African Union Decision.. A Copy of IGAD & New Naivasha

Before going into analyses, it must be a reference the important fact that the African role in the final manifestations of the political forces in the international arena. The African Union took honorable solidarity decision with Sudan earlier, but it is obvious that there are limits and ceilings for this solidarity. Some of these limitations stem from a fundamental and institutional weakness in most of
The African countries that suffer from security and economic problems that make these countries in state of permanent need for the help of the super powers.
In addition to that, the African Union does not have a similar ideological situation similar to the ideology of liberation from the colonization that unified the Africans in the 1960s leading to the African Unity Organization in 1963. The limitation of the African role should be considered when new policies to deal with the SPLM in south Sudan at the current stage are being made.


In analyzing the African Union decision, the first thing that shocks the viewers is the complete and blatant congruence between the language and the ideas of the AU and US government institutions whether in the White House, the State Department or the US envoy at the Security Council.
It was a commendable intelligence for the makers of the decision or their transcribers to make use of the language to hide the traces of transcribing, and this is a desired kind of hypocrisy in the international game rules.
As example for this collusion even in the language, the dubious insistence on taking the side of the culprit at the cost of the victim that appears in the phrase (Welcomes the withdrawal from Heglig and calls for stopping aerial bombardment on South Sudan).
The sentence as you see acquits the culprit, who admitted his guilt in front of the world, and condemns the victim.
The culprit did what he had to do and withdrew from the land he occupied while the victim is still bombing, and this is not true.
However, there is a deeper meaning that represent in the settlement between two actions of complete difference in terms of legitimacy. Whoever reads the sentence will understand that the aggression and the occupation of land is equal to the guilt of whoever bombs hostile powers even if this aggression was on TV channels.
And if this legal adjustment is true, why not we consider the artillery ground shelling in self defense as illegal act as well, and why not, in this case, the use of a person weapon such as the gun is not also considered as criminal act.
And if we consolidated this principle, why the aerial bombardment is not a crime in the international law, and why this is applicable to everybody including the super powers which use all kinds of aerial bombardment in offensive way not defensive.

