A celebration erupted when the Dinka Ngok leaders announced they would be moving forward with the unilateral referendum in the disputed Abyei region which both Sudan and South Sudan lay claim to. Credit: Andrew Green/IPS

By Andrew Green
JUBA, Nov 4 2013 (IPS)

The non-binding referendum in Abyei – where people voted overwhelmingly to join South Sudan – and the ensuing celebration, has brought little immediate resolution to the long-festering Abyei problem.

Instead, the spectre of potential conflict looms between the Dinka Ngok and the Khartoum-allied Misseriya tribe, who also lay claim to the territory.

Both Sudan and South Sudan claim the 10,000 square kilometre area, which is home to the Dinka Ngok and – seasonally – to the Misseriya, who bring their cattle there for grazing.

As the Human Security Baseline Assessment (HSBA), which provides independent analysis on issues facing the Sudans, has pointed out, Abyei’s grazing season starts this month. Soon the Misseriya will come into contact with some of the tens of thousands of Dinka Ngok who returned to the area for the referendum. HSBA warns this will “pose great challenges for UNISFA” – the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei.“Both governments are not part of the referendum, so there is [no] disturbance that is going to happen.” -- Mawien Makol Arik, South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry spokesperson

Abyei Referendum High Committee spokesman Luka Biong acknowledged that violence is one possible – though unlikely – outcome of the vote. He told IPS a Misseriya attack could “spark a small war or escalate into a bigger war if the South is prepared to fight.” But neither government is interested in another battle, he added.

Biong explained that the Dinka Ngok leadership was under no illusion the referendum would settle the Abyei question once and for all. That, however, was not really the point.

“There’s a possibility this could [create] real pressure,” he said, adding that officials will have to “see the consequence of what we have said.” And in that they have been successful. Though they are trying, the Dinka Ngok’s actions will be hard for the two governments – especially Juba – to ignore.

In the peace agreement that ended the decades-long Sudanese civil war, the Abyei community was promised a referendum to coincide with the January 2011 ballot to determine the future of southern Sudan. The south got their vote and promptly split from Sudan. But there was no referendum for Abyei.

Last September a panel of African Union (AU) experts called for a Dinka Ngok-only referendum for October this year. However, the AU backed away from the proposal when Khartoum objected to the exclusion of the Misseriya.

The Dinka Ngok leadership pressed ahead with the referendum, despite warnings from the AU that the move could threaten peace in the region. And on Oct. 31, Abyei Referendum High Committee officials announced the results of their hastily-organised, unilateral referendum to determine the future of the disputed area.

The vote only included the pro-South Dinka Ngok community and, as anticipated, the decision was nearly unanimous – more than 63,000 people voted to join South Sudan. Twelve people voted for Abyei to remain part of Sudan, officials reported.

As soon as the votes were read, leaders of the nine Dinka Ngok kingdoms signed pledges declaring their intention to join South Sudan.

Officials in Juba, unwilling to upset their relationship with Khartoum, made their feelings about the referendum known by keeping silent.

But Biong is hoping that the Dinka Ngok vote will trigger the AU to re-start negotiations between Khartoum and Juba. There is evidence this is already happening.

An AU team is set to arrive in Abyei Tuesday, Nov. 5, for a two-day visit. Ahead of the visit, they have already called for the U.N. Security Council to extend its support to the September 2012 proposal, which calls for “Abyei residents to determine their political future, and the right of continued access for migratory populations.”

Bringing Khartoum and Juba to the table will be difficult, though. The notoriously chilly relationship between the two governments is currently thawing, signalled by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s visit to Juba in October.

Both countries are benefiting from the détente. When landlocked South Sudan seceded, it took with it three-quarters of Sudan’s oil reserves. But Sudan retained the only pipeline South Sudan has for exporting its crude. Early last year Juba cut off oil production, citing the high fees Khartoum was charging to use the pipeline. The issue was resolved after more than a year and production restarted in March. So far South Sudan has made 1.3 billion dollars from renewed sales, according to the Ministry of Petroleum, of which it has paid 329 million dollars to Sudan.

