|
|
 اجابات الرئيس كارتر على بعض الاسئلة الموجهة من محرر نيويورك تايمز عن السودان
|
الاخوة الكرام
تجدون اجابات لبعض الاسئلة التي وجهت للرئيس كارتر عن السودان والاستفتاء والانفصال تجدونها ادناه مع الرابط ، لتعميم الفائدة واعتذر عن الترجمة.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/answering-y...questions-take-2/?hp
Questions Asked to president Carter by Nicholas Kristof in Newyork times newspaper of 09 January
January 09, 2011, 12:23 pm
Answering Your Sudan Questions, Take 1
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
Thanks for all the terrific questions about Sudan, for former President Jimmy Carter and myself. President Carter is in South Sudan at the moment, observing the referendum there, and I’m very grateful that he’s taking the time to answer reader questions. This is our first batch of responses — stay tuned for more in the days to come. And there’s still time to pose your own questions. Now let me kick this off by asking the first question of President Carter:
Q.
You’re on the ground in South Sudan, monitoring the voting – and you’ve seen more than your share of elections around the world. So what did you see today in Sudan? What’s the mood? And did the voting that you observed go smoothly?
A.
The Carter Center has been actively involved for 25 years in Sudan, promoting peace, democracy, health care and agriculture, and a long lasting conflict (costing more than 2 million lives) was interrupted six years ago by the negotiation of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Two key provisions were that an election be held throughout the nation (in April 2010) and South Sudanese citizens should decide in a referendum whether to remain part of Sudan or form an independent new nation. That is the reason for this vote, which began on January 9 and will continue for seven days. Then votes will be counted and results announced. This is the 82nd troubled or doubtful election that has been monitored by The Carter Center, and is possibly the most important.
About 3.9 million people have registered to vote, 116,000 of them living in N. Sudan and 60,000 in eight other countries. On the first day there were large numbers of voters in the South, excited and enthusiastic, and seeming to favor independence. From reports of our 100 observers deployed throughout the nation, the procedure went smoothly.
— President Carter
Q.
A lot of people don’t understand/never heard about the recent history of Sudan, and they don’t understand who the major players are and why they’ve acted the way they have. Can you give a (very) brief summary of what led to the attempted genocides in Darfur? Or, more basically, who are the people who sought to gain what through this incredible level of lopsided violence, and what prompted it to start?
— Brian
A.
The region of Darfur comprises three states in the western portion of North Sudan, and its people have historically included both Arab and African tribes, who struggled against each other for territory, water, and grazing rights. The central government, mostly Arab and Islamic, has sided in ongoing disputes with the Arab tribes, and President Bashir has been accused of promoting or condoning armed attacks and serious violations of the human rights of many Africans. Rebellious activities by some Darfur groups have exacerbated the situation. Peace talks are ongoing in Doha, Qatar, but little progress has been made.— President Carter
A.
My take is that President Bashir faced an insurrection in Darfur, couldn’t rely on his army to suppress it (partly because many soldiers are from Darfur), and so figured the simplest solution was to do what he had already done during the civil war in the South — send in tribal militias to murder, rape and pillage. He got away with it in the South, and it worked reasonably well. I think President Bashir had no expectation that there would be an international uproar and an International Criminal Court indictment (and if there had been more international fuss about the slaughter in South Sudan in the 1990’s, he might not have tried this approach in Darfur). That’s one reason why I welcome the ICC’s involvement in such cases: it raises the costs of crimes against humanity, and creates a measure of accountability. That changes the decisions that leaders make — and that maybe one reason President Bashir has so far been more cooperative so far with the South Sudan referendum.— Nicholas Kristof
Q.
What is our national interest in Sudan? We’ve let a lot of human on human disasters occur in just the last few years with barely a comment, so I’m wondering why Sudan should be our focus.
– Scott Robinson
A.
The intense and prolonged suffering of the Sudanese people has naturally aroused humanitarian concern of the international community. In addition, a resumption of civil war would inevitably affect the nine bordering nations. The entire continent of Africa could be affected, as well as the worldwide religious community. It is important to recognize the enormous size of Sudan – equal to the United States east of the Mississippi River. — President Carter
Deborah Hakes/The Carter Center A man had his finger marked with indelible ink after voting in Juba on Sunday morning.
A.
