What’s the Confederation replacing in the CPA–Unity or Separation and AU blunders on Sudan?
By Rengo Gyyw Rengo, Jr., Southern Sudan
JULY 17, 2010
Few days ago on July 14th 2010, a colleague working with the National Democratic Institute [NDI], a Washington D.C-based organization working for the principles of good governance, human rights, citizens civic and political education etc in the South called me from the town of Waw, Western Bhar al Ghazal State and asked me, “Rengo, what is the public opinion about confederation in Juba?”.
I replied that, “the public opinion about confederation in Juba is that; the people do not know about confederation since it wasn’t mentioned in the CPA! All they know is either unity or separation.” And I went ahead by asking, “What’s the confederation replacing in the CPA, unity or separation?” It took Peter Machar a little while of chuckling before he told me he was lecturing that morning to a group of Southern Sudanese citizens about referendum and all it will require for them to do.
Indeed, some citizens, those who heard about confederation, thought the CPA was being re-negotiated to create room for it. Others do not really understand what it is, yet there are many who do not know whether there is something calls confederation being discussed by SPLM and Khartoum. They [citizens] are so impatient and impetuous about secession and preoccupied with the referendum to choose between unity and secession that other things could pass their notice without their attention. “Does it mean the items to be voted for in the CPA have changed from unity to confederation and secession?” a friend later asked. I had no immediate answer.
Well, I gave it a thought and decided to write this article in response. Indeed, many people do not understand the term confederation as an entity and in relation to federalism, are they related? While momentum for confederation has risen in recent days, following the publication of Thabo Mbeki’s proposals on behalf of the African Union [11 July 2010 ST], in which confederation was mentioned, then it matters to us to write about it and place it to where it belongs! What the AU backs up might have a position of signifance. But what is it in the CPA and in relation to it?
Few years ago, Malik Agar Eyre, a senior SPLM member was heard calling for confederation. Though, his call was largely ignored, Malik knew Khartoum has not made unity attractive for the South, and the South as a result, is seriously pondering total secession in a free and fair plebiscite. In order to favour neither Khartoum nor the South and to accommodate his people the Funj plus others in one political entity aka New Sudan, Malik thought of confederation as a compromise for everybody in opposing positions. I shall come to what it means later.
It is with this findings that I now think the idea of confederation is a fall back position for those who thought unity would work in lieu of South Sudan’s independence. However, since it has certainly become clear that, South Sudan separation is more attractive and inevitable comes January 9, next year 2011 due to failure of unity, the world and African Union still hold the view that total divorce might degenerate to further post-referendum wars pitting the newly independent states against each other over resources and unresolved issues such as the North-South International border where resources and their locations are playing a big role in furthering misunderstandings. I believe it is this reason that has made the African Union to revisit Malik Agar’s proposition for confederation. However, when shall confederation be applicable, now or after independence? If it is after independence, was that what Malik Agar wanted or meant in the first place? Certainly not. And if it is now, does the CPA cater for confederation? And what is confederation? Is it necessary to discuss or moot something not in the CPA just months away to the end of the CPA?
The CPA is always there to speak for itself! The CPA Machakos Protocol of 20th July 2002, which is the Mother of All Protocols, requires the people of Southern Sudan to exercise the right to self-determination in a referendum scheduled for January 9, 2011. For them, their total vote in a referendum shall:
(a) Confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to sustain the system of government established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and interim Constitution, or
(b) Vote for secession.
These hypotheses lack vagueness and ambiguity at all. Intentionally and generally, the CPA for the first time has brought Sudan under meaningful federal system like the one operating in Southern Sudan moulded on American and British system. Federalism itself has not been welcome in the Sudan since independence [1956] with exception of the regional government in Juba between 1972 and 1980. Taking a glance at the CPA wordings, the term confederation is not explicitly mentioned in the CPA. Instead, it is “unity” that is mentioned but what type of unity? A “yes vote” for unity under the CPA shall confirm the current political system in the country. What does that mean? It means sustaining the current system of government established under the CPA the way it is, without subtraction and addition. Well, it is upto us if we understand the system under the CPA. Even if all were be left intact, wealth sharing formula can not be left the way it is, because the South is disadvantaged and aggrieved by the wealth sharing formula, 50-50% of resources found within the Southern region! South Sudan wants total control of its resources.