Dr. Alfred Lokuji, a professor of peace and rural development at the University of Juba, told IPS that in light of the current situation, both sides will “be careful about trying to escalate things” when it comes to Abyei.

The leaders of the two countries have skirted the Abyei question. They have called for a joint administration and police force for the region, but failed to set a timeline. They did not even broach the issue of a referendum, though Juba has voiced support for the AU proposal in the past.

Mawien Makol Arik, South Sudan’s foreign affairs ministry spokesperson, told IPS that the government would not allow the Dinka Ngok vote to upset the improving relations.

“The two presidents have laid out a communiqué to actually expedite the Abyei administration to be set up,” he said. “Both governments are not part of the referendum, so there is [no] disturbance that is going to happen.”

While Khartoum may be able to get away with not immediately addressing the issue, Juba might not have that luxury. There are deep ties between Abyei and South Sudan, with many members of the Dinka Ngok serving in high-profile government positions where they are well positioned to lobby the government.

And President Salva Kiir’s political rivals have already signalled they are prepared to make political hay out of the issue if South Sudan decides to keep quiet about Abyei.

William Rial Liah, the secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Unionist Party, travelled to Abyei in the days ahead of the referendum to show his support.

“We are behind the Abyei people,” he told IPS. “Let the Abyei people go with this decision and we back them until the end.”

While the outcome of the referendum may never be recognised, Dinka Ngok leaders may have gotten exactly what they wanted out of the vote: bringing diplomatic and – in Juba’s case – political pressure to bear so they finally get the referendum they were promised.

A woman registering to vote at a school in the border town of Abyei on Oct. 20. She was one of more than 100 people living in the town who showed up to register on the first day as people voted whether to join Sudan or South Sudan. Credit: Andrew Green/IPS

By Andrew Green
ABEYI, Oct 30 2013 (IPS)

When Chris Bak returned two weeks ago to the disputed border town of Abyei, which voted this week on whether to join Sudan or South Sudan, he barely recognised it as the place where he grew up. “Everything is dirty,” he told IPS. “We were just going around and around, but we didn’t [recognise] this place.”

The town lies in the centre of the Abyei region, a 10,000 square kilometre area that straddles the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Both countries lay claim to the area, with its oil reserves and vast tracts of fertile land. A 2005 peace agreement ended the decades-long Sudanese civil war and paved the way for South Sudan’s independence, but failed to resolve Abyei’s fate.

Since he returned, Bak has been camping out in an abandoned classroom, hoping it does not rain because the school has no roof. He is sharing the room with a friend who is showing symptoms of malaria. Bak has been trying to track down a doctor, but after three days of asking around he had still not located anyone.

“There are difficulties that face us,” he said. “We need to bring up Abyei.”“The children, the old men just die. There’s no medical care. It’s not good.” -- Deng Agos Lowal, member of the region’s Social Welfare Commission

Bak, 25, returned to Abyei after five years away to participate in a referendum initially proposed by the African Union (AU) for this month, which is meant to decide the fate of the contested region.

But Sudan refused to sign on, as the referendum would have excluded members of the pro-Sudan Misseriya community, who visit Abyei seasonally to graze their cows. In the face of Khartoum’s intransigence, the AU did not organise the vote or present a new proposal.

That did not staunch the enthusiasm of the majority Dinka Ngok community who pressed ahead with a unilateral referendum that ended on Tuesday Oct. 29.

An organisation of tribal leaders, calling themselves the Abyei Referendum High Committee, began organising trips last month for people who wanted to take part in the vote. They estimate they have brought 100,000 people back to the area, though it is impossible to verify that number.

They plan to announce the results before the end of the month and it is likely they will vote to join South Sudan.

However, the AU has “strongly condemned” the move, calling it an “illegal action” and warning that it could threaten peace in the region. South Sudan has said it will refuse to acknowledge the results.

“If the people of Abyei decide, we will see to whom will they direct their results, because they said they will do it without the government of South Sudan and without the government of Sudan,” South Sudan’s government spokesman Michael Makuei Lueth said last week. “And if it is done without us, to whom will they direct their results?”

Dr. Alfred Lokuji, a professor of peace and rural development at the University of Juba, told IPS that the vote “is not going to accomplish much of anything” as both the AU and Juba have made it clear they will not recognise the outcome.

He does not anticipate any violence to result from the vote. However, he described the unilateral move as “symbolic,” showing the Dinka Ngok community is determined to have the situation resolved.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir travelled to Juba last week for a meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir. At the end of the summit, the two leaders announced plans to move ahead with a joint administration and police force for Abyei, though they failed to set a timeline on when that would happen.

The Dinka Ngok leadership, tired of living in limbo, have rejected the proposal.

In part that is because they no longer have the luxury of waiting for Juba, Khartoum and the international community to reach a permanent solution.

In 2008, fighting broke out in this area between militias supported by the Sudanese government and forces from what was then southern Sudan. Human Rights Watch estimates 60,000 people fled the violence. At the time, Bak and his family fled to Aweil, which is a five-hour drive west of Abyei and is located in South Sudan.

Fighting erupted again in 2011, only weeks before South Sudan officially split from Sudan to become the world’s newest country. The battles left Abyei town in ruins. The ground is dotted with concrete foundations where houses used to stand. A toppled red-and-white cell phone tower rests crookedly on top of trees and buildings.

Having brought thousands of people back to Abyei to see the area’s devastation first-hand, the Dinka Ngok leadership are facing pressure from people like Michael Acuil Deng, an engineer who has been living in Juba, to make something happen now.

“You see around, we have [to do] a lot of planning for our area to be the best,” he told IPS. “Now everything is like the desert. It’s crushed. Now we start from the scratch. We have to build the area.”

Development is difficult in a no man’s land, though.

Deng Agos Lowal stayed in the area despite the fighting. He is a member of the region’s Social Welfare Commission, a locally-appointed body that attempts to provide basic services to people. With no support from either Juba or Khartoum, he said there is little they can do to actually help people, let alone track the fluid population.

“The children, the old men just die,” he told IPS. “There’s no medical care. It’s not good.”

A United Nations peacekeeping force is visible here, but Lowal said the region’s uncertain future has kept most humanitarian organisations out. All anyone can do, he said, is wait for the vote to decide Abyei’s fate. When that is resolved the rebuilding of Abyei can begin.

Despite the warnings from Juba and Khartoum, Dinka Ngok leaders are holding out hope that the international community will eventually recognise the outcome of their unilateral referendum.

At the very least, Dinka Ngok paramount chief Bulabek Deng Kuol said he hopes the vote means the regional and international community will no longer ignore Abyei’s needs.

“We are excited to rebuild, to give our energy for everything,” he told IPS. “We hope all the organisations … are rushing here to give some help to the people here.”

Pressure from ethnic groups along the border, security concerns, and keen interest in resources like oil and land are making it difficult for Sudan and South Sudan – the world’s newest country – to resolve their dispute over the fertile, oil-rich region of Abyei and demarcate their common border.
Speaking in Turkey on Monday, Sudan’s first vice president, Ali Osman Taha, called for a referendum to resolve the issue.

In talks last week in the Ethiopian capital, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and President Salva Kiir of South Sudan signed economic and security accords that will allow a resumption of oil exports from South Sudan. However, no agreement on Abyei was reached.

The African Union High-Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP), which is mediating between the two countries, presented proposals on the final status of Abyei on Sep. 21.

One of the reasons the Abyei region is disputed is that it offers grazing land for cattle, which are valued in Sudan and South Sudan for their intrinsic wealth. Credit: Charlton Doki/IPS

The proposal includes a call on Sudan to recognise Abyei as a historic land of the Dinka Ngok – the biggest ethnic group in South Sudan, which became an independent nation in July 2011 – and their right to civic and political participation and to protection of individual rights.

Juba accepted the African Union proposals. But Khartoum rejected them, saying the mediators did not recognise the right of the nomadic Misseriya Arab ethnic group to participate in a referendum on the final status of Abyei.

“I think it is difficult for both governments to give up Abyei because of the need to satisfy the needs of ethnic groups on the border,” Dr. Leben Nelson Moro, a professor of development studies at the University of Juba, told IPS.

