logo

Dr. Lam AkolI find Jacob Akol's article interesting, especially the exposition on where Heglig (Paanthou) belongs. However, I do not understand why he blames the international community, which has been friendly all along to the SPLM/A, for believing that Heglig was, indeed, part of today's Sudan when the SPLM leadership themselves have admitted so, as he so eloquently presented in his article. Does he expect them to be more royal than the King? You see, this is a community that has been made to believe that only the opinion of the SPLM/A mattered in South Sudan.

The truth must be told that the SPLM/A leadership bungled the matter. They had more than one opportunity to correct the mess. Riek Machar himself, who hails from the Unity State where Heglig belonged, led the SPLM/A delegation to the HAGUE for the international arbitration. He very well knew that the map of Abyei he presented included Heglig. He and his team never raised a finger. Again, when the 1/1/1956 border with the North was being discussed, Heglig was not included by the SPLM/A side to be part of South Sudan. It is not among the five areas now being disputed by the two sides. The international community has been following all these talks very closely and have been blindly supporting the SPLM/A. How do you expect them to suddenly buy a new flimsy argument? Unless you want to say that they do not use their minds. The international community also knows that Abyei, at least up to the time of the court of arbitration, was part of the North. It follows therefore that any part of the Abyei map presented to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) excluded from it becomes part of North Sudan.

I tend to agree with Akol's last theory on why GOSS accepted the ABC ruling without questioning the inclusion of Heglig (Paanthou) in it. This must be the only reason why Dr Riek Machar was cowed into defending such an indefensible position. The SPLM/A leadership must accept the responsibility for having handed Paanthou in a platter to Sudan. Then and only then will the South Sudanese be persuaded that their intentions are genuine. One question poses itself: Is the fighting in Heglig really for claiming it back to South Sudan? If that were to be the case, why are we not fighting at Hofrat el Nhas, Kafia Kingi, etc, which are still annexed to Sudan? If that were to be the case, are the Sudan rebels, who admitted in the media that they were fighting in Heglig, really fighting to reduce the size of their country by taking Heglig out of it?

I do not believe for a second that the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, gave an "ultimatum to Kiir" to pull his troops out of Heglig. He was only conveying the resolution of the UN Security Council which URGED South Sudan to pull its troops out of Heglig and URGED Sudan to stop bombing areas in South Sudan. When South Sudan joined the UN in July last year it must have read the UN Charter which clearly specifies that the Security Council is the custodian of World Peace and Security. Why should they be surprised when the UNSC is exercising its authority mandated to it by more than 190 countries including South Sudan?

We should stop scapegoating and face our problems squarely. We said it time and again that South Sudan needs the consensus of all its stakeholders, especially the political parties, more than any time before. The SPLM/A alone cannot deliver the country. This is the time it must humble itself and begin to think that the country belongs to all, government and the opposition.

Thanks.

Dr Lam Akol.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heglig? This Tent Does Not Belong To The Camel!

"It is definitely unfair of the international community to expect Juba to just sit and watch Khartoum carry out daylight robbery of her property without responding."

By Jacob J Akol*

“Master”, pleaded Camel, “my nose is cold. Can I put it in the tent to warm it up?” “Of course you can,” said the kind master. Shortly after, the Camel pleaded with the master to allow him put his ear inside the tent. When this was permitted, the head followed, then the front legs and then the hump. The rest is history. As we all know from this Arab story the Camel kicked the master out of the tent and into the cold night of the desert and claimed the tent for himself; but does it follow that the tent is the property of the Camel?

Anyone who knows a bit of the history of the Sudan would automatically conclude that any “disputed territory” along the Sudan-South Sudan border rightly belongs to South Sudan; but has been appropriated, by hooks or crooks by the Sudan. South Sudan has no history of land or wealth-grabbing from North Sudan or from anyone else territory. North Sudan is built precisely on that principle. The late Dr John Garang de Mabior, who led the then South Sudan’s-based Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) for more than 20 years, illustrated this philosophy once to a crowd of Dinka herdsmen in 1998:

“Imagine a traveller walking into your cattle camp one evening; you welcome him warmly, give him milk to drink and the best bed to sleep on. He stays with you for indefinite period and when you tell him that he has overstayed his welcome and was time for him to go, he claims that it was your fault to let him stay so long anyway and demands a share of your cattle: would you allow him to do so?”

There was a deafening “Nooo! Never!” from the crowd.

Would Garang have given Khartoum the chance to dupe the world into believing that the Heglig Oil Field is in Northern Sudanese territory? That we will never know.

South Sudanese who know that Heglig or Panthou or Aliny oil field is nowhere near the border of the Sudan as it stood on January 1st 1956 are mystified as to when and how the area has now become “part of (North) Sudan” as the international community is now clamouring to permanently disposes South Sudan of its territory and oil wealth.

