Sudan-South Sudan relations: swinging between threat and dialogue

Since the beginning of the Heglig crisis, relations between Sudan and South Sudan started to swing between threat and dialogue. Tomorrow negotiations between the two countries are scheduled to resume in Addis.

NCP Political Secretary, Hasbu Mohamed Abdulrahman, explains some aspects of the complicated relations between Sudan and South Sudan, as well as some internal political aspects.

Dialogue and war

Q: Many people believe that war is too costly under the current financial difficulties in Sudan, so should the NCP, as the ruling party, adopt dialogue instead of war and escalation?

A: There are many reasons why a good relationship between the North and South is inevitable. Confrontation cannot continue; we agree on this, but the South seems to be under pressure and is provocative, such as [holding the idea that] the North may collapse if it’s not provided with oil. We, however, believe that oil will not cause economic collapse, and God has opened many resources for us.

When Muhammad Ali Pasha came here 100 years ago, finding gold was one of his goals, but gold was not found during his era; it was found only now. This is the will of God. And this is only one of Sudan’s natural resources.

Q: Was the framework agreement with the South over the four rights (transport, movement, ownership, and work) wrong? In other words, did the NCP fail to negotiate the agreement well, and given what happened in Heglig, were those NCP voices who rejected the agreement correct?

A: Let me start with the strategic relationship with the South. The NCP strategically, and since the establishment of al-Inkaz, believes in dialogue; basic issues should be solved through dialogue. We do not intend to go to war.

The South’s case is not new; it started long before its independence. I believe that during all eras, be it during Abboud, al-Mahdi, or Nimeiry’s time, there wasn’t a strong political will to solve the problem with the South. The NCP, based on an informed political will, says that we need to address it; we have to respect the will of the Southerners, whatever it is. That is why we continued to negotiate even while the war was going on. We did not stop negotiations because there were clashes here and there.

We accepted the referendum’s result, which showed that the majority wanted separation; even the leaders who were on our side wanted separation. Thus, I believe that the problem with the South was solved through dialogue. We had two options: war, which meant destruction and wasting resources, or peace, which is better.

Now, some Southern and Northern political forces want to exploit the existence of South Sudan to change the regime in Khartoum, and that is why COWDA, the Revolutionary Front, and other coalitions have appeared. We have an important goal, and as a local proverb says, the hunter in pursuit of an elephant does not stop to throw stones at birds” -- we will not get lost in accidental or secondary goals. Thus, we have refused to respond to provocations because there are people who don’t want stability and think that the regime will fall.

We believe that God gives power to whom he wants and takes away from whom he wants. Our intentions towards the South are positive; we want to establish relations in our mutual interest because of our proximity, history, and geography. Thus, if any advantages or exceptions can be granted to the South, they must be granted because we want to build a good and strategic relationship with them.

Our cause isn’t short-term or linked to any interest or exploitation of the other; strong ties with the South are inevitable because the South is the most important country to us among our neighbours. I believe that the South itself has achieved its utmost goal -- separation -- through peace not through war, and I believe that the same approach should be used now as well. They should stop supporting Darfur movements, detach from them, and negotiate with us on safe and stable borders.

Q: But if dialogue is the basis of relations between Sudan and South Sudan, how can you explain the assault on Heglig that coincided with the start of dialogue that was described by many as good?

A: This happened because the South is a newborn state; it doesn’t have mature institutions. We, however, have strategic goals and will not be prevented from working for them by accidents. What happened in Heglig was an accident regardless of its cost.

My personal belief is that the South intends to drive the rebel movements out into the north because they are troubling them. Those movements have an agreement with the South to overthrow the regime in Khartoum, but this goal has not been achieved, and the regime will not fall. They will not manage to break through the borders, and even if it happens, they will not stay for long because the Sudanese army has never been defeated. Besides this, our negotiating delegation is now in Addis Ababa. We are the bigger country and we have experience. We have faced many ambushes, attacks, and penetrations, but we have not stopped peace-seeking.

Q: During your speech, you mentioned that there are powers provoking the South and pushing it to war. Which powers are they?

A: Foreign countries, including Israel, and even inside the country there are the opposition parties which speak about overthrowing the regime and working to achieve the Southern agenda.

Security arrangements and armed movements

Q: As for security arrangements, it’s known that there are rebel movements near the border strip between the South and the North. Both sides speak about a security agreement; will this be achieved through negotiation with those armed movements?

A: When the NCP Leadership Office approved the agreements, a precondition was to settle the security issue because otherwise we can’t execute what we agree on, even over the oil issue. Thus, our delegation went to Addis Ababa with a view that security was a priority. The security issue will only be settled through the South’s disengagement with the pro-SPLM 10th Division in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile and stopping support of the Revolutionary Front. In spite of the violations in Heglig, we insist on peace; we will not be blocked by the South’s other agendas.

Q: Disengagement with the 9th and 10th Divisions is understandable because the issue is governed by a non-executed protocol, but what about the Darfur movements? Will disengagement alone solve the security problem on the borders?

A: The South now supports the Darfur movements with arms. When the SPLA attacked Heglig, the Justice and Equality Movement was with them. The South must stop its support and close the training camps opened on its territories for those movements. We, in turn, invite the Darfur movements to negotiate peace, and our door is open. One of the benefits of the Doha agreement is that it is open for those willing to join. Although some issues will not be discussed, our message to the movements is: no choice but peace.
 
Q: What about Agar and Al-Helou, since they also have a political cause?

A: It is now our intention to make those people disengage with the South. After that they will be worthless because they derive their strength from the South’s logistic and military support.

Q: Does this mean that after disengagement, you will eliminate them militarily?

A: The South can expel them out of its territories or disarm them and keep them there, we don’t care, but to host and finance them, to pay them salaries—that is not acceptable to us.

Partisan dialogue and the succession of al-Bashir

Q: What do you think about the opposition political parties saying that the NCP is not serious about the constitutional process and that it is just propaganda?

A: Why is it not serious? Dialogue is the NCP’s priority. Now the party is calling for partnership with other political parties even though we have won the majority of votes in the elections. The NCP has opened the door for participation and, thank God, we have a big number of parties supporting us now, some of which are in the government. We have agreed with some about the national constants, as well as the participation in the formulation of a permanent constitution. So, the NCP believes in dialogue; it doesn’t want to rule alone. We ask even those who don’t want to take part to act as a mature opposition.
 
Q: For example, since the President suggested the creation of a National Constitution Committee, why has no movement supported the idea or started to realise it?

A: Now, there is dialogue with the political forces to come to a consensus about the constitution; very soon a national mechanism will be created regarding this.

Q: What is that mechanism?

A: We have listened to the Council of Parties of the National Unity Government and the Political Organisations Commission, and we have to listen to all parties, so when the committee is created, it will become the official mechanism to unite opinion; it might include non-party legal and constitutional experts.

Q: But aren’t the opposition parties saying that the NCP is limiting consultations about the constitution to the parties participating in the government?

A: Isn’t the Democratic Unionist Party, which participated in the dialogue with us, a big party?

Q: How about the Communist Party, the Popular Party, and the Nation Party?
 
A: We did not prevent anyone from participating. We talked to the Nation Party and others, except those who refused to participate.

Q: What was their response?

A: The final opinion will be crystallised when we create the National Committee.

Q: Dr. Amin Hassan Omar said that there are currents within the NCP fighting to succeed al-Bashir. Is that true?

A: These are personal opinions. Of course, one of the NCP’s advantages is that it is a big party with great thinkers. It also doesn’t prevent individual opinions and perspectives. Those are individual opinions, whether Mustafa or Amin, and we respect them, but in the end, there is an institutional opinion. What the institution decides will be binding. The NCP is not like the individual-based charismatic parties, in which there is only one individual opinion.

Elections and the future of Sudan

Q: There is an Islamic current which introduced a constitutional document stating that the presidential candidates must be Muslims. What is the NCP’s opinion about this document?

A: There isn’t an official opinion yet; everything being said is only analysis and individual opinions. For us, the binding thing is what the Sudanese people decide, what the parliament passes, and what is proposed for popular referendum. I think, however, that the majority of the Sudanese people are Muslims. So, if we talk about Shura, direct or indirect democracy, they are the majority, but the rights of others are protected, and the NCP encompasses all Sudanese people regardless of their differences.

Q: As for the elections, Dr. Mustafa Osman said that the NCP expects to carry out early elections in accord with other political parties. Will that happen?

A: Mustafa set a precondition; he said if the political parties agreed about the necessity of early elections, they might be held earlier.

In any case, Mustafa’s opinion is personal and does not reflect the party’s opinion. This issue hasn’t been proposed for a decision by the Leadership Office or the political sector. The NCP, as an institution, has not discussed the issue of early elections, and we can’t put the cart in front of the horse.

Q: Hasn’t the election issue been discussed within the party even as an idea?

A: No, it hasn’t.

Q: People say that raising the election issue at this time means that the NCP feels endangered because of pressure, whether internal ones such as the economic crisis and the war on the borders, or external in the relation to the international community; and it wants a way out. What do you think?

A: The NCP hasn’t been subject to any pressure, and it is now at its best. The NCP is organisationally and structurally coherent; it has taken the initiative with other political powers; its relations with all neighbouring countries are very good. We had a problem with Libya in the past, but now our relationship with the new regime is good. We have no problems with Ethiopia, Eritrea, or Egypt. Even with the South, which has an aggressive attitude towards us, we have dialogue now.

Q: If the political parties accept early elections, will this solve Sudan’s current problem, especially when many parties call for early elections?

A: The elections, with or without an agreement, are not a solution. The constitution is the solution. We have to agree on a permanent constitution, and based on that, we can set the procedures.

Q: Does this mean that reaching an agreement about the constitution is now a priority for the NCP compared to the elections?

A: Yes, because the constitution is the document that sets sustainable solutions for other issues.