Juba accuses international community of pro-Khartoum stance
9 min readThe feelings expressed by Pagan Amum (article 1, below) are widely
held throughout South Sudan, where people just cannot understand how
the international community can be so one-sided in the face of years
of aggression and intransigence by Khartoum. They are also shared by
those international experts who know and understand South Sudan.
Khartoum’s narrative appears to have been accepted by the
international community (including, sadly, Thabo Mbeki, who as a
prominent leader of another African liberation struggle should know
better) and there is little understanding of the hopes and aspirations
of the South Sudanese people.Whether or not Juba is supporting the liberation movements in the Nuba
Mountains and Blue Nile (article 3, below), there is no doubt that
Khartoum is supporting the rebels in South Sudan (article 2, below).
The big difference is that the insurgencies in Blue Nile and the Nuba
Mountains, and also Darfur, are home-grown liberation movements which
have a huge amount of popular support from their respective
communities and will continue with or without external support. If
Juba does cut off any support which they might be giving, these
liberation struggles will continue. The rebellions in South Sudan, on
the other hand, are the product of a handful of disaffected leaders
who have no support on the ground (to the extent that they have to
recruit by the forcible abduction of South Sudanese living in Sudan),
are disorganised and dis-united, are having a negligible effect, and
would collapse instantly if Khartoum withdrew its support.John
BEGIN
1. Juba lambastes international community for pro-Khartoum stance
August 5, 2012 (JUBA) – South Sudan has accused the international
community of siding with neighbouring Sudan in ongoing negotiations on
various issues including the sharing of oil wealth and border
demarcation.South Sudan top negotiator and Secretary General of the country’s
governing Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), Pagan Amum, at a
press briefing on Saturday, shortly after his return from talks in
Addis Ababa, in which he is representing his nation, said the “bias”
of the international community was evident.By way of demonstrating the international community’s imbalanced
approach, Amum cited their silence in the wake of Khartoum’s
confiscation, in late 2011, of South Sudan’s oil allegedly in lieu of
unpaid transit fees which Juba decried as extortionate. This led in
January to Juba’s halting of oil production.“They never talked about it though they knew it was wrong. Sudanese
government was practically stealing our oil but they continued to keep
quiet,” said Amum.He reserved particular criticism for the US and UK for criticising
Juba’s halting of oil production, in reaction to Khartoum’s
confiscation, rather than “asking Khartoum to pay back what it stole.”He said pressure was exerted on South Sudan to reopen the pipeline
because for the international community ”reopening was their interest”
in light of the effect it had upon international markets.He accused the international community of looking for a “quick fix” to
the ongoing negotiations and not giving due consideration to other
aspects of the debate such as border demarcation and the future of the
disputed Abyei region.“The Sudan Armed Forces continue to remain in Abyei as we speak and
they do not doing anything,” alleged Amum.He described the current favourable oil settlement was a result of
South Sudan’s dogged negotiating.“Despite these exorbitant demands by the Sudanese government and
mounting pressure from the international community, your government
responded with strength and resolve, and those responses have now paid
off”, he said.Khartoum originally demanded US$36 per barrel to transport landlocked
South Sudanese oil to the coast at Port Sudan. The fee now stands at
an average of US$9.48According to apress release from the Government of South Sudan,
Khartoum was demanding pipeline and terminal fees of US$25. Juba has
agreed to pay US$8.40 to use the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating
Company terminal and US$6.50 for Petrodar’s. Khartoum was pitching for
US$6 in transit fees and has settled for US$1.Amum added that the oil deal on the pipeline will last for three and
half years, after which the countries may renegotiate the rates,
unless South Sudan has been successful in constructing an alternative
pipeline passing through Kenya.Memorandums of Understanding have been signed with neighbouring
countries regarding pipeline construction. However, the viability to
the project was brought into question when president Salva Kiir
returned from Beijing in April empty handed, having failed to secure
Chinese funding for a pipeline project.The statement shows that a financial offer amounting to total of a
US$3.028 billion will be made to Khartoum by Juba to compensate for
the loss of oil revenue brought by secession of the South from Sudan
last year.“These fees will only last for 3 1/2 years. At that time, if South
Sudan still wishes to transport its oil through Sudan the parties may
negotiate lower rates, but the fees cannot go up”, Amum explained in a
statement.“This is equivalent to 1/3 of Sudan’s financial gap resulting from the
loss of South Sudan’s oil and it is separate and apart from the
Pipeline Transportation Fees. This is a one off payment. South Sudan
will pay this over 3 1/2 years, earlier if it chooses, and then the
assistance ends. The burden of Sudan’s financial difficulties will
then rest solely on the Government of Sudan. This short-term
assistance is part of a comprehensive package designed to ensure peace
and security, respect for territorial integrity, and cooperation,” the
statement reads in part.US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton while in Juba on Friday urged
both countries to reach an agreement on oil saying “a percentage of
something is better than a percentage of nothing.”South Sudan seceded from Sudan last year after an independence vote as
stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended more
than two decades of civil war in 2005.However, since South Sudan became an independent state, both sides
continue to trade accusations of supporting one another’s rebel
groups. There also arrangements of the CPA which remain unresolved,
including border demarcation, and the statehood of the Abyei region.
