Abyei’s external arbitration, an omen for a united Sudan
Sunday, June 22 2008 (The New Sudan Vision Editorial) - Two of the Sudan’s prominent 'belligerents', National congress Party (NCP) and Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), agreed on Saturday, June 21, for external arbitrators to either authenticate or nullify the Abyei Border Commission.
Speaking to Reuters after the meeting between Machar and Taha in Juba, Dirdiri Mohamed Ahmed, the national congress party official in charge of Abyei case said of Arbitrators that “If they say it has been implemented then... the tribunal shall put the ABC experts' report into force.” He added that “If they say it was not implemented then the tribunal shall define and determine the boundary.”
Both NCP and SPLM will each pick two arbitrators from the list provided by permanent court of Arbitration based in Hague, Netherlands, as reported by Reuters. The four chosen arbitrators will then pick the fifth arbitrator that will act as the chair.
Everyone would be interested in knowing what NCP will respect in the Hague tribunal that it can’t respect in Sudanese people who love the land more than anyone. We will wait and see.
Furthermore, why is external help sought in case of Abyei and rejected by NCP in case of Darfur? It would be a a flattering consolation to argue that Abyei is valued more than Darfur. It's only a question of immediate threat.
Beshir has to remember that Sudanese people are equal and should be given the same care even if no threat of force abounds. For a comprehensive peace in Sudan to be realized, what is realistic, even if it is dreaded, should be sought. While external mediation undermines the prospects of a united Sudan, its short-term benefits are acceptable with lots of caution given our current situation.
While this arbitration sounds consoling to people of Sudan, it begs the question as to what the working relationship between NCP and SPLM is like and would be like. If the situation between SPLM and NCP, the supposed members of government of national unity is that bad, then why even think of a united Sudan?
It is pragmatic to say that good things come from strenuous and frustrating trails fuelled by impeccable audacity.
But when NCP and SPLM want Sudanese people of all walks of life to believe in a united Sudan when they aren’t even united in solution if not in opinion, a pro-unity mind in Sudan wonders about the efficacy of a united-trust-wanting-Sudan.
How on earth can people trust these powerful parties to unite Sudan in the future when they can’t solve the problems they have now? The difference of opinion between NCP and SPLM is diverging rather than converging. A convergent development of some of opinions would hint towards optimism and give us raw materials to hope for viable united Sudan.
Now these parties want us to believe something they don’t believe themselves. They can’t even convince themselves to believe so that the people of Sudan believe the workability of their future co-operation.
SPLM under the leadership of Kiir, like his predecessor, late Dr. Garang, prides in the idea of a united, egalitarian 'New' Sudan. But when SPLM can’t solve solvable issues with NCP, it would be a curious anticipation to see how NCP would be a good partner in united, democratic Sudan. Everything gets dead-locked.
If NCP can’t be convinced now, what does President Kiir think he can say then to make united Sudan a comforting enclave for all Sudanese?
While the call for external mediation is not only good for Abyei but Sudan as a whole in short-term basis, it leaves us wondering as to what we are capable of doing as Sudanese. Do we have to always seek external help in Sudan when every arsenal we need for solving our problems is within out disposal?
This is sad and pathetic. While a sizeable number of Sudanese favor a united, democratic and liberal Sudan on a new basis, thoughts of Sudanese inabilities to solve their own problems dash hopes of yearning for a united Sudan.
We, therefore, call for NCP and SPLM to consolidate strong solution architecture and positions, build trust and make sure their diplomatic arms mature enough to be humble in political decision making.
If you can’t compromise, you can’t gain, but when you are expected to compromise more than your living can allow, problems surface.
This is the problem between NCP and SPLM. NCP expects more compromises from SPLM while pledging nothing. SPLM either gives in or looks towards some spectral force for help. The phantom has now come in forms of Hague-based entity arbitration.
As we head towards 2009, we should think of our capabilities as Sudanese. Abyei, as contentious topic (Sudan’s Kashmir) between North and South, is a real test of a viability of united Sudan.
Now, given the unique political situation in Sudan, external mediation is understandable. However, if some Sudanese think of voting for unity ("on a new basis"), three years is short a time to convince even the less informed of Sudanese to believe that NCP humane and mature political thinking would evolve within that time frame.
