militias in Southern Sudan. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know what the intentions of the NCP are and where they may lead to. It may be utter naivety to turn a blind eye to the looming danger.

In addition to the issue of a new capital another interesting issue is the financial situation of the GOSS. The GOSS has announced to the world that it will have to cut spending for the rest of 2007 in the face of lower than expected revenue. According to the GOSS revenues for 2007 may only be $900 million to $1 billion and the GOSS account is that 70 percent of the budget goes on salaries, with little of course left over for development work. The GOSS is even proposing borrowing to cover what it calls deficit. If the GOSS is paying salaries out of the $900 million then it means salaries are $630 million out of the $900 million if this is the budget. According to the Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation (SSCCSE) the population of South Sudan is currently estimated to be around 7.5 million. Assuming that the GOSS should have employed the entire population of Southern Sudan each person would have then received an average salary of $84 million. Assuming that the information received is correct this is very interesting indeed when the GOSS is trying to borrow to cover deficit and when a GOSS minister may not even receive a salary of more than $60 thousand.

Although the GOSS claims it is facing budgetary constraints yet the same GOSS is able to donate $55 million to the UN instead of the vice versa. Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with a gross national product (GNP) of about $5 billion and more developed than Southern Sudan, does not seem to donate money to the UN. In fact it is the UN that donates to Ethiopia when other rich countries make contribution to the UN. Ethiopia is the recipient of UN donation but not vice versa. It is not clear what message does the GOSS want to put across to the world. The donation is split into $41 for road building and demining and the other $14 for refurbishing airstrips. One is really confused whether this is a donation or a contract might have been signed to ensure that the money is spent as stipulated. The World Food Programme (WFP) is the UN arm specialised in food distribution in emergencies. Surely there must be specialised and professional bodies in aviation and airports refurbishing and construction, and there are specialised and experienced groups in demining. What was the logic of choosing the WFP, an agency that deals with food for the starving in emergencies? The South needs first class roads with tarmac not the type the WFP is involved in. Airstrips need to be upgraded if we are to take development to the rural areas but not by the WFP which is specialised in famine emergencies. We should better use professionals of high expertise in areas relevant to grassroots development. Let the WFP be dealing with food directly to the famine stricken and the starving.

The intention of donating the $55 million to the WFP might have been honourable as it is our Sudanese way of being generous which may sometimes be abused by others. However, with a tight budget and with rampant poverty the $55 million donated to the WFP would have been better spent somewhere else. The WFP is not a helpless agency. It is a UN agency with access to resources. People are already aware of the UN and the World Bank squandering money in paying astronomical salaries to their staff at the expense of development dividends to the beneficiaries yet even though we are poor we try to show off by donating to the very bodies people are weary of. At any rate it was bizarre to donate to the WFP while at the same time there is no money to improve the horrible road conditions and the lack of clean drinking water and poor sanitation in Juba where there are thousands suffering from the lack of basic services. If people were serious about poverty the $55 million should have gone to the state ministries of agriculture for the achievement of household food security in the rural areas. The immediate priority is domestic food production. I hope I am not seen biased against the other sectors of the economy.

Clean drinking water in Juba the seat of the GOSS is a scarce commodity that even the Secretary General of the SPLM saw people were prepared to pay $5 per litre but now it is cheaper, only 50 cents. Surely people must be aware that in some of the poorest countries in the world people live on less than $2 a day. Now paying $5 only for a litre of water excluding food may show that southerners are very rich compared to those who live on less that $2 a day in the other countries. However, the reality on the ground is that the living standards of southerners is no different from those living in slums in other parts of Africa. The huge amount of money southerners spend on imported bottled water could have been invested in clean water plants. The Nile is only about 10 kilometres on average to residential areas in Juba. Even the 50 cent per litre is unaffordable to the poor. At any rate how long have people to rely on imports for their entire need for clean drinking water.

In conclusion it seems the new capital for Southern Sudan is a diversion from the focus on the implementation of the CPA. However, it does no harm for consultations before the referendum to identify sites for the future new capital of Southern Sudan. For a poor region like Southern Sudan to be donating money to the UN while unable to provide basic services to its citizens is bizarre. If seems foreigners are the beneficiaries of the peace dividends while citizens have to wait longer. The lack of progress in development in providing basic services should be of concern to people of conscience. Due to budgetary constraints the GOSS said it decided to stop hiring new employees but strangely decided instead to donate to the WFP not for the purchase of food to distribute to the hungry, a thing that is the domain of the WFP, but to get involved in construction work. It may be that the money is from the individual budget of the ministry concerned but the money must have been released by the ministry of finance which is in the forefront of announcing to the world the GOSS financial predicament. At any rate it is the prerogative of the GOSS which may need to harmonise its priorities with budgetary constraints and people can only watch.

*The author is an agricultural extension expert and a researcher on household food security with reference to peasant farming. He can be reached at [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.