For centuries, Arab nomads from Sudan’s South Kordofan state have grazed their animals in Abyei, where pasture and water are available even during the dry season. But the Dinka Ngok, the traditional inhabitants of the area, consider the land to be theirs from time immemorial.

“Officials in Khartoum want to satisfy the interests of the Misseriya,” Egbert Wesselink of the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan told IPS. “They do not want to alienate these people.”

But, he added, “Abyei is a matter of survival for the Dinka Ngok people of South Sudan. About 10 years ago there was a meeting of Dinka Ngok elders and they resolved ‘let’s give the oil to the north and keep the land’. That means for these people it is the land rather than the oil that matters.”

After Sudan’s independence in 1956, the largely Muslim Arab north and the mainly Christian and animist south fought two civil wars. The most recent lasted over two decades, and an estimated two million people were killed and four million displaced before a 2005 treaty ended the conflict by splitting the country in two.

Although the two countries have agreed on 75 to 80 percent of their border based on a 1956 map drawn by the then colonial government of Britain, the actual demarcation has not taken place.

Both governments are under pressure from communities along the border, who want to be assured that they will still be allowed to cross to the other side.

Khartoum is particularly concerned about the views of the nomadic communities along the border, which want guarantees that they will be allowed to graze their animals in the disputed areas.

“Fixing a border is not in line with the way the people in border areas live,” Wesselink said.

Juba is under similar pressure from border communities. “For example the people of Pariang County (in Unity state) believe the disputed oil-producing area of Panthou (where the Heglig oil field is located) is their territory,” Moro said. “So the government in South Sudan feels it has a responsibility to work for the interests of these people.”

Another factor hindering the resolution of disputes and the demarcation of the border has to do with security concerns on both sides, but especially in Sudan, which links the security of the disputed border areas to its own survival.

“The pastoralist Arab tribes of Rezeigat, Misseriya and Baggara already feel marginalised by Khartoum. The leadership (of Sudan) is aware of this and wants to protect the interests of these people,” said Edmong Yakani, coordinator of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation (CEPO), a local NGO that has studied relations between communities along the border.

“Khartoum thinks that if the border is demarcated and the pasture lands end up as part of South Sudan, then there is a danger that the tribes allied to it will feel marginalised and let down by Khartoum. Given that Khartoum is already fighting SPLM-N (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North) rebels in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, it is keen not to offend more ethnic groups, to prevent further rebellion,” Yakani told IPS.

Because of the conflict in these two Sudanese states, Khartoum wants to take charge of all the disputed areas so it can try to cut the rebels’ access to South Sudan, which it accuses of supporting them. “The government would like to have good allies in the area, for example people like the Murahalin (Arab nomads),” Moro said.

Some observers also say the two countries see the border areas as sources of wealth.

“Look at the Gezira area and the White Nile area of Sudan, which are wealthy agricultural areas. It is the same case with South Sudan, which also wants to secure areas like Renk and Aweil, which are all agriculturally rich,” Yakani said.

South Sudan army spokesman Colonel Philip Aguer recently stated that he believed Khartoum was using militias opposed to the South Sudan government to derail plans to resolve border issues, with a view to taking possession of oil resources in border areas.

“The logical way forward would be an international arbitration to resolve the dispute,” Wesselink said. “However, the problem…is that you have no guarantee that either side will accept the results.”

International arbitration could help the two countries deal with pressure from communities in the disputed area. “At least if the dispute is resolved through international arbitration, the leaders can say ‘we have tried our best, but somebody (in charge of the arbitration) thinks differently’,” Moro said.

In 2009 Juba and Khartoum turned to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to define the borders and inhabitants of Abyei. But Khartoum rejected the court’s decision.

“The situation is different now, however, and Khartoum is under immense pressure and it is likely that they would accept the result of any arbitration,” Wesselink said.

Despite the current tension along the borders, especially between the armies of the two countries, the border communities have for long lived fairly peacefully side by side. Given the years and years of intermarriage, it is only natural that the communities would be unhappy with a borderline dividing them, Yakani said.

“People along the border know each other better than people in Khartoum and Juba do. Let these communities be asked to prescribe a solution to the border disputes based on a way that suits their interests,” he said.