|
|
 Re: السودان 2012 سيناريوهات للمستقبل-Sudan 2010 Scenarios for the future (Re: abubakr)
|
السيناريو (4)
انفصال بدون حرب ( الحالة الصومالية ؟؟؟؟؟)
Be Careful What You Wish For: Somalia? (No War – Secession)
A Sudanese future history 2009-2012
At the end of 2009, although the CPA was implemented to a large extent, the glass could easily be perceived as half empty rather than half full. To the population of Southern Sudan, unity did not seem attractive. The North hoped to gain as much as possible by driving a hard bargain, and so lost any goodwill among the Southern population. In the South, politicians stirred the masses with public statements about how the CPA was not being implemented and how the North could not be trusted. They were also trying to get as much as possible out of ongoing negotiations about implementation of the CPA. Although many of them were actually in favour of unity, they failed to explain the advantages to the population. In the election campaigns of 2010, it would in fact have been political suicide to talk about the benefits of unity. Instead, politicians all spoke of how, after independence, they would be better able to work for education, health and sanitation.
In the referendum, an overwhelming majority – 91 per cent – of Southern Sudanese voted for independence. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon noted when the results were announced that “both parties had the responsibility to make unity attractive and both parties failed.” This result did not, however, come as a surprise. For a number of years, it had been a public secret that the South was likely to vote for secession. In the lead up to the referendum, as this new reality came nearer, both national and international actors started to anticipate the result. The international community, for example, tried to increase the capacity of the GoSS to prepare it for the daunting task ahead. National actors also started to anticipate possible outcomes, as they knew that in both the North and the South the power balance and status quo was about to change drastically. In the two years running up to the 2011 referendum, tribal clashes escalated. These clashes were further intensified by power struggles between Southern politicians aligning themselves for future positions. The GoSS, for example, was claimed to be increasingly a Dinka organisation, which did not listen to other tribes. Disagreements between the different factions of the SPLM and smaller Southern Sudanese political parties, combined with tribal issues, were affecting the stability of Southern Sudan. Towards the referendum, the Darfur conflict intensified in the North. Furthermore, in the Kordofan, east, far north and contested areas, high intensity conflicts erupted. The peace agreements that had held up to then were broken because groups in the so-called marginalised areas felt that, without the support of the South, staying under the rule of Khartoum would no longer bring any benefits. Khartoum was losing its grip over the North – but trying to maintain unity and keep as much of the country together as possible – and was unable to resist the Southern secession. In
dition, the majority of the Riverine Sudanese did not want their young men to fight in the
South any more.
The result of the Abyei Arbitration Tribunal ruling was that the main Abyei oil fields remained in the North, which gave the North some breathing space with regard to the loss of oil revenues. Khartoum agreed to part with the South in peace in order to focus its efforts on maintaining power and stability in the North. The South got a democratic constitution on the basis of a federal system, in which freedom and equality were two important notions. Without a common enemy in the North, however, the South was no longer able to maintain unity. The situation exploded on Independence Day when, during his independence speech in Juba, the newly sworn-in president Salva Kiir was assassinated. From that moment on, tribal conflicts and chaos tore the newly-born country apart.
Sudan in this scenario in 2012
In 2012, the Republic of Southern Sudan is in chaos. It has gained control over its resources as it no longer needs to share them with the North, but struggles internally over these new spoils. Its government is in the hands of the SPLM, but only those members who believe in the unity of Southern Sudan and only under the rule of one particular tribe. The government- controlled area is not much larger than Juba. The rest of the country is torn apart by warlords and tribal militia. There are tribal clashes between, for example, the Dinka and the Equatorians, the Lou Nuer and the Jikany Nuer in Upper Nile State, and between the Lou Nuer and the Murle in Jonglei State. Most of the militia leaders and warlords were once part of the SPLM or SPLA, but they broke away as they either feared for the safety of their own tribes or felt they could gain more on their own. The origins of many of the tribal conflicts lie in the leadership playing the tribal card in the hope of controlling power, wealth, oil and other resources. The SAF has largely withdrawn from the borderlands, where disputes over land have escalated rapidly. The three contested areas – Blue Nile, Abyei and the Nuba mountains
– are the battleground between the Northern and Southern tribes. Occasionally, the Northern tribes receive aerial support from Khartoum. Groups such as the Dinka Ngok and the Misseriya try to provide for their own security and clash frequently with each other and other groups.
Khartoum is still stronger in other parts of the North than in the borderlands, but it is weakening there too. The SAF is losing further control over Darfur, which has descended into absolute chaos. It struggles – alongside the Popular Defence Forces and militias – to maintain control over northern Kordofan, which is suffering under spill-over effects from the Southern and Darfurian chaos. At the same time, conflicts are also flaring up again in the east and the far north as the changed balance of power gives rebel groups a reason to take up arms again. Khartoum is struggling to maintain control but appears to be losing ground. The NCP is increasingly directing its attention to the northern Nile valley, where it can direct the scarce services and investments it still has to its Arab-Islamic constituency. This is a formidable task, however, because – either by choice or by necessity – millions of migrants, IDPs and refugees from the Northern periphery and the South are stuck in this NCP stronghold. In Khartoum, there is a fear that these groups, or other Northern elites that are not part of the NCP, may stage a coup. Security is therefore heavier than ever. The NCP cooperates with those in power in Juba as both power centres face similar problems and have similar interests.
The whole of Sudan, both the North and the South, has become insecure. As a result, investors are moving away. Oil production has stopped because the violence, insecurity and chaos are highest in the oil-producing areas, and the oil pipeline has been destroyed in numerous places by rebel groups. Farming is next to impossible. Despite its progressive constitution, equality, justice and liberty are still a long way away in the Republic of Southern Sudan. Although the Northern constitution is less progressive, the security and human rights situation in the North is slightly better. As a result, many new cohorts of people have become internally displaced, and surrounding countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda have received a huge influx of new refugees. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has called it the largest humanitarian disaster since the Second World War.
[B]Suggestions and policy options for the international community in this scenario in 2012
The unstable situation in the South – and to an increasing extent also in the North – no longer allows development assistance to be effective. The international community can do little more than react and provide relief. The best anyone can do is try to manage the conflict and prevent it from becoming worse. To these ends, the main policy options are:
• providing training to leadership to ensure better educated and better substantiated decision-making
• providing humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs, including food, medicine and shelter
• a limited peacekeeping presence to protect civilians and provide humanitarian assistance under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter
• conflict management and resolution between the different tribes, to prevent and manage future conflicts
• strengthening of governance structures in the South to enhance GoSS capacity to deliver services to its population
• supporting civil society to strengthen Southern unity
• supporting civil society and political opposition to ensure good and accountable
governance in both the North and the South.
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
abubakr
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست