Sanctions on South Sudan: what a nightmare (03.05.2012 00:00)

It was Wednesday morning the following day, at 5am that I woke up on the sound of the BBC news presenter explaining that the UNSC discussed and threatened to impose economic sanctions on my nine-month-old country.

Many questions immediately started flooding my mind.

The rationalisation of the discussed sanctions was that it was a way to push South Sudan to withdraw from Heglig, an area Sudan claims as its territory.

But the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) withdrew from Heglig and now the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) as well withdraws all its police forces from Abyei. So why are sanctions on South Sudan still discussed?

It is internationally accepted that Heglig is part of Sudan. This is the assumption upon which the UN and the international community demanded the withdrawal of South Sudan’s troops from Heglig.

South Sudan never accepted this as a fact and Heglig is to be at best considered a contested region much like Abyei, which neither of the two countries can occupy.

Geographical and historical facts say that the original name of Heglig was Panthou, later changed by the former Sudanese president Jafer Nimeri to Heglig. Panthou Dinka make up the majority of people living in this area.

As for the international community, it would be wise to remember that the 2009 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) did not mention Heglig in its ruling, and therefore, for as long as borders are not demarcated, both parties can rely on whatever evidence they hold to claim it with equal legitimacy.

The Heglig crisis as well awakened repressed feelings of betrayal, especially concerning Abyei. While the SPLA pulled out its forces from the disputed region last year, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) kept a tight grip on it. What has the UN done to remedy this situation?

When South Sudan decided to practice its legitimate right to claim Heglig, the infant country faced the stick of the UN.

The same UN which was first to recognise the independence of South Sudan. The same UN which promised South Sudan help and support until the country becomes fully self-reliant, politically and economically.

Without a single proof, South Sudan was shunned as a law breaker, while there were no laws to be observed or broken, merely a generalised assumption propagated by Sudan and its allies.

Putting aside the premature and uncorroborated threat of sanctions on South Sudan, one must look at the disastrous consequences such sanctions would have on the country.

South Sudan has one of the world’s highest infant and maternal mortality rates. The illiteracy rate in the country is estimated to be at least 70% and the economic situation is far from flourishing.

Regardless of the rational and emotional reasons behind it, shutting down oil production earlier this year has put South Sudan in a severe economical impasse.

With these sanctions, the UN sends a very dangerous message: Claim what is yours, defend yourself, and your people shall face our wrath!

One must however not forget that our government was ill-prepared for such a crisis. It would have been wise of our government officials to have different reaction scenarios to fit any upcoming crisis.

This is what ruling a country means: To be prepared to serve the interests of your people no matter what crisis occurs.

This should also teach the Republic of South Sudan a lesson: Unless it strives to economically and politically sustain itself independently, it will continue to operate as a robot whenever faced with the disapproval of the international community.

The present over-reliance on foreign support spilling into the country certainly does not help the cause of economic independence.

But let us not forget, without international support, the 2011 referendum on independence would have probably never taken place.

Let us keep an open eye and a wise mind, play the ball right, and keep our painfully gained independence intact.