Progress has been made in the assignment of oil wealth with the
signing of an agreement in Addis Ababa announced on Friday.(ST) http://www.sudantribune.com/August-5-2012-JUBA-South-Sudan-has
END1
2. Sudan accused of destabilising S. Sudan with rebel militias
August 5, 2012 (JUBA) – Head of the parliamentary group representing
the country’s governing Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM),
Atem Garang de Kuek, reiterated claims that Khartoum provides military
support to militia groups and political dissidents working to create
instability in the country.Kuek said there are militia groups fighting to topple the Juba
government led by former rebels who now live luxurious lives in
Khartoum’s hotels.He said there is “substantial evidence” of Khartoum’s support of
rebels and that “we know where they are in Sudan. These are hard
facts”.The remarks were made at the New Sudan Hotel in Juba on Saturday,
where Kuek chaired a parliamentary meeting with members of parliament
from across the ten states of South Sudan representing his Sudan
People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the house.He claimed members of South Sudan Liberation Army/Movement; a militia
force previously led by Peter Gadet, has been orchestrating raids on
civil settlements from Sudanese territory, where they fled a year ago
after the South Sudan army (SPLA) launched an offensive against their
hideouts in Unity State.“If somebody is living in your house and you do not ask where the
person gets food, what this person does and what this person brings
back from where he went, automatically you are considered part of the
deal. This is exactly what Sudanese is doing”, said Kuek.He dismissed Khartoum’s claims that South Sudan supports cross-border
attacks, describing it an attempt to cover its military behaviour and
to distract and divert international attention from what he says is
Sudan’s long history of supporting militia groups and political
dissidents and other dissatisfied factions.The Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF); a coalition of Sudan’s major
rebel groups, is headed by members of the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement – North (SPLM-N); a breakaway faction of the former rebel
group which now rules South Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement.For Khartoum, acknowledgement of Juba’s support of the SPLM-N has been
a sticking point of ongoing negotiations between the two nations.(ST) http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-accused-of-destabilising-S
END2
3. South Sudan Kiir apologises to US Obama for denying his support to
Sudanese rebelsAugust 4, 2012 (LONDON) — South Sudan President Salva Kiir had to
write an apology letter to U.S. President Barack Obama to explain him
why he had to deny twice his support to the Sudanese rebels.US officials publically demanded Juba to stop its support to the
Sudanese rebel groups fearing that such behavior would empoison the
strained relations between the two country and lead to an all-out war
between the two countries affecting regional stability.The issue of Juba support to Sudan people’s Liberation Movement –
North (SPLM-N) rebels was raised twice by President Barack Obama
personally with his South Sudanese counterpart, but every time Kiir
lied, reported McClatchy, one of the largest US newspapers group, last
Thursday.“The problems began the first time the two leaders met, on the
sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting in September,”
the McClachy said. The second time was “weeks later, during a
follow-up phone call that was arranged to move past the September
meeting.”The White House was angered by Kiir’s persistent denial as Washington
played an important role to secure the referendum on
self-determination in South Sudan and backed the new nations up to the
declaration of independence on 9 July 2011.The American Administration had “strong intelligence” about the
support that Juba is providing to the rebel groups, the report said.Following the telephone conversation where he denied once again his
support to the Sudanese rebels, Kiir sent a letter to Obama described
as “apology letter”.“In that letter, Kiir wrote that he did know about his military’s
support to the Sudanese rebels, but he could not admit that to Obama
because his advisers were in the room and they did not know he was
aware of that support. Kiir said he was working to lessen the
support.”In a background briefingon the current African tour of U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton on Saturday 4 August, a senior State
Department official said the issue of Juba support to rebel groups was
raised by Hillary Clinton during her meeting of this week with
President Kiir.“The Secretary addressed it and encouraged there be an effort to
resolve these kinds of issues,” the senior official said under the
cover of anonymity.He further said that “Salva Kiir did tell the Secretary that he wanted
to be helpful to the government in Khartoum in helping them deal with
the political issues in South Kordofan and Blue Nile and that he
recognized the importance of having a stable and peaceful neighbor
next to him.”The senior official emphasised that they also asked Khartoum, which
bas bad relations with Washington, to stop its support to proxy groups
fighting against Juba government.In November 2011, the White House Deputy National Security Adviser
Denis McDonough flanked by Sudan’s special envoy Princeton Lyman where
in Khartoum and Juba to demand to the two parties to stop backing
rebel groups.The negotiating teams from the two sides will meet next September to
discuss the implementation of security arrangements and particularly a
buffer zone that Khartoum refuses to operationalise unless the
mediation removes a location called “Mile 14” from a map it proposes
to establish it.The rebel SPLM-N is also expected to engage political talks next month
with Khartoum. Regional and international observers believe that the
South Kordofan conflict complicated the settlement of unresolved
issues between the two countries.South Sudan’s ruling party, SPLM, seems more concerned by the fate of
their former comrades of the SPLM-N despite its alleged support to
Darfur rebels. The latter formed an alliance with the former and both
demand a comprehensive process to discuss Darfur, Blue Nile and South
Kordofan issues.(ST) http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Sudan-Kiir-apologises-to-US
END3
______________________
John AshworthSudan, South Sudan Advisor
About Post Author