Scott, we have a range of national interests in Sudan, and in particular avoiding a failed state there. Remember that Osama bin Laden used to make his home in Khartoum, and there’s certainly a potential for the northern part of the country to incubate terrorists again — or for the south, if it fell apart, to become a refuge of groups like the Lord’s Resistance Army. And failed states export refugees and perpetuate diseases in ways that do challenge us: if we want to eradicate polio and Guinea worm, we need to keep South Sudan together. What’s more, South Sudan is going to be a significant oil exporter — and it’s in the interest of all of us that that oil gets out onto world markets. But the larger point I would make is that we not only have national interests, but also national values. And if war resumes in Sudan or the country shatters, then hundreds of thousands of people will die. We may see another genocide. That would rouse us from our stupor, and we’d eventually spend billions of dollars trying to resolve the crisis — but one of the lessons of history is that it is far, far cheaper to avert a war than to end one. So that’s where our interests and values converge, and that’s why what we’re seeing today in South Sudan is so exciting. This does look as if international engagement may have helped avert a war that only a few months ago looked quite likely. Touch wood. — Nicholas Kristof
Q.
Assuming that the partition goes through peacefully (which, admittedly, is a huge supposition), will South Sudan be an economically viable entity given that it is impoverished, has little experience in governance, and is landlocked (and therefore still largely dependent upon Sudan for port access and oil pipelines)? Furthermore, given that oil will most likely comprise a significant portion of state and overall revenue, does South Sudan have the ability/capacity to avoid the dreaded resource curse and begin to foster a diverse economy?
— Bill
A.
The economic and political viability of both Northern and Southern Sudan will be severely challenged when/if the south chooses to form a separate nation. They are inseparably related to one another, with both dependent on oil revenues (65% in the North and at least 95% in the South). The only viable government available to the new nation in the South will have to be based on democracy, with a new constitution to be written and guarantees to opposition and minority groups of their basic political and economic rights. Sudan now has an internal debt of about $36 billion, much of which needs to be forgiven. In addition, the international community must provide assistance to both nations to help them survive the transition phase of their existence. — President Carter
A.
South Sudan will be economically viable, because of that oil — assuming that there’s peace, of course. For the first half-dozen years, the oil will have to flow north to Port Sudan, but eventually there will be a pipeline south to Kenya. The second part of your question is a great one, though, and it’s one I worry about — the resource curse. As you know, oil and minerals often harm an impoverished country rather than help, because they provide relatively modest employment and fuel corruption and bad governance. They also push up the country’s exchange rate, killing the manufacturing sector and any business sector that competes with imports. I hope the international community will work with South Sudan to encourage transparency and the use of oil money for education and economic development, and to build in accountability mechanisms. — Nicholas Kristof
Take 2 of the questions:
Former President Jimmy Carter and I are taking questions from readers about Sudan, the referendum now underway, and the region’s future. We answered a first batch of questions a couple of days ago, and this is the second batch:
Q.How do you foresee our international relations with this new government in the south region? How might the US use its influence (publicly or privately) in the establishment of the new nation? Thank you.
– David Mordkofsky
Q.Where do we get the resources to intervene in Sudan either militarily or monetarily in the face of our huge budget problems?
– B
A.It is important that the U.S. and the international community have good relations with both North and South Sudan, both of which will be searching for ways to survive and to preserve a fragile peace. It is hoped and expected that, after peace is assured, military costs can be reduced in both nations. The north is heavily burdened with existing debt, and commitments of debt relief and financial aid will enhance constructive influence over the future policies of the regime. The new South Sudan is desperately in need of building its entire infrastructure, including government administration, education, health care, agriculture and transportation. A failed state because of inadequate support would adversely affect all of Africa and also the U.S. and other nations.
Even if an increase in total foreign aid from the U.S. is not financially feasible, assistance to Sudan should be elevated to a high priority, utilizing funds already allocated for such programs as agriculture, health and education.
— President Carter
A.Sometimes foreign aid and diplomacy constitute a good investment, earning a strong return — and I would argue that that is the case with support for South Sudan. If South Sudan falls apart, we’ll end up spending billions and billions of dollars in coming years and decades dealing with humanitarian and other catastrophes. Isn’t it smarter — as well as simply the right thing to do — to help it stand on its feet in the next couple of years? Indeed, I would argue that the very modest sums we’ve invested over the last few years in Sudan diplomacy appear to have averted a new war, at least so far — and one estimate is that the average African war imposes economic costs of about $100 billion. Not a bad return.
— Nicholas Kristof
Q.What ARE the implications for the Darfur region? Will Darfur, or any part of it, have the immense suffering of its people relieved by being included, in “Africa’s newest country”?
– Robert John Bennett
A.All three Darfur states are in northern Sudan, so there will be minimal change in the relationships that have caused the serious altercation between the Darfur rebel groups and the government forces under President Bashir. Further close ties between Darfur groups and the SPLM in S. Sudan will probably be terminated because this would be interpreted in the north as a foreign nation giving assistance to troops dedicated to the overthrow of the government in N. Sudan. In fact, Mini Minawi, one of the Darfur leaders, has left S. Sudan as probable independence approaches. It is hoped that there will be renewed mediation efforts by the international community to resolve Darfur’s crisis, but it is more likely that N-S issues to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement terms will get top priority. Many people are speaking of peace talks to supplement those in Doha, Qatar, either within Darfur or Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, but no such decision has yet been made.
