Naivasha Agreement: Was imposed on the Sudan
By Roba Gibia
March 18, 2005 — At a symposium organized by Dr. Eglal Raafat, Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Economics and Political Science at the Cairo University on March 6, 2008 under the theme “Naivasha Agreement between Success, Failure and its Legal and Political Effects”, was attended by selected number of Egyptian and Sudanese professors, researchers and writers in the Sudan’s affairs including SPLM, NCP representatives in Cairo and the author of this article as representative of GoSS Liaison Office in Cairo.
Dr. Ibrahim El-Nur (Sudanese), Associated Professor at the American University in Cairo presented a paper on the Sudan’s political affairs which went back to the previous consecutive governments in Khartoum, but with special emphasis on Nimeri regime and National Islamic Front (NIF), currently known as National Congress Party (NCP). Dr. Ibrahim pointed that the Nimeri regime never had a nation-wide policy to unite the Sudanese people under one nation, but instead it divided Sudanese society on sectarian basis. He went on saying that when the salvation (NIF/NCP) government came to power by coup in 1989 it followed same path of Nimeri regime, but rather changed the entire structure of the Sudanese society on sectarian grounds, and that was evident in using Nuer against Dinkas in Upper Nile during the split in SPLM/SPLA in 1991 and mobilization of Arab tribes or the so-called Janjaweed to fight the war in Darfur in 2003, which massacred thousands of Darfurians, and burnt and destroyed thousands of villages. Dr. Ibrahim asserted that during the past two decades of war between north and south, there was no absolute winner and the negotiation was the only viable means to end the blood war in Sudan which harvested millions of lives in south. He said the governments of Nimeri and NIF/NCP has driven the people of Sudan into profound poverty, and there is need now for the re-negotiation around Sudan economic to empower Sudanese people economically. He underlined that according to the survey they did in displaced camps around the outskirts of Khartoum almost the entire south Sudanese have become more Christians than any previous times, and are standing for the secession of the south. The instability in Sudan and lack of forming federalism has caused the movement of people from rural areas to the towns, said Dr. El-Nur. Thus, people’s tendency for separation has become more obvious than the tendency for unity. Dr. El-Nur has got pessimistic opinion peace of view on the Sudan’s crisis, saying that the cultural, ethnic, racial and religious diversity of the Sudanese people is the major problem hindering the inclusive unity of Sudan. Saying that despite the fact that some people are talking about the new Sudan, but in his personal view, the old has died but the new has not yet being born.
On the legal aspects of the Naivasha agreement, Dr. Ahmed Rashidy, Professor of Political Science and International Law Vice-Dean at the Cairo University pointed out that the power and wealth sharing reflects that the success of Naivasha agreement is more than its failure. But according to him, the south secession has become more obvious than its unity with north or Khartoum. As regards the legality of the agreement, he underlined that the welcome and support of Naivasha agreement by the regional and international community, is clear evidence that Naivasha agreement has got the legitimacy, and that was evident by the presence of the UN forces on the ground to protect the Naivasha agreement. He said legally, there is no quandary with the Naivasha agreement, and if the south Sudanese said in 2011 referendum no to the unity, the international community will be the first to declare their support to the new born nation. But he questioned about the destiny of Northerners who are living in south and have got properties in south, what will be their fate, likewise the Southerners who are living in north and have got estates in Khartoum, and the question of nationality and the relationship between the north and South Sudan country. Prof. Rashidy also mentioned that after south secession, and if there was international agreement or loan granted for execution of government projects in south, at such situation, where the responsibility lies, with Khartoum or south to reimburse the debt! Prof. Rashidy concluded his presentation by saying that, Sudan can utilize its cultural, ethnic, racial and religious diversity for the strength of the country but not for the destruction or disintegration of the country, and said that according to him, the old has not died because it is the foundation which the new Sudan will be built on, and called for the unity and Sudan’s territorial integrity. He reiterated that if Naivasha agreement failed, then we will not be able to reach to the desired goals, thus it is vital to stick to the Naivasha agreement implementation.
