South Sudan Independence implications for Regional Security and Diplomacy

Impact of South Sudan independence on Regional Security and Diplomacy

 

Ambassador Boaz K. Mbaya

 

The independence of South Sudan on the 9^th July, 2011, is expected to bring to a close the systematic discrimination and subjugation her people have endured since independence. When Sudan became independent in 1956, it immediately became clear that certain elements in the Arab and Islamic north were not keen on religious and racial harmony. They quickly embarked on systematic religious and racial segregation and discrimination against Southerners. Boxed into a corner, Southerners began a struggle for equality and equal opportunity. Significantly, their struggle underlined the extent to which religion and race dominated national politics in Sudan. Attempts to resolve the conflict resulted in many agreements often dishonoured by Khartoum including Anyanya I and II. After decades of struggle, the Government of Sudan and Sudanese Peoples’ Movement/Army (SPLM/A) concluded the Comprehensive Peace Agreement early 2005 which took effect in July of the same year, thanks to the efforts of IGAD, the African Union and the International Community. The commitment and role of neighbouring countries such as Kenya were crucial in the process.

 

The most determined effort by the South to assert its rights started in earnest in the early eighties when Col. John Garang defected from the Sudanese Army to form the SPLM/A. Initially, the movement sought to fight for equal citizenship and opportunity within a “New Sudan”, but when it became clear that fundamentalists in Khartoum were pushing for Islamic law in the country, the largely Christian South began to seek independence to secure their rights. The conflict took more than two decades to negotiate resulting in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which provided for an implementation face of six years. It also provided for a referendum for self determination by the people of South which they did with an overwhelming vote on 9^th July, 2011. The result did not surprise observers and could well be the most successful conflict resolution effort through a process designed and managed by IGAD, with the support of the international community.

 

The independence of South Sudan will come as a welcome relief to a region known for conflict, insecurity and political instability. However, until the outstanding issues are resolved, the threat of war will not completely evaporate. Issues such as; the status of Abyei, sharing of resources notably oil, and, in its absence, non availability of export route for the South require immediate action. That notwithstanding, South Sudan’s independence is likely to cause a shift in regional politics and diplomacy. South Sudan is bound to look southwards to the East African Community for long term engagement, but maintain cooperation with the North, in the short term, to secure international markets for her oil via the existing pipeline infrastructure in the North. She will certainly seek membership of the Community almost immediately. Such move will provide her with a new platform on which to launch her foreign policy adventure as a new actor of international law. It will also strengthen the Community’s integration process and consolidate its role as a building block for the proposed African Economic Community.

 

It will be interesting to see how South Sudan treats the issue of the Nile waters as a riparian state. The 1929 Nile Treaty between the United Kingdom on the one hand and Egypt and Sudan on the other and gives them a disproportionate use of the waters of the Nile. Two things may happen. South Sudan could opt to stake claim for similar quota as the North or join the other riparian states to the south and Ethiopia to the east in challenging Egypt and North Sudan on the 1929 Treaty urging them to accede to a new treaty already concluded by the by former on the equitable use of the Nile waters. Either scenario has implicationsi for South Sudan. Chances are that South Sudan will go along with countries with whom she is likely to pursue her foreign policy objectives more cordially to secure her national interest.

 

Perhaps, the most important development will be how South Sudan deals with the aftermath border issues with her neighbours. Abyei presents the most sensitive issue for attention by the new nation. The dispute has the potential to cause war between the North and the South. A separate referendum scheduled to place on the 9^th January, 2011, was shelved due to sharp differences on the voters register. The situation recently degenerated when the North invaded Abyei prompting sharp criticism by the South and the international Community. The UN Security Council demanded an immediate withdrawal. The stand off could well define the short term relations between Khartoum and Juba.

 

Further south, South Sudan faces unresolved border issues with Kenya. Two areas stand out. The Elemi Triangle which has been under Kenya’s administrative control since the 1930s will be, particularly, tricky deal with. Kenya’s involvement emanates from a decision by two former British Governors in Khartoum and Nairobi when the former requested his counterpart in Nairobi to look after Elemi Triangle because the area was too remote to control from Khartoum. The status quo has been maintained by the independent governments in Sudan and Kenya till now whereby the latter maintains administrative and security outposts. Attempts to resolve the matter in the intervening period never took off because of the war in the south. This is clearly a matter that both Kenya and South Sudan will need to address immediately through negotiations and arbitration.

 

Finally, South Sudan and Kenya need to resolve issues surrounding the remainder of the common border up to the border with Uganda. The international border lies about thirty kilometres north, parallel to Nadapal. Initially the border had no issues until the SPLM/A intensified its war with the North. In the past, Sudan claimed that it was impossible to police the border due to SPLM/A war. It, practically, remained in limbo, a no man’s land. The area, however, provided sanctuary for SPLM fighters away from northern forces. This made it easy for Kenya, a major player in the peace process, to challenge any accusation of support for the SPLM/A. Kenya and the South Sudan understand the situation very well. On that understanding, it should not be difficult to delineate the border, install beacons and secure it. It is in the interests of both countries to undertake this exercise immediately South Sudan gains her independence to facilitate meaningful bilateral relations and consolidate regional security and stability.

....

 

The writer is Chairman/CEO, Centre for Policy Analysis. This Article is part of a forthcoming publication 'Perspectives on South Sudan Independence' Commissioned by the East African School of Human Rights.E-mail: bkmbaya@hotmail.com. Send  your comments to eajournal@email.com