contribution by Tim Flatman

Over the weekend, Sudanese Armed Forces took control of Abyei town on the borders of North & South Sudan, after two days of aerial bombardment and ground fighting in surrounding areas.

President Bashir dissolved Abyei administration in a congratulatory broadcast. Tens of thousands of Southern civilians were successfully evacuated in the morning, with no adequate shelter or food. The number of civilians killed or injured in the attacks is unknown.

This was described by the US as a “disproportionate and irresponsible” response to an incident on Thursday where SAF forces withdrawing from Abyei and escorted by UNMIS soldiers were attacked, allegedly by SPLA forces. SPLA deny responsibility.

I would prefer a delay to give the international community chance to try and persuade the North to withdraw before the South is forced to respond. However, I think it’s important to set out the Southern case so that everyone can understand the logic of an immediate response and see why response does not constitute aggression.

Southerners argue that waiting before a response will give the Government of Sudan the chance to entrench their position and make their forces more difficult to remove at a later date, increasing the amount of blood that will be shed in the process.

They argue that tens of thousands of displaced civilians are still in a vulnerable position and there is no guarantee that SAF will not advance further South, so they need to be in a position to protect their people.

They also argue that the international community will not put sufficient pressure on the North to get them to withdraw. They argue that recent agreements the international community has facilitated have been biased towards the North.

A period of a few days grace would demonstrate that a forceful response by the South is a last resort and that even though they do not believe the international community is willing or able to apply the kind of pressure necessary to get the North to withdraw, they are willing to give them the chance.

But if the international community wants to get the South to delay a response and avoid an all-out conflict in the region, they should make it clear to Bashir that if he does not withdraw troops within an agreed timescale, they will not condemn a Southern response which drives those troops out of the area.

Fearful that the international community would give the South carte-blanche to take control of Abyei, Bashir’s pragmatism would then cause him to withdraw troops and genuinely seek a negotiated solution. I cannot see any other incentive for the South to wait, other than this kind of international sympathy and co-operation.

—
A longer version of this article is at Though Cowards flinch

Reader comments

1. Liberal Conspiracy

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again http://bit.ly/iO9kDV

2. conspiracy theo

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/iM0nwQ

3. Sudan Monitor

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/l9TEeI #Sudan

4. Petrelli Pierre

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/l9TEeI #Sudan

5. Martie Wyatt

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/l9TEeI #Sudan

6. Pa Codomoi

   RT @sudanmonitor: Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/l9TEeI #Sudan

7. Mdot Deng

   RT @sudanmonitor: Why there could be civil war in Sudan again | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/l9TEeI #Sudan

8. Tim Flatman

   Why there could be civil war in Sudan again http://bit.ly/iO9kDV

9. Aguil Lual Blunt

   RT “@libcon: Why there could be civil war in Sudan again http://t.co/qVg0Zoc”

10. Shlomo Pines

    Why there could be civil war in Sudan again http://bit.ly/iO9kDV

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.