— President Carter
A.That’s a great question, and we just don’t know the answer. As you can see from the map, Darfur and South Sudan share a common border, and some Darfuris may see South Sudan’s secession as a reason to continue fighting. Darfuris, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, have the same complaints about marginalization, neglect and brutality by Khartoum that southerners have had. Indeed, the negotiations toward peace between north and south in 2003 were a reason for the outbreak of the Darfur insurgency — the Darfuris worried about being left out. I also worry about secessionist feeling in eastern Sudan, and about the impact of secession on two areas — Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State — that are emotionally part of the south but that now find themselves in the north.
— Nicholas Kristof
Q.Do you think that there is any chance the International Criminal Court will drop their charges against President Bashir should he cooperate with the south’s secession?
– Kirstie
A.There is little chance that the International Criminal Court will consider dropping charges against President Bashir until an appropriate peace agreement comes to Darfur. This will not be affected by South Sudan’s independence. It is possible that a South Sudan government would decide to permit Bashir to visit the new nation, but this question has not yet been answered.
— President Carter
A.I don’t see charges being dropped. I don’t know if Bashir will be brought to The Hague, but I don’t see the court lifting the indictment.
— Nicholas Kristof
Deborah Hakes/The Carter Center
Men waited to vote near Juba on Jan. 10th. Women form separate lines.Q.How will the independence affect foreign countries’ investment in South Sudan’s oil and other mineral resources that have long funded Sudanese government’s militia against the people of Darfur? Will that change at all? How are countries like China and Russia, who have huge stakes in Sudan’s oil, viewing the referendum?
– Serena Mithbaokar
A.It is not expected that foreign investments in Sudanese oil production will be affected by southern independence, because both Sudanese nations and oil producers wish income from oil to continue. Both China and Russia have monitoring teams in Sudan for the referendum, and it is presumed that both nations wish to see a calm and peaceful result.
— President Carter
A.China has played a surprisingly helpful role in the last few months. For many years it has been part of the problem — protecting Khartoum diplomatically and supplying it weapons relentlessly — but last year it seemed to realize that if the south seceded, it might be left out in the cold. So it became engaged in the diplomacy to avoid war, built ties with the south, and (as far as I can tell) exerted a moderating influence on the north. In general, foreign investors have been wary of the south, not least because of the risk of a new war. If secession goes peacefully, expect more investment.
— Nicholas Kristof
Q.Looking at a satellite map, there is a clear line dividing north and south (green and seemingly fertile below, tan/arid above). If the south also has the lion’s share of the oil, then what does the north have going for itself (besides oil sharing)? In other words, what are the incentives to remain in the north?
– Cook
A.President Bashir has informed me that southerners living in the north will retain all their former rights except to vote and hold civil service and military positions. President Kiir has expressed willingness to accept any of these people who desire to move their families to the south. Those who decide to remain in the north will be influenced by their many years of dwelling there and existing ties of culture, business, intermarriage and possibly religion. In the neighborhood of Khartoum, there are many more opportunities for amenities like education, health care and financial income than other places in N. or S. Sudan.
— President Carter
A.I’m not sure if you’re referring to the incentives for individuals to stay in the north, or for regions to stay in the north. In the case of regions, there’s some risk of further fracturing by parts of the country, including Darfur and the east. In the case of individuals, the north is still far more prosperous than the south and a far more comfortable place to live. Khartoum is actually a bustling, dynamic economy, fueled by oil revenue (which will continue to some degree for years, until the south builds a pipeline to the south) and providing lots of jobs. That will keep some southerners in the north — especially because some have lived in Khartoum for many, many years.
— Nicholas Kristof
Q.In the event of a secession who will oversee the inevitable mass migrations of peoples from the north to the south so that the perils of past historical migrations (i.e. the partition of India) can be best curbed?
– Dave M
A.Each government will establish policies for the crossing of the new international border that will separate the two nations. The most serious existing problem is the movement of the Misseriya nomadic tribes in Abyei who have historically moved their cattle from the north to the south for seasonal access to grazing and water. President Salva Kiir has told me that he will respect these rights, but they must be defined within the overall CPA agreement involving the Abyei region.
— President Carter
A.One of the immediate concerns is the safety of southerners in the Khartoum area if and when the south announces that it will secede. There are fewer northerners in the south, but they are also vulnerable. And as President Carter notes, there has to be a mechanism to reassure the Misseriya that they can continue to move their herds across the border — and, more broadly, there must be a deal on dividing Abyei. If there’s a flashpoint that could blow up the entire referendum process, it’s the continued uncertainty about what will happen to Abyei.
— Nicholas Kristof
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
فتحي البحيري
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست