Final court decision on Sudan's oil fields

On July 22, the international Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, Netherlands, has delivered the final ruling on the disputed borders of the Abyei district in Sudan.

Both sides, the government in Khartoum and the autonomous government of Southern Sudan have hoped they would get Abyei.

This disputed north-south border region is the place where some of the country’s richest oil fields lie and both the north and south claim that this region belongs to them.

In May 2008, the northern and southern troops clashed in Abyei. About 100 people died while some 50,000 civilians were displaced from their homes.

Instead of giving the whole of Abyei to one side or another, the Court has decided to give a large part of the region to the South, while giving smaller parts of Abyei to the government in Khartoum.

Below is my op-ed article published on July 25 in Sudan Tribune in which I argue that the ruling is good for Sudan and particularly for Southern Sudan.

--------------------

Abyei ruling is good for Southern Sudan

The recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague have confirmed that the boundary of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms are geographically a part of Southern Sudan. At the same time, the oil rich areas of eastern and western Abyei have been awarded to Northern Sudan.

This was not a simple arbitration and court ruling. The judges knew they were making a final decision about a highly disputed and important region in a country whose top leadership took power in a military coup twenty years ago and has since waged a number of ruthless wars.

The panel of five judges knew that Sudan has just recently ended one of the bloodiest wars in Africa that lasted for over two decades and claimed about two million lives; that the country is currently facing a rebellion and horrific human suffering in Darfur, national elections in 2010, and a referendum on self-determination and a possible secession of the South in 2011.

The judges knew they had to be pragmatic and think what their ruling would do to the situation on the ground.

It seems as if the judges were not making a decision solely based on the court rules and law, but wanted to give something to each side and create a win-win situation from their ruling.

They probably kept in mind that a win-lose outcome would very likely lead to an immediate outburst of violence and conflict between the North and South and bring even worse suffering than what is happening in Darfur since 2003.

Riak Machar, the vice president of Southern Sudan, is quite right when he says that the ruling "is going to consolidate peace in Sudan. It is a victory for the Sudanese people and a victory for peace."

If the court had awarded the territory with the oil fields to the southerners, the Khartoum government would be left with hardly any oil and sources of foreign currency (in case the South chooses independence in 2011) and many angry and well trained and armed Arabs demanding a war against the Africans and "infidels" in the South in order to get back the oil and territory.

Giving the North the two oil fields in Abyei is very likely to satisfy the Khartoum regime and keep the peace between the North and South at least in the short run.

The South, on the other hand, has enough oil that, if managed properly in the future, it can live without the two Abyei oil fields.

After decades of war and suffering, Southern Sudan is finally experiencing a few years of peace and development. The South simply cannot afford any more fighting with Khartoum or anybody else. If the price of peace in the South is the two oil fields located in Abyei, it is a fair price to pay at this time.