From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Wed Nov 11 2009 - 16:10:59 EST
Whither Sudan?
Sudanese Presidential Adviser Mustafa Othman Ismail speaks to Al-Ahram
Weekly about the spectre of secession. The following interview was conducted
by Asmaa El-Husseini and El-Azab El-Tayeb
5 - 11 November 2009 Issue No. 971
_____
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/971/mustafa.jpg
Mustafa Othman Ismail
_____
Q: What is your reaction to the statements made by First Vice-President
Salva Kiir, in which he called on the southerners to vote in favour of
secession at the referendum scheduled for 2011?
My only comment is that the peace agreement signed by the National Congress
Party (NCP) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) calls on both
partners to move towards the option of unity. It is true that there are
problems facing the implementation of the agreement, but the current efforts
focus on implementing it through the existing partnership in the government
of national unity. Therefore, both partners have a duty to comply with the
provisions of the agreement and work hard for the option of unity.
Q: The SPLM has accused the NCP and the central government of making unity
unattractive by failing to implement development projects in the south. How
do you react to that?
Let me call your attention to something that many do not know. According to
the Naivasha Agreement, the share of south Sudan in wealth goes entirely to
the SPLM. Therefore, the lack of implementation of any project is something
for which only the SPLM and the southern government are to blame. As you
know, the budget of the state is divided between the north and the south.
The peace agreement has resolved this matter from the beginning. It
allocated specific sums to south Sudan to make unity attractive.
Q: Are you telling me that the central government is not responsible for
implementing projects in southern Sudan?
You're right. The government is not responsible for implementing any
projects in the south.
Q: Are you prepared in the north to accept the option of secession without
fuss?
We certainly hope that the southerners would opt for unity. And on our side,
we will keep working towards this goal for a number of reasons. One is that
the Naivasha Agreement makes it our duty to make unity the primary option.
Another is that we are convinced that secession would be as harmful to the
south as it is to the north, and bad news for the entire region. Secession
will not lead to security and stability between north and south, but will be
a regional precedent and the start of a period of tensions and disturbances.
A third reason is that Sudan is a country with enough room for everyone, due
to the cultural, ethnic, and religious pluralism which we have been
promoting over the past four years. A fourth reason is that the southerners
are in full charge of the south right now. The southerners have seats in the
administration of all the northern governorates and in the federal
government as well. They can rule the entire country too, for the current
constitution allows for the president to be a southerner. This being the
case, why secede? What are the reasons for secession? If I were a southerner
I would work hard for unity, for it would enable me to rule Sudan. I
therefore find no reason for the recent calls for secession in the south.
Personally, I doubt the accuracy of the remarks attributed to Salva Kiir,
for he has repeatedly spoken in support of unity.
Q: Do you believe that there are regional powers, perhaps even international
powers, pushing for the secession of the south? After all, Salva Kiir's
recent remarks coincided with a decision by the US administration to renew
sanctions on Sudan for another year.
One can distinguish between two types of international positions in this
regard. Some people, thinking of their own interests, encourage the
secession of the south. Others care for the interests of Sudan and Africa
and try to maintain the unity of Sudan, because unity is essential for those
interests. I agree with you that there are parties trying to promote their
own interests by encouraging the south to secede.
Q: There is a near consensus that the option of secession will not end the
problems of the south, but trigger worse problems, for it may lead to a
civil war. Already, there are signs of conflict among southern tribes and
factions.
I totally agree. Secession will not lead to stability in the south, as its
supporters imagine, and may even destabilise the south and the entire
region. Therefore, our first priority at present should be to focus on the
unity of Sudan.
Q: There are groups in the north that are in favour of secession. What can
you do to neutralise their impact?
All political groups, and this goes for those with close links to the SPLM
or other factions, have a duty to maintain unity and make it attractive.
Q: What's happening with the talks in Doha about Darfur? Is there hope of a
breakthrough?
The talks in Doha are scheduled to resume in mid-November. There is a
consensus, regionally and internationally, that the coming phase needs to be
decisive. But the main obstacle facing us is the discord and divisions in
the ranks of the insurgent movements in Darfur. We are hoping that efforts
to unify the position of those groups would bear fruit.