The system under the CPA technically refers to the confederation because it guarantees over 98% of self-autonomy to the South. It is not the Old Sudanese unity that was operated under total and absolute centralization managed by Arab autocratists and Islamic theocratists. The CPA worked out the relationship between the North and the South on modus vivendi temporary basis for six years until the referendum either seals or breaks the cord of relationships at the time of date expiry.
Having a separate army, defined population, strong government in charge of the South and territory make the South more of a State than a mere region of Sudan. Thus, majority of analysts view this as already a confederal State against the North, pending the actual dissolution. President Kiir while addressing the Sudanese opposition conference in September 2009, Juba, hinted on that, that, “After painful and protracted sessions of negotiations, the turning point came in the Machakos Framework Protocol (July 2002) which, to all ends and purposes, resolved cardinal issues relating to what came to be known as the “problem of the South”. Those issues included autonomy to Southern Sudan bordering on a confederal status, right to self – determination”, he explained. If this is the case, then unity stated in the CPA and the much publicized confederation mean the same thing. The authors of confederation need to give chance to the consummation of the CPA through referendum and if by luck, southerners vote for the so-called unity, God Forbids, they will have voted for confederation, not undefined unity! In one way or another, confederation is catered for under the CPA and can not be re-discussed!
Based on this understanding, Hassan El Turabi, the man behind all Islamic ideology and propagation in the Sudan observed that Sudan’s unity was dissolved from the day the CPA was signed on Janaury 9 2005! And Khartoum did not understand the technical and political wordings Dr. Garang had applied in the CPA, making others to be left behind by reality. For him, the contemporary reaction against secession in Khartoum is nothing but late awakening to the CPA language and resolutions.
Before I examine a possibility of confederation after independence which is side B of this paper, there is need to define the term confederation and see its difference from federalism. Confederation, is authoritatively a political science and management term, albeit not frequent in use, which describes an amalgamation of sovereign states each of which is free to act independently. It makes a distinction or differentiable from a federation, in which the individual states lack the sovereignty aspects and are subordinated to the central government.
Southern Sudan is not yet a sovereign state in her current status, hence it is in federation with the rest in the Sudan, albeit there exists a huge degree of self-autonomy that makes it look rather a confederation, until it becomes fully independence and sovereign. Federalism, a political system in which one or more states or regions defer some powers to a central government while withholding a limited amount of self-rule. This can be operated at national or international levels of government. The absence of or the presence of sovereignty makes a distinction between federalism and confederation.
Therefore, confederation is an association of sovereign states that give little powers to the confederation while federation is an association of non-sovereign states or regions, with much power given to the federal government than what they can exercise.
That makes confederation thinkable in the Sudan only after the South Sudan’s independence. Though, the irony is that, the word federal, Latin fidere, meaning “to trust” would not generate its meaning in the Sudanese context, whether I may sound a cynic or skeptic, the word trust is unheard or non-existence. Trust has never been cultivated in the Sudan among its diversities. Instead, it is perfidiosity, discord and rancor that have been embedded within the fabrics of our society. Thank God, confederation would require Southern Sudan to become a sovereign state first! Then, we can co-trust each other since confederation in Latin would mean “co-trust” or “cooperate”, whatever that will mean in future.
What exactly do the international Community and African Union believe in confederation? I understand the African Union wants confederation table as one of the post referendum issues, ranking number two in the item lists. There could be extreme reasons that calls for confederation of North-South future States after their separate independences.
