Aprils destructive war, will it bring (Abyei) back into focus?
Abdulrahman Al-Ajib
The situation in the contested region of Abyei, between the Sudan and South Sudan, remains as it was before, with unresolved disputes between the two countries regarding the area. In early November, a senior UN official stated that the outbreak of armed conflict in Sudan in mid-April halted the positive signals for dialogue between Sudan and South Sudan, leading to the suspension of the political process regarding the final status of Abyei and the border issue.
Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the Deputy Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, presented a briefing to the Security Council in the first week of November on the mandate of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA). The briefing highlighted the latest political, security, and humanitarian developments, including the impact of the ongoing fighting in Sudan on the agreement on the final status of Abyei. Lacroix emphasized that Sudan and South Sudan must respect the demilitarized Abyei area and withdraw their forces. He added, "The United Nations, in close coordination with the African Union, remains ready to support the resumption of dialogue and monitors the situation in search of conditions that would allow it."
Lacroix warned that the UN mission had also witnessed an increase in weapon circulation in Abyei, a situation that may have worsened due to the conditions in Sudan. According to Lacroix, the conflict in Sudan has also created economic difficulties for the inhabitants of the contested Abyei region, disrupting the flow of essential goods, most of which come from the north.
The UN official reported that the interim security force had assisted in providing humanitarian support to approximately 220,000 people in the central and southern parts of Abyei, including those displaced due to tribal clashes and those fleeing the fighting in Sudan. Lacroix added that the fighting created challenges for the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism supported by the interim security force, ensuring a demilitarized zone along the border between Sudan and South Sudan.
He noted the suspension of aerial patrols due to restrictions on airspace but continued ground monitoring in the border area. Lacroix pointed out the presence of around 200 Peoples Defense Forces for South Sudan, the National Police Service of South Sudan in South Abyei, and approximately 60 Sudanese police officers guarding oil assets in North Abyei, posing a continuous challenge to the interim security force. He urged authorities in Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw their personnel.
UNISFA was established in June 2011 with around 4,000 Ethiopian soldiers monitoring the borders between the two countries, allowing the use of force to protect civilians and humanitarian workers in the region. The UN Security Council had previously called on both parties to withdraw their forces from the area. Its resolution aimed to expand the mandate of the UN Interim Security Force, but according to observers, it cannot withdraw definitively without a decision from the UN Security Council. In the event of its withdrawal, a vacuum would occur in the region, and some observers emphasized the necessity of its presence, considering that the forces were mutually agreed upon to secure the region and regulate the presence of its residents.
Sudan and South Sudan had previously agreed in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, to implement the security arrangements, establish civilian institutions for Abyei, and set a timeline for the implementation of the agreement signed by the presidents of the two countries in a presidential summit held for this purpose. However, more than 12 years after the Addis Ababa agreement on the region, the two parties have not yet agreed to establish the Abyei administration and police force, according to the commitments of the two governments in the previously signed agreement. The issue of Abyei has remained unresolved since then.
Previously, Abyei was considered a model of coexistence between cultures and tribal interaction. The region represented a miniature version of the unity between the north and the south before the secession, about 12 years ago. The continuation of coexistence within it supported the process of unity between the north and the south. Despite allocating a special protocol for the region within the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the situation in Abyei remained a mix of doubt, suspicion, fear, anticipation, and readiness for the worst options.
Before South Sudans secession, Abyei was a model of coexistence between the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok tribes. It served as a microcosm of the unity between the north and the south before the separation. However, after the secession, Abyei transformed from a model of coexistence to a hotspot for conflict between various parties, to the extent that some described it as the (Kashmir) of the north and the south, similar to the Kashmir region disputed between India and Pakistan, which led to direct wars due to the dispute over the territory.
Abyei, where the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok nomads live, remained a conflict zone for a long time due to the political systems lack of a systematic and intellectual approach to conflict resolution. The conflict in the Abyei region underwent three fundamental transformations that ultimately led to what is known as (internationalization). These three stages began with the traditional conflict phase, characterized by disputes, mostly caused by competition for natural resources, resulting in a violent, armed, and bloody conflict to achieve political, economic, and strategic goals.
The second dimension of the conflict is the political struggle over Abyeis affiliation with either northern or southern Sudan, making the entire region a center of tension and a conflict hotspot. The third dimension of the conflict is international, representing the latest developments in the Abyei issue. The conflict between the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok tribes evolved into an international issue with ample attention from global circles and international research centers. However, the methodological error that the relevant authorities committed in the initial stage of the conflict had a significant impact on shaping this outcome. Previous attempts focused on political and security solutions without considering the social (historical-political) framework.
The discovery of oil in the conflict-ridden region added an extra dimension and may have caused additional complications. The various parties insistence on controlling the regions entry into the black gold ring, especially considering that it represents the main resource for both the Sudanese and South Sudanese governments, undoubtedly contributed to inflaming the conflict between the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok. It helped complicate the regions situation, giving the conflict another face and meaning with the entry of the wealth factor.
However, it is clear that the motivations driving the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok tribes, while seemingly aligned with the governing systems in both countries, differ fundamentally. The Misseriyas central point is to preserve what they consider their ancestral land and ensure the safety of their wealth represented by their livestock, guaranteeing the continuity of their seasonal movement to the pastures north and south. As for the Dinka Ngok, they view the matter from the perspective of reclaiming historical rights and recovering them. However, the governing systems in Sudan and South Sudan do not look at the tribes issues from the perspective of the (visible surface) but rather from a deeper perspective (its interior), specifically for oil, minerals, and, subsequently, for their strategic importance as a pivot and access point to South Kordofan, the Gulf of Gabal, and Darfur.
