Tag Archives: Sudan

Happy Holidays (and on to 2014)

First of all, a happy holiday season to all TN readers who are so geographically located and culturally inclined. I’ve been taking some badly-needed time off on the winter dark Åland Islands and am happy to observe many of the rest of you are getting some downtime too, at least based on the cratering hit numbers during the last week. So, if you are reading this, many thanks but now close your laptop please, and go play Legos with your kids (thats my plan).

Second of all, because after all this is a blog that follows international affairs, here’s to 2014 because 2013 felt like a pretty lousy year. I don’t really go in for conspiracy theories or notions about auspicious and inauspicious years, but it felt like the world overdid it a bit during 2011, slept through 2012 and had a debilitating global headache in 2013.

Most obviously, of course, was the scramble to find a suitably lousy epithet to re-dub the events-formerly-known-as-the-Arab-Spring. As Tunisia stagnated, Egypt reverted to form, Libya seethed, Yemen and Bahrain dropped off the media horizon, Iraq re-ignited and Syria dragged everyone into a pit of fear and loathing. The only arguable bright spot was an apparent opening in Iran, although it remains to see whether the “worst ever” US Congress will tank the modest progress made this year by piling on further sanctions in 2014.

In light of general developments in the Middle East, the commentariat was quick to proceed from predictions of Syria’s breakup to a vision of redrawn lines throughout the entire region based on the abandonment of the ‘Sykes-Picot’ agreement that carved up the region after the First World War. Last year saw the eruption of both old and relatively new fissures. Events in 2014 will be decisive in determining whether these can be bridged or will further harden into boundaries and borders, endangering tens of thousands of civilians that may ultimately find themselves on the wrong sides.

Similarly worrying (if less threatening to global security) is the failure of Myanmar to fully emerge from the miasma of ethnic tensions that erupted into the full light of day in 2013 – again two years after a spectacular opening in 2011, with the dissolution of the military junta, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and a sprinkling of Clinton fairy dust.

And most recently, 2013 is set to close to the tune of yet another meltdown – in less than a week of bloody ethnic conflict – of Africa’s newest state. As in all the above cases, South Sudan was consecrated in a burst of optimism – in retrospect, perhaps naive – that followed from the surprisingly peaceful and well-organized referendum on independence from Sudan proper, again in 2011.

So let’s hold the auld lang syne this year and move on expeditiously to a better 2014.

Investment-related conflict in South Sudan: contested rights and the power of information

by David Deng

David Deng is Research Director for the South Sudan Law Society. These observations were originally presented at “Turning Point: What future for people and resources? A panel on the trends shaping rural lands and lives” on February 1, 2012 at The Royal Society of London.

Introduction

The new report by Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) paints a vivid picture of a world in flux and the various struggles that are emerging over wealth, power, and natural resources. I’d like to pick up on a couple of these themes and flesh them out a bit with examples from South Sudan, where I’ve worked for the past few years on several projects relating to land rights. Most recently, my work has touched on the surge in land-based investment after the 2005 peace agreement, which brought to an end the 22-year civil war between north and south in Sudan.

Investment and conflict

The first issue that I’d like to touch on is the complex relationship between investment and conflict in resource-rich states. I think it is fairly clear to us all that poorly planned investments can contribute to conflict, particularly in fragile, post-conflict states; but what is perhaps a little less obvious is how conflict can actually serve to attract certain types of investment.

Let me explain. Struggles over land and natural resources were among the root causes of the civil war in South Sudan. Foreign investments during this period often contributed to the violence. Oil companies colluded with the government in Khartoum to forcibly displace local populations from oil producing areas, in order to make the land available for oil exploration. Armed groups in South Sudan used local monopolies of violence to control cross-border trade in precious woods.

And in the Nuba Mountains along the border between north and south, where today, we hear reports of mass killings and hundreds of thousands of people at risk of conflict induced-famine, the government expropriated community lands and gave them to foreign and domestic elites in order to establish large-scale mechanized farms. The disregard that Khartoum showed for their community lands caused many Nuba to join the liberation movement in the south. What followed was a long and costly civil war that eventually resulted in the secession of South Sudan.

But with its newfound independence, South Sudan finds itself in a harsh new world. It has a population of only 8 or 9 million, spread across a land area more than twice the size of the UK, considerable supplies of oil and minerals, fertile land and water; all this makes South Sudan an attractive prize in a resource-strapped world.