Q: Qatar, Egypt and Libya are all trying to resolve that crisis for example.
Do you think that it would be better for such countries to work in tandem?
It is our hope that all efforts would contribute to finding a solution to
the Darfur problem and to making the talks in Doha a success. If there is
enough goodwill, all the current efforts would help bring a successful
conclusion to the talks in Doha.
Q: Is the Doha dialogue the only ongoing mechanism to containing the crisis
in Darfur?
At least for us in Sudan, it is the main mechanism.
Q: Do you see a contradiction between the mediation roles of Egypt and
Qatar?
Let me answer this by repeating what Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed
Abul-Gheit said, which is that the Egyptian role is geared towards bringing
a successful conclusion to the talks in Doha.
Q: US Envoy Scot Gration has recently been making efforts to unify the
factions in Darfur. Is he helping bring the crisis to an end?
It all depends on the goals and intentions involved. If Gration's aim is to
find a comprehensive solution to the crisis, then he is helping. But if his
goal is to make the factions unite in undermining the talks with the
government, then he is not helping.
Q: How does the Sudanese government see Gration's efforts in this regard?
So far we generally believe that the intentions of the US envoy are good,
despite all the pressures he is facing inside the US administration. We hope
to see his intentions turn into actions.
Q: Don't you think that declaring Halayeb a voting constituency may
undermine Egyptian- Sudanese relations? Wouldn't it have been better for the
Sudanese authorities to refrain from such a move?
Let me tell you that the declaration of Halayeb as a voting constituency was
not a decision made by the Sudanese government. It was a decision made by
the elections commission in response to requests by Sudanese citizens living
in the area. So let's not be too hard on the commission. It did not consult
the Sudanese government before making its decision, but simply looked into
the facts and recognised the need of citizens to participate in the
elections. This is why it acted this way. When it comes to Sudanese-Egyptian
relations, what we need is to find a comprehensive way to resolve that
issue. It is my belief that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak took a step in
the right direction during my meeting with him last Sunday. He issued prompt
instructions for joint Egyptian-Sudanese companies to begin investment and
to start laying down infrastructure in the area. This is a very positive
step in my opinion.
Q: Has the declaration of Halayeb as a voting constituency affected
relations between Cairo and Khartoum, as some say?
I haven't noticed that at all. In fact, the matter was not on the agenda of
my meeting with President Mubarak. President Omar Al-Bashir visited Cairo
recently. There may have been some negative coverage in the media, but I
don't think this has affected the course of bilateral relations.
Q: The Committee of African Wisemen has suggested mixed tribunals to try war
criminals in Darfur. You don't seem to have taken a clear position on it.
How would you respond to this idea? And would it affect the work of the
International Criminal Court (ICC)?
We have generally approved the committee's report. As for the formation of
mixed tribunals, we have asserted our commitment to justice. We want anyone
who committed crimes in Darfur to be brought to justice, regardless of his
position. Our only condition is that this be done in a fair and transparent
manner. What we want is for the new mechanism to comply with the principle
of the independence of the judiciary. This is not the first time this idea
comes up. It was suggested during the visit by the Arab League secretary-
general to Khartoum after the ICC issued an arrest warrant on President
Al-Bashir. Now that the idea is floated again, those who want to implement
it must start a dialogue with the Sudanese judiciary. In principle, we are
for any mechanism or effort leading to justice, reassurance, and
transparency while maintaining the independence of the national judiciary.
Q: If such a mechanism is introduced, would it supersede the ICC arrest
warrant on President Al-Bashir?
We have rejected the warrant to start with. So there is no room for
cooperation with the ICC. Therefore, we oppose the trial of any Sudanese
outside Sudan. But we have agreed to cooperate with African forums on
various directions and levels. This made us accept the suggestions contained
in the report of the Committee of African Wisemen. If the African mechanism
becomes a substitute for the ICC, then it would offer a way out for those
who sponsored Al-Bashir's arrest warrant. But if those who issued the
warrant keep pushing for it, then the confrontation between the ICC and the
Sudanese government would continue.