While Dr. Salah El-Din Amer, Attonrny at Law Professor, Cairo University, elaborated that he sees no complication in Sudan after secession of south, pointing that since Addis Ababa agreement south has got absolute responsibility of concluding agreements with foreign countries, even during the past two decades of war between south and north, SPLM was responsible for the safety of foreign nationals in southern Sudan at the liberated areas. He recalled that previously Sudan and Egypt was one country, but when Sudan decided to detach from Egypt, the two nations remained sisterly and friendly countries and with special and historic ties. And Dr. Amer believes that same scenario of relationship will exist between south and north after separation of South and will have special ties with each other. According to Professor Amer the implementation of Naivasha agreement is essential and crucial for the benefit and stability of Sudan and its unity.
Mr. Hani Raslan, Editor in-chief of Al-Ahram Strategic File and Head of Sudan and Nile Basin studies program, started his speech by saying that prior to the September 11, 2001 the American administration has got interest in Sudan, and that was apparent by appointment of John Danforth as Special Envoy of President Bush to Sudan. He said that he has got proves of the American involvement in the Sudan’s affairs, and stressed that Naivasha agreement was a foreign imposition on the Sudan. On the Abyei issue, Mr. Raslan said that in 1905 Abyei neither belongs to Bahr el-Ghazal nor Kordofan and has got special documents that prove his point of view. But the author believes that Mr. Raslan was referring to the government’s cited claim only without having absolute insight of the whole situation, because according to the ABC experts’ findings that the contemporary maps and documents cited by the government delegation contradicted their disputation that in 1905 a de facto administrative boundary existed along the Bahr el-Arab river, and that the Ngok Dinka lived entirely south of the river at the time. And the other sources consulted by the experts, but not been cited by the government delegation, revealed that prior to 1905 the Ngok Dinka were under no clear administrative authority but were visited by administrators from both Kordofan and Bahr el-Ghazal and that there was confusion within the administration about the location of the Bahr el-Arab itself, a confusion that was resolved after 1905 as it came in the ABC report, appendix 5. Therefore, the Abyei contentious crisis doesn’t need to be handled on emotional or bias or political manners but on neutral and historical facts, far from favoritism and prejudice which none of the two warring parties in Sudan would address it unless through involvement of international experts.
The NCP participant commented and said that when the salvation (NIF/NCP) government came to power in 1989 the Sudanese society were disintegrated and in absolute poverty. So the Inqauz or salvation government’s first priority was to build and empower the Sudanese people economically, socially and politically in order to elevate the standard of living and the self-reliance. He said that the NIF/NCP utilized all the Sudan’s resources including the exploitation of petroleum for the welfare of the Sudanese people. The NCP participant said yes, there is foreign hand in Naivasha agreement but Sudan being part of this international community will not be in isolation from any foreign influence as well as the surrounding environment like the other countries. He stressed that the death of Dr. John Garang de Mabior has got negative impact on the Naivasha agreement implementation, saying that the agreement has got very tiny details and special clauses which is not found in any agreements, and has got scheduled timetables and modalities of the implementation, and the two partners (NCP and SPLM) are determined to implement it as it is. As regards south Sudan secession in 2011 referendum, the NCP participant underlined that if south secedes, north will not fight south to impose the unity on south Sudanese. But on the other hand, he said that south Sudan is a backward region and has got no elements of nation building.
While the author as participant of GoSS Liaison Office, commented by saying that, he does agree with Dr. El-Nur’s point of view that when NIF/NCP came to power in 1989, the gap between south and north widened, and their policy like the other consecutive governments in Khartoum, was not to unite the Sudanese people under one nation, but it was the policy of divide and rule and there was no nation-wide agenda. But rather their policy was to divide the people of Sudan, and south Sudan was never considered as part of Sudan. The writer wondered what agenda NIF/NCP came with, there was no nation-wide program to unite the Sudanese people, but if at all there was agenda or policy, it was to Arabize and Islamize south Sudanese. And that was evident by declaring Jihad (Holy war) against Southerners, and this deepened the gap between north and south.