Continue reading

New report on the ‘global land grab’ – and guest-posting by David Deng

by Rhodri C. Williams

In a post late last month, I delved into the problem of ‘public/state land’ and the opportunity that this overwhelmingly post-colonial tenure form presents for state predation in a context of spiraling commodity prices. In taking on such a broad and complicated topic, I am afraid I may have oversimplified things. Toward the end of the piece, I noted Shaun Williams’ suggestion (in an earlier TN post) that focusing on effective management of urban public land was likely to be both more feasible and more rewarding than dealing with customary tenure issues for low capacity governments interested in reforming their land systems. Shaun’s insight on the relative tractability of public land issues was reinforced by Erica Harper’s previous description of the difficulties inherent in implementing – or even generalizing about – reform of customary law systems.

All that said, having pushed the ‘publish’ button, I reflected on the fact that this dichotomy between state and customary tenure regimes might be a bit too pat, at least as a global generalization. After all, Shaun’s comments were focused on urban land and the particular context of the Solomon Islands. Was it not actually the case that in rural contexts, in particular, the problem was precisely that the two categories overlapped, with both the state and customary communities essentially ignoring each other’s mutually exclusive claims to the same land until they came into direct conflict? By and large, this seems to be the issue, with the maintenance of public land regimes allowing inchoate colonial era mass-expropriations to be projected into the twenty-first century with a veneer of legality.

This sense of things got a significant boost with the launch last week of a new report – Turning Point: What future for forest peoples and resources in the emerging world order? – by the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). As indicated in the launch webpage, RRI has traditionally been concerned primarily with forest tenure. However, this report, as well as an accompanying set of issue briefs by Liz Alden Wily, reflect the fact that forest land now faces many of the same pressures as other rural land, and that the tenure rights of forest dwellers are no more secure than those of smallholders anywhere. The basic issues at stake are set out starkly in the RRI’s press release on the report:

In presenting the results of an analysis of tenure rights in 35 African countries, by international land rights specialist Liz Alden Wily, [RRI Global Programs Head Jeffrey] Hatcher noted that despite the clear potential for bloodshed, “local land rights are being repeatedly and tragically ignored during an astonishing buying spree across Africa.” Alden Wily’s review found that the majority of 1.4 billion hectares of rural land, including forests, rangelands or marshlands, are claimed by states, but held in common by communities, affecting “a minimum” of 428 million of the rural poor in sub-Saharan Africa. “Every corner of every state has a customary owner,” Alden Wily concluded.

The launch of the RRI report was accompanied by a panel discussion describing the effect of large-scale land investments and concessions in a number of settings. One of these was South Sudan, and it is a pleasure to announce that the corresponding observations, by David Deng, will be reproduced in the form of a guest posting on TN tomorrow.

Those familiar with the increasingly urgent debates surrounding the ‘global land rush’ will be aware that Mr. Deng authored a report published last March by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) indicating that as much as nine percent of South Sudan’s territory – an area larger than Rwanda – may have been ‘spoken for’ before the country came into formal existence. Mr. Deng was also one of the contributors to a massive study on transnational land deals and human rights undertaken by the NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) in support of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. He is now Research Director for the South Sudan Law Society. 

Good morning South Sudan

Its official! The world’s latest country and one of its most hard-won and fragile can take its seat in the General Assembly. As background reading, my previous musings on the topic here, and a lyrical defense of a right to minority secession by Timothy William Waters here on EJIL Talk.

On an administrative note, apologies to TN readers for the long gap since the last posting. I wish I could say it was because I’d already gone on summer vacation but its actually because, in classic consultant style, I am currently consumed by the work I must finish before I can contemplate taking summer vacation! Please bear with me, some interesting postings and guest-postings forthcoming.

Week in links – Week 3/2011

- Preliminary results of the referendum in southern Sudan indicate an overwhelming majority in favor of secession after a surprisingly orderly process. The potential for serious violence in Abyei appears to be the main cloud on the horizon, with Foreign Affairs highlighting a worrisome link with the ongoing conflict in Darfur. A further aspect of the Abyei dispute that has gotten less attention in the mainstream press (but is well reflected in humanitarian reports such as OCHA’s latest bulletin) is the fact that its location not only invites conflict over oil and grazing land, but also constitutes a significant choke point for North to South return movements:

Organized returns have been suspended since 9 January, as a result of a series of security incidents involving returnees from northern to southern Sudan. Small convoys of spontaneous returnees have continued, with some reports of continued harassment and obstruction along the journey in Southern Kordofan and Abyei. Another convoy was reportedly shot at on 17 January in Abyei. Security incidents come despite a 13 January agreement reached between traditional leaders of the Misseriya and Ngok Dinka to cease hostilities and allow safe passage of returnees.

- The institute formerly known as RDI has departed the terse world of beltway bandit-style acronyms and re-fashioned itself as Landesa, in an unusually lyrical reference to the fact that LANd so often determines DEStinies. Its transformation has been accompanied by the founding of a promising blog on land and development issues.

- The initial posts in the Landesa blog include a considered response to a recent New York Times article on the effects of the global land rush in Africa, which itself draws on last September’s World Bank report on the topic.

