Dispute in Abyei - Drums of war are beating

Developments of recent events in the Sudanese Abeyi area trace back to what many experts and political analysts predicted about the future of the relationship between north and south Sudan after the secession to which the majority of the south voted last January.

They said that the division of Sudan into two states: North and South would not be the perfect solution to bring peace between the two parties.

The division was enough to fuel the war between them again, especially since there are many files that have not resolved yet and still pending.

That came after the international community and the sponsors of the process of division had preferred to delay these issues to a later stage because their main objective was to achieve a legal division first, then paying attention to other issues.

However, it seemed beyond doubt the dark tunnel which the sponsors of the division insisted to put Sudan in before signing the peace agreement between the north and the south in 2005.

That agreement ended the war between the two sides which lasted for about two decades, however in case of renewing the war this time, no one can stop it easily because it will take place between two countries which have their own interests and alliances in the region and that means they will be supported by other parties!

The reality of the situation in Sudan says that after less than six months for the referendum of division and less than two months from the formal declaration of the State of the South in July 9, military clashes took place between northerners and southerners and resulted in the control of the northern governmental forces on Abyei.

That provoked the international community, led by the United States to confirm the conviction of that step —According to the American point of view— which would threaten the future normalization of relations between them and the Khartoum government.

It is noticeable that the international condemnation focused on the reaction of Khartoum without searching for the reasons and motives which called the northern army to ignore the peace agreement that was signed with the South.

The agreement said that both forces should not be present in the territory of the disputed area of Abyei, which is scheduled to hold a future referendum on self-determination that was supposed to coincide with the referendum conducted last January, but the contrast between the two parties —about who is eligible to participate in this referendum— forced them to postpone it.

According to the northern vision, the step which the northern army took was the result of three main reasons:

The first was the attack of the southern forces on a northern detachment at the beginning of May, killing and injuring dozens of northern forces, which was a clear breach for the peace agreement.

The second was a recent repeat of this attack; where a southern detachment raided on a northern detachment, accompanied by a UN force, and with the knowledge of the southern forces, which led to killing twenty casualties.

That attack was condemned by USA and the United Nations and the incident was considered a crime against the international organization.

The third reason, which was perhaps the most provocative of the North, was the contents of the new Constitution of the new southern state which considers Abyei area a part of their supremacy, the matter which was approved by 18 southern Sudanese parties —according to the Northern point of view— and that was contradictory to the peace agreement.

However, the southerners believe that the northern action was not justified because the northern side was the one which initiated the attack on the southern forces and the latter's attack was just a reaction, whereas the contents of the southern Constitution concerning the right of southerners in Abyei area was like the constitution of the North.

Perhaps this reveals clearly that the issue of Abyei is not subsidiary, but it is at the heart of the relationship between the North and the South because the value of this region is economic in the first place where it is rich in oil and minerals, which was the cause for the Western powers' support to the secession of the South, then they tried to seize that rich area.

Again —and in light of the above— the possibilities of a new war is significantly present, despite the statements of some Sudanese officials which denied that fact, considering that there was not interest for the north and the south to return to war again.

However, this is incompatible with the reality of the situation in the region, which was endorsed by the leadership of the Sudanese armed forces themselves, which considered that Abyei area in a state of war and it is difficult to collect data or determine the number of victims and missing persons as well as those who were displaced from the region to escape the military clashes in the direction of the surrounding areas.

It is true that the Sudanese forces declared their readiness to withdraw from Abyei area on condition of the availability of specific security guarantees, but this does not mean that the renewed clashes are out of the question because this is inconsistent with the logic of reality, especially with the presence of the reasons of war; these reasons are as follows:

1- The statements of some northern leaders: In case the southerners insist on including Abyei in the constitution, the North will not recognize the state of the South, which means that the northerners have no intention to give up this area and it will move to stop that by all means.

2- The insistence of both countries to claim the right of Abyei area: This is pushing them together to pursue provocative policies and actions. If it is possible to control some of these policies and actions, the matter is still not safe, especially because this tension will deprive both countries of benefitting from the wealth of the region and may lead to re-internationalization of the issue and foreign intervention.

3- The dispute between the parties about who is eligible to participate in the referendum to decide the fate of the region. The southern state insists that this an inherent right of the tribe of "the Dinka Ngok," whereas the northerners believe that it is the right of Arabian Misseriya tribe and some other tribes who participated in that referendum. Thus, the acceptance of the southern vision means the exclusion of the Misseriya and other tribes, which would not be accepted by the Misseriya, even if the Khartoum government approved it.