The author commented that the NCP said that they utilized all Sudan’s potentiality to build social, economic and political structure of the Sudanese people, but that was not true and instead they utilized the natural resources of Sudan and its capability to massacre the south Sudanese masses around the petroleum areas in south, by using helicopter gun-ships to massacre the poor unarmed civilians, and these were the facts which no one will deny it despite the fact that the producing oil wells are all located in southern Sudan. The author went on elaborating that the previous governments in Khartoum including NIF/NCP, thinks that Sudan is the tripartite capital (Omdurman, Khartoum and Khartoum North) and all the developments centered in the tripartite capital, but there was no development in south, west, east and far north and this is the real problem of Sudan. After coming to power by coup in 1989 and while in his first visit to Tripoli, Libya, President Bashir said “there can be no unity in the Sudan except under Islam”. And that is the problem in Sudan, some say Sudan has to be Arab country so that it can be united and others say African, but where is our Sudanism instead of being an Arab and Islamic country. Thus, the Sudanese are looking for their identity from outside but not from within Sudan and that is the intricacy in Sudan.
The writer questioned who kept south Sudan backward and in absolute poverty, it is the north, and when we say north here, not geographical north but we mean Khartoum. The consecutive governments in Khartoum considered Southerners as second or third or fourth class citizens. So how can you live or share a room with a person who dislikes you, and how can you unite distant people and bring them together! This is the case between Southerners and Northerners, lack of trust and confidence which is what we are seeing now in the implementation of Naivasha peace agreement which has got lots of stalemates.
As regards Naivasha agreement, the writer said that he can consent that there was foreign pressure mounted on both SPLM and NCP to reach the peace. But he pointed that we need not to forget that NCP was also in crisis, as when the rebellion erupted in Darfur in 2003, NCP thought it wise to conclude peace agreement with SPLM in order to reorganize and mobilize its forces to deal with Darfur, because she could not face both south and Darfur at same time. And that was obvious, as when First Vice President by then Ali Osman Taha while at negotiations in Nairobi had to rush to Khartoum, and according to Taha he had to return in order to set up his strategy as how to deal with rebellion in Darfur and indeed they massacred thousands of people and hundreds of villages were burnt down. Therefore, the international community that value the human life intervened to stop the war in south, but there are some countries which never wished to see Sudan in peace, were not happy with the foreign pressure and intervention to conclude the peace in Sudan.
Therefore, the author asserted that the south Sudanese are saying today that even though if there are not elements of building south Sudan’s nation, they are ready to go as they are, with their backwardness and penury and live in peace. There is no freedom for South Sudanese Christians to practice their faith freely in north. Besides that whenever a Southerner expresses his desire for separation, he is a separatist but if a Northerner says he is genuine. Tayib Mustafa said “Why do not we let the Northerners practice their self-determination right and therefore secede from the South … why are we deprived from our right in unity”. It is contrary, why not to let Southerners practice their right for self determination and secede from north, and why are they deprived from their rights! It was not south which imposed forceful unity of Sudan for the past five decades, but it was north.
Thus, on Abyei issue, the writer pointed out that in the CPA both government and the SPLM committed themselves to accepting the findings of ABC as final and binding and implementing them immediately after signing peace agreement, and mandated the Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC) to define and demarcate “the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to southern Kordofan in 1905”. The task involves which territory the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms occupied, what territory they use seasonally, and what territory they laid claim to at that time. And it was agreed that upon signing Naivasha agreement, the presidency has to set up the administration of Abyei, but as we talk today Abyei remains without administration, because presidency failed to act. According to Naivasha agreement, it is Abyei people to decide as whether they want be part of south or north but not presidency. Abyei does not require political solution, but due to plenty of oil reservoirs Khartoum does not want to comply with ABC reports as stipulated in the Naivasha agreement.
Roba Gibia
E-mail: [email protected]