- Landesa also blogs on the destabilizing effects of feudal land relations in Pakistan. Pakistan’s failure to reform its highly inequitable land relations were a rallying point for the Taliban in their bid to take over the Swat Valley, with the ironic result that the success of the Army’s campaign to retake the area was determined by whether large landholders could be convinced to return and recreate the inequitable conditions that fueled the insurgency.

- And finally, on a non-HLP vein, a wonderfully concise summary by Tihomir Loza in Transitions OnLine of the so-near-and-yet-so-far state of Bosnian ethnic politics.

Week in links – Week 2/2011

This week picks up a few interesting items from the end of last year as well as some more updated texts:

- Now that the referendum on South Sudan’s separation appears to have gone off peacefully, attention is turning to the contested territory of Abyei. As described in this NYT article, Abyei represents a microcosm of the North-South conflict but one which has, alarmingly, been left on the sidelines of last week’s putative solution. Here’s a sample:

“We will go to war over this,” said Rou Minyiel Rou, a veterinarian in Abyei. “This is about land, and we can’t compromise on land.”

- Anyone remember Osh? Fortunately Transitions OnLine does, and they released a series of reports last week on the aftermath of last June’s orchestrated attacks on Uzbek minority communities in this town in southern Kyrgyzstan. The first two reports focus squarely on land and property issues, including the plight of women left behind to safeguard destroyed family homes, and ongoing ethnic tensions over land access in the region. Against a chilling backdrop of arbitrary arrests of Uzbek men, the latter report notes that the reconstruction of Uzbek neighborhoods may not take place according to the victims’ preferences:

Other unsubstantiated claims center around the urban plan under discussion by city authorities. Few details have been released, but the plan is said to include building apartment blocks in place of the traditional family compounds where many Uzbeks live. Uzbek neighborhoods take up large areas of the city, particularly in central districts and around the famous Suleiman Mountain.

- Carl Soderbergh of Minority Rights Group International (MRG) wrote a two part report in the MRG Blog late last year on the threatened land rights of the Maasai in Tanzania. The first part of the report analogizes latter day practices of removing this indigenous group from the environs of a wildlife park with the colonial doctrine of terra nullius (sound familiar?) used to justify earlier annexations. The second part examines the violent expulsion of another group of Maasai from a wildlife sanctuary acquired on disputed legal grounds by the American tour operator Thomson Safaris. Fully 37 years after the facts that triggered the Endorois decision by the ACHPR in neighboring Kenya, this must be only one of many more such cases in the making.

Revisiting uti possidetis: Is Southern Sudan’s referendum scarier if it succeeds?

by Rhodri C. Williams

On day three, all signs indicate that the referendum on the separation of Southern Sudan from Khartoum is going shockingly well. Continued high turnout bodes well for achievement of the key threshold of 60% of registered voters and the mood appears to be nigh on festive at many polling stations. Violence has flared in the contested Abyei region, but it remains to be seen whether this dispute will join the ranks of the intractable (along with Jerusalem, Kirkuk and Nagorno Karabakh) or can eventually be arbitrated into submission (a la Bosnia’s Brcko District). So why are there still some long faces in the world of diplomacy?

In looking at land issues in conflict, it is helpful to recall that various individuals’ and groups’ asserted property rights are not the only relevant claims. States have traditionally had rather an important vote as well. Indeed, until recently states were relatively unfettered in their ability to regulate and expropriate property rights and forcibly remove people from their homes and lands when they deemed it necessary. Sovereignty-related concerns related to development, national security and territorial integrity were paramount.

Since the end of Cold War, greater attention to both regional and global human rights standards and the assertion of doctrines such as human security and responsibility to protect (R2P) have altered this balance. As a result, while states continue to enjoy  broad discretion over the use of their land resources, they have come under increasing pressure to recognize that their ‘territory’ is co-terminous with the homes, homelands, property and possessions of their citizens, and to respect the rights accruing to affected individuals and groups as a result.

The resulting situation should in theory ensure that the costs of necessary government action that infringes on private property interests are not externalized solely onto those directly affected. As I blogged on earlier here, both development and human rights standards are converging on this understanding. In situations where these rights are egregiously violated in the context of war and ethnic cleansing, legal remedies such as restitution have come to the fore, both in practice and in standards such as the Pinheiro Principles.

However, as many commentators have pointed out, the current exercise of self-determination by the people of southern Sudan hearkens back to older understandings of the primacy of state territorial control and threatens the integrity of a longstanding legal consensus of such age and fixity that it has been anointed with a Latin phrase. “Uti possidetis” or “as you possessed” is a sort of interstate rule of adverse possession that originally ratified territorial conquests in warfare and later shaped the process of liberation of former colonies.

Continue reading