The decision is full of flaws and heinous bias although this bias is covered by legal language with different interpretations. Any prudent politician can write a lengthy dissertation on the flaws of the decision, but in brief I will tackle the most important four points that reflect the essay.
Firstly, the decision is full of the referral to the Security Council. Because the AU does not have the intimidation and punishment abilities of the Security Council, it refers in each paragraph that it will be implemented in cooperation with the Security Council. Additionally, in paragraph 18, the AU asks the Security Council to use article 7 that allows the use of force for the implementation of the decision. The African Union, with this decision, waives its role for Security Council in a surprising comfortable manner with a consent that it is role is to offer the justification and cover for international intervention alone.
The second point contains strong signal for the armed actions against the government in the North. This appears in article 16 that calls on the Sudanese government and the SPLM-North sector to sit to the negotiation table to the future of the North. This request legalizes the armed action and cancels all items in the constitutions that allow the peaceful political practice and incriminates use of arms for political purposes. This is the constitution that was drafted in accordance with the comprehensive peace agreement the international community is its guarantor.
Of course, the decision does not require a similar text asking the SPLM to negotiate with the Southern political powers which suffer from the attacks of the SPLM military intelligence.
This point establishes recognition for the new south under the North sector that will be delegated to negotiate with the government for reaching a peace agreement in the vein of and if the North Sector got the recognition in accordance with these conditions, what prevents other armed sectors from negotiation with the government on similar basis.
The third article is related to article 13 of the resolution. It calls on two parties (Sudan and South Sudan) to sit immediately for negotiations under the high-level team with the IGAD president.
That was how IGAD has crept once again into Sudan. This is organization that has lost its way to development to become specialized tool to pass the agendas of the international community in Sudan.
If the article stopped at this point without elaboration on what should be the agendas of negotiations, there would be space for the two parties to have their concerns in the agendas of the negotiation table. But the article has conclusively determined the issues of negotiations. These issues are of top priority for South Sudan government. The issues are the oil revenues, which are; oil revenues, status of the citizens of the two countries, the borders and Abyei. But the article, which is almost sure that it was drafted by the US envoy at the Security Council, ignores any of the legitimate government concerns of stopping the SPLM army aggression of supporting the armed groups in Sudan and the withdrawal of the SPLM army divisions 9 and 10 from Sudanese territories. These concerns are part of the peace agreement.
On the point 4, which is summarized in article 14 of the resolution, is the most dangerous article. This article requests the two sides to reach an agreement on the pending issues in three months. In case of failure to reach an agreement, the high-level team of the AU will make a report on the talks to be submitted to the Security Council.
That is not all as the team will submit lists of proposed solutions to the Security Council to be imposed by force.
Simply, in violation to any law known to the mankind, the mediator will abandon neutrality and turned into judge and then to an executor.
This article will make the SPLM task in the negotiation easier and more enjoyable than a Nile cruise. It should only obstruct reaching any agreement with the Sudanese government so that its allies in the international community will be able to show up and take over the situation as described above.
.
It will not be difficult for whoever knows the tactics of the international community to draw a road map for what is being planned on Sudan.
The South has separated with a picture being drawn that it is a poor state the North is seeking to pursue and punish its people because of the secession.
It is not ethically responsible for its duties as mentioned in the comprehensive peace agreement because it is a victim for the North, which threatens the international peace and the US security (so goes the US official documents), and a solution to its problem must be found via a new initiative to be formally sponsored by Africa Union and IGAD under the actual control of the Security Council with all its threat and suppression tools.
The strong question, at this moment, is that what the work plan to confront this critical turning point that will determine the fate of Sudan? First; awareness that this is a national challenge not a tribal or partisan is a must. The plan that realizes major national consensus like what was caused by the occupation of Heglig is the one that worth success. Second; the battle is political and legal at the same time. And it will be useful to have a wide sector of the Sudanese legal persons to demonstrate the blatant legal contradictions in this decision such as the principle of transforming the mediator into judge.
Perhaps, it is appropriate for Sudan to request legal opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legitimacy of the self defense using the all legitimate military means including the aerial bombardment. I hope to have the excuse of the legal professionals for my naivety, but the fatwa ( legal opinion) in this case will be an embarrassment for the international community in both cases of permission and prohibition.

From political perspective, the entire powers and the Sudanese politicians, experts and the specialized persons should be involved in drafting a unified reading for the crisis, and then, a unified national politics toward it.
Diplomatically, Sudan should immediately seek the dimension of the decision and its dangers on the Arab states to guarantee not slip into supporting the African decision, and to manage, at the same time, an active diplomatic campaign to amend the African states individual stances on the decision. The participation of the whole political powers, national institutions and Sudanese figures of regional and international relations in the campaign will be useful.
The battle does not face individual group or party, and it is not the battle of a single government institution alone. The most wishes for the international community is to face an isolated government and blackmail it the rights of its people under the threat and intimidation.


Therefore, it is important to give the people what is for people. The issues of borders, for example, are significant for the border population groups, and should not be negotiated without the agreement of these groups. The international community, with the Security Council as its main tool, should support this approach if it really concerned with consolidation of democracy that expresses the will of the nations.
The parliament should play its role in protecting the country and the rights of the Sudanese people through keeping a tight rein on the negotiators not to exceed national legal rights on some issues such as the nationality, borders and the economy. This limitation will help the negotiators tell the other parties the limits they will not be able to overcome.
Finally, the incidents in the past period have proven that the armed forces are the strongest guarantor for the unity of the state. This fact should be consolidated as one of the permanent principles of the political powers as it did for the citizens.
This requires provision of biggest material and morale support to the armed forces. In return, the community expects that the armed forces will make strong internal reforms boosting its professionalism and nationalism, and preparing it well for doing its duties.
If Sudan succeeded in building momentum in this direction, it will be able to decide rejection to the points mentioned the resolution as it did before when successfully rejected the UN Security Council decision 1706. The success of this campaign opens the Sudanese political horizons to take necessary measures to put an end the Sudan problems, which are fuelled by the international interventions, via unprecedented historical consensus, and thus, the crisis will turn into a new chance for success.

Unofficial translation to an article written by Dr. Ghazi Salahueddin.

Arabic Forum