The United Nations Secretary General, the European Union, the African Union and even friends of South Sudan like Norway, are calling on South Sudan’s army to pull out immediately from “Sudanese territory”. The United Kingdom and Egypt, which jointly ruled the Sudan until January 1956, should tell the rest of the world where exactly Heglig is located and they will, if truth be told, acknowledge it is tens of miles within the border of South Sudan in what was known as Western Upper Nile, purposefully changed later by Khartoum after the discovery of oil into the so-called “Unity State”, just like they have changed Panthou to Heglig.

Another anomaly that’s deceiving the International Community into thinking that Heglig is part of North Sudan is the judgement of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which excluded Heglig from being part of Abyei. Fair enough; but who said Heglig was ever part of Abyei?

The confusion first arose from the findings of the Abyei Border Commission (ABC), who were directed to define the territory of the nine Ngok Dinka Chieftaincies whose territory was transferred to Kordofan (North) during the condominium for “administrative reasons”. The ABC included the Paan Aru area as part of the territory belonging to the nine Ngok Dinka chieftaincies. What they should have made clear in their report was that this particular area, Heglig or Panthou or Aliny, though occupied by a section of the Ngok Dinka, was never transferred to Kordofan and had always remained part of Western Upper Nile now known as Unity State.

The question is: If Heglig or Panthou or Aliny was never part of Abyei that was transferred from Bahr Al Ghazal to Kordofan, why did the Government of Southern Sudan accept the ABC’s findings without questions, making it clear that Heglig was never a part of Abyei transferred into Kordofan? The answer could either be pure lack of attention to details on the part of Juba; fear of giving a reason to Khartoum to reject the findings of the ABC or a collaboration by some people from Warrap State and Abyei to annex the oil field to Abyei, which they believed would vote in a referendum to be part of the Warrap State. After all 2% of oil proceeds is usually allocated to the state from where the oil wells are located.

As it turned out, Khartoum disputed the findings of the ABC. In the process of Khartoum’s intransigence, Juba agreed to have the case of Abyei taken up by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

This Court redrew the original map of the ABC and excluded Heglig from territory awarded to the Ngok Dinka. Khartoum was jubilant with the decision of the PCA, asserting that the decision had now legalised their illegal occupation and annexation of Heglig to the North. Although Juba was not entirely happy with the decision of the PCA, nevertheless, they accepted the PCA’s decision, while still believing that the demarcation of the border between North and South as it stood on January 1st 1956, would show Heglig to be well within the border of South Sudan. After all first things first: the independence of South Sudan was paramount to South Sudanese; anything else could be sorted out later; so they thought.

Little did they expect that Khartoum would not adhere to the PCA’s decision or to the dictates of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on Abyei. While they appeared to be in agreement with both the Abyei Protocol and the decision of the PCA, they were in fact preparing to abort any demarcation of the Abyei borders as prescribed by the PCA as well as finding ways to abort the Abyei Referendum as prescribed by the CPA.

Khartoum firs aborted the demarcation of the Abyei border by arming Arab militiamen who threatened to stop by force anyone carrying out the border demarcation. When the international community dillydally on forcing Khartoum to affect the decision of the PCA, Khartoum invaded Abyei by force, two months before the independence of South Sudan, on the pretext that their forces were first fired upon by the SPLA as they were moving their units out of the area. The fact that Arab tribes of Kordofan had a stronger motive than the SPLA to fire upon Khartoum’s troops leaving Abyei never registered with the international community. Equally, Khartoum’s own devious elements could have set up some Southern elements within their pay roll to fire on Northern troops for it to justify invasion of Abyei and abort the Abyei Referendum.

When, once more, the international community dillydally with Khartoum on the invasion of Abyei, Khartoum invaded the Nuba Mountains, then Southern Blue Nile. In all three cases, thousands of civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced into refugee camps in Ethiopia and South Sudan. The so-called “International Community” continued to dillydally with aggressor Bashir.
 

Then the bombing of South Sudan’s territory and actual invasion of border areas begun, with clear indications that Khartoum intended to cordon off more oil areas deep inside South Sudan.The dillydallying continues.

It is definitely unfair of the international community to expect Juba to just sit and watch Khartoum carry out daylight robbery of her property without responding. No wonder South Sudanese at home and in the Diaspora find themselves greatly offended by Ban Ki Moon’s reported ultimatum to Kiir to pull South Sudanese troops out of Higlig without pre-conditions. They see the UN SG as being soft on Bashir on multiple occasions and unduly bossy with Kiir.

*Jacob J Akol is editor of the Gurtong Website and Gurtong Focus Monthly Magazine. Digital editions are available on this website.

Copyright : Gurtong. (http://www.gurtong.net/ECM/Editorial/tabid/124/ID/6810/Default.aspx)