There are both economic and political reasons with potentiality of conflicts. Over 80% of oil deposits are found in South Sudan but conspicuously, both the refinery machinery and transportation oil pipeline are located in the North. Divorcing these economic relations immediately will have great impacts on the two independent states with far reaching consequences, because the withdrawal of oil from the North by the South will naturally lead to collapse of the Northern economy while the act of not refining and transporting the oil out of the South to the market, will stagnate the Southern economy.
Despite these obvious problems, the way the oil has been exploited in the Sudan, and location of the oil refinery and pipeline in the north, all of which were against the wishes of the South have left deep mistrusts and grudges that might endanger the need for continued future relationship between the two regions. The South might take a risk of withdrawing its oil and forgo both oil pipeline and refinery in the North to continue punishing the North, [though, then we can not continue fighting an enemy that is no longer there], and seeking alternative of construction oil refinery in the South and pipeline to East Africa.
The world is equally seeing a difficulty in separating the North-South international border. The presence of oil resources on or near the border has complicated the demarcation process. The North does not want to respect the 1/1/1956 borderline between the North and the South because it leaves all oil wells within the South to their disadvantage. For this not to happen, Khartoum believes in the law that, “possession is a ninth-tenths of the law.” The fact that these resources belong to the South has not deterred the North from autocratic grasping, plundering and defying the world over the border.
Therefore, the question of oil resources on or near the border is already overshadowed by the border conflicts. There is unprecedented militarization of border zones and frequent incursions of government sponsored militias into villages near the oilfields and border to create buffer zones. The South on the other hand wants her rightful border placed correctly according the 1/1/1956 borderline to include her oil deposits, lands and people. The complexity of these issues has a clear potency of war before and after South’s secession. Always, border matters take long to resolve.
To avert conflicts, African Union wants confederation to continue dragging the two states in longterm relations that will involve continuous negotiations to resolve the outstanding problems and to share economic benefits. Thabo Mbeki’s statement underscores this when he observed that, “In the 21st century, the world has changed, and especially Africa has changed. No nation is an island sufficient unto itself… The striving towards economic and political integration is more than a manifestation of Africa’s deep-seated recognition that our strength comes from our common identity. Closer ties among ourselves are a necessity for our continent’s security and development”. Practically, this might be difficult to achieve. The South might not want to continue living in falsehood imposed upon it by the North at the expenses of her own benefits, political status and sovereignty. It is with these reasons that pacifists consider confederation an option to be explored.
Thirdly, the African Union bound by its principle of unity of the continent, stands against further balkanization of the continent in principle. Despite its weak strategies in protecting minorities’ rights, resource distributions, and rampant autocracy over indigenous citizen rights, all of which have led to incessant wars, African Union continues to call for Unity. Mbeki noted, “The African Union is itself an expression of the African continent’s desire for integration and unity”. However it would be good to note here that the AU type of unity and the Sudanese type of unity are not the same. AU unity follows UN principles in the UN Charter and international standards while the Sudanese unity follows the apartheid type as exhibited in South Africa. The Southern Sudanese calls the former, “unity on the new basis” which Khartoum does not render support. We also distaste any nation that calls for Sudan’s unity on apartheid basis. These two must be made clear. If we can not harmonize on “new basis”, we disintegrate, not confederate.
Sometimes, African Union leaders call for unity without specifying what they mean by unity. This is misinterpreted in both North and South. The North says, the African Union and the continent support her type of unity which is apartheid-based in character. The South says, African Union is against the CPA, its own principles and those of the United Nations Charter, which are against the apartheid not only in the Sudan, Africa but also throughout the whole world. In fact, avoidance of condemning of apartheid in the Sudan tantamounts to African Union’s complicity in the Southern Sudanese’s oppression. Jean Ping’s call for unity and AU condemneous of Beshir’s indictment to charges of crimes he has deliberately and invariably committed in the Sudan are clear evident that AU is taking a connivance stand in favour of the North than the world justice and peace.
While the continental unity is desirable and contingent on local unity, this principle may not be applicable in all cases within the continent. Local divisions as political remedy to chronic problems do not prevent continental unity! Eritrean’s secession from Ethiopia in 1993 creates exceptions. Eritrea’s independence brought peace to Africa and in no way has Eritrea hampered continental unity. The same goes for the now impending South Sudan’s independence in a referendum. A number of distinct factors make division of Sudan more favourable than unity which has given Africa as a whole its dark records in which it watched the massacres of the Sudanese citizens without raising a voice.
Belatedly, African Union witnessed the repercussions of the Sudanese wars, and consciously but stealthily took part in negotiations and resolutions of her conflicts. The most candid approach to resolve the conflict was the adoption of the referendum for the South to decide her future between the Sudanese voluntary unity and voluntary secession for the South. AU affixed her signature on this clause as one of the fourteen world CPA signatories. So, Jean Ping’s outrageous comments against the secession depict a character of Jekyll and Hyde.
So, is the African Union’s search for confederation! The CPA gives these two free options, of unity and secession, without hindrance or facilitation. Why preempting or condemning the choice of the citizens, yet they say, the best law is the Will of the majority?
The African Union’s fear is beyond South Sudan’s independence. It is aware that there are still distinct problems lurking in waiting in the North such as the Nuba Mountains, Funj, Darfur and Beja conflicts that might follow the precedent created in the South to demand for their self-determination and independence from the remaining North. Someone who might have visited Sudan might not consider this a wish or a fantasy- it is real. Beyond Sudan, there are hotspots within the continent like the Ogaden rebels, Oromo Liberation Front, Somaliland, Puntland in Somali, Saharawi, and the Polisarios who seek some justice in their territories.
Justice denied is justice stolen and justice sought after. It is these lurking problems that are commonly cited by the African Union as justification to oppose Sudanese secession. Khartoum to canvass and gain support also capitalizes on these local and international fears.
In order not to contribute to political awareness in pursuits for self-determination in the above areas, AU seeks to block this, by looking for ways of keeping the South attached to the North in some ways, whether through direct union, or confederation. It is these pertinent questions regarding the above Sudanese areas that are haunting the continent and its body which wants to take refuge in denying South Sudan her independence to accommodate the interests of others and depict itself of meeting its international obligation for bettering African continent already marred by its irresponsibility.
AU should have learned out of Kosovan experience in which Europe though craves for its unity, it did not play with Kosovan’s independence even when Serbia was opposing it. Europe would be better off without unity than undermining the thirst for justice among the Kosovan people who were exposed to genocidal plans. African populations though majority in the Sudan have experienced the same degree of systematic annihilations and deserve better political treatment from all peace loving peoples.
Fourthly, Northern Sudanese’s economic survival is dependent on the South Sudanese’s natural resources. Khartoum numerous regimes since 1956 have had always used resources from the South to develop the North, at the expenses of the producing region. There has been zero development in the South since creation, so to say. This exploitation was quite visible in war and now in Southern Sudan where GOSS is waging another war against backwardness in all sectors of needs in an area of 440,000 km sqs. Such vast area has nothing to show for having such huge wealth.
Therefore, it was a war factor. We fought to develop the South. Separation will enable the South to go away with its resources to the disadvantage of the North. Philanthropists within the political formations seek confederation to help boost the northern economy, lest its backlashes are felt in the South and for humanitarian concerns. This is what they fear but they are misjudging the future before it comes.
Fifthly, the world is looking for its scapegoat in the Sudan, a goat that will keep on carrying the load of terrorism to the desert without spillovers to the peaceful world. Sudan’s Islamic extremisms and fundamentalism is feared within Africa and the world. Sudan has been and is still in the American list of countries sponsoring world terrorism, with Sudan President, Omar Beshir indicted against crimes committed in Darfur [South and other areas not mentioned]; crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide crimes plus sanctions.
Of recent, there was a leak out that Sudan has imported weapon factories from Iran with support from Iranian Revolutionary Guards to produce weapons in the Sudan for the Gazan Hamas, Yemenis rebels and Al-shabab in Somalia on top of intending to annihilate local rebellions such as the one mentioned earlier above in Darfur and those that might come up. Some fatalistic people and countries believe, leaving such government without the South would be creating a hub for Islamic terrorism in the Sudan. Just like the British have held the view that the South has been a balancer for Khartoum since it bled to oppose Khartoum’s radical ideas. AU has never mentioned this but the idea of who will fight terrorism in the Sudan certainly lies behind the call for confederation.
However, most western countries are tired of using the South to fend off terrorism and now want South Sudan’s independence! The South can still play its role of opposing terrorism very well when it is independent and in collaboration with the world.
Malik Agar’s version of confederation is purely meant to serve the interests of the disputed areas namely the Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile who are neither given a choice to choose in a referendum between unity or separation nor sympathetic to the Islamic concepts in Khartoum. All these make accumulation of factors/cartels for unity rather than a support for South Sudan separation. He is neither in support of Khartoum nor amused with the ideas of separation because none of these serves the interest of his central people. Confederation is meant to solve that difficulty.
The South may not be blamed for opting to secede because the radical question of Islam in politics has become an Achilles’ heel for Khartoum and very much responsible for the country’s breakup. Everybody should blame the North for that antiunity stand. All Sudanese can only be safe in a secular society.
Conclusion
drawing my conclusion from these analyses, the possibility of establishing a North-South confederation system rather than two separate states option available in the 2011 self determination referendum should completely be out of question. Confederation takes us back to the question of Arabism, and Islamic theocracy which are responsible for non-coexistence of the Sudanese people in diversity. Confederation is catered for under the CPA, under unity option; hence those who moot it again are tautologizing only. Therefore, it is replacing nothing, not unity and not secession in the CPA! Is any one trying to confederate Islam in the North against secularity in the South?
I understand there is a general and obvious admission that unity will never work in the Sudan, fomenting an attempt to replace the term “unity” with the term “confederation” in the CPA but that is too late. It is a sheer violation of the CPA and aforethought interference with the democratic process. If for more than 50 years of Sudan’s chaotic independence, unity with all efforts and concertions has failed, then secession should be given a chance to bring peace to the region. Independent South and independent North might be in better position to bring peace to Africa and the world. The CPA knows or asks only the Southern Sudanese to choose either free unity or free secession without hindrance or facilitation, and when the Southern Sudanese citizens carried the vote for the free unity that automatically becomes a confederation.
The world can not determine South Sudan foreign policy before she becomes independence. Based on its foreign policy, strategic partnerships and strategic resources, the State after 2011 will work its priorities out as a state relation is concerned. However, if secession vote is wholly carried, confederation ceases right there and then, except as stated above. The country’s foreign policy will dictate her future policies. Therefore, do not confuse the voting process. Any call for confederation should be shunned until the CPA reaches its destiny and independence consummated in 2011.
Malik Agar should understand, without the South, the disputed areas still have the future. Justice can never be sought extrinsically; once it is stolen, justice must be sought by the people themselves. President Bush said in his 2002 inaugural address, that, “Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling.
Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.” The Funj, Fur and the Nubians must understand that the success of liberty in their disputed lands is dependent on the success of liberty and independence in South Sudan, and peace in Sudan is dependent in peace, freedom and liberty in those areas. If what is delivered has not served the interest of the people, they should be free to decide for themselves the best way towards their destiny.
It is extremely rare to find any country or countries in this modern world in a union called confederation. America was first founded on confederalism before it was reverted to federalism which was and is a better system to confederation. The reasons that led America to reject confederation could be the same reasons that make confederation in the Sudan unthinkable. The religious and racial dichotomy in the Sudan has reached a disastrous proportion. Therefore, allow citizens to vote freely between secession and unity, secularism and Islamic theocracy, peace and chaos, etc and accept the results!
Rengo Gyyw Rengo, Jr is a Masters Degree student in International Relations and Diplomacy. He can be reached rgrengo@yahoo.com
About Post Author
