Frank Wilson, World Politics Review

JUBA, Sudan -- In an exclusive interview, Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit told World Politics Review that he doesn't think "there is any point where southerners will declare a unilateral independence."

The semi-autonomous region of Southern Sudan will hold a referendum in January 2011 on whether to secede from the North. The vote is one of the final steps of a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 that ended the country's two-decade long civil war.

At a Congressional hearing (.pdf) last year, former U.S. envoy to Sudan Roger Winter said the South's ruling party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), may "be forced into unilaterally declaring its independence because its CPA-mandated referendum is frustrated by Khartoum's actions and/or the hollow commitments of the international community."

More recently, Nafie Ali Nafie, the deputy leader of Sudan's ruling political party, the National Congress Party (NCP), told reporters in Khartoum on Aug. 19 that the South's leaders are "not supportive of Sudan's unity and want to go around the country's issues." He said a unilateral declaration of independence would be "political suicide," according to local media.

In his interview with WPR, Kiir ruled out the possibility. "It is not in our agenda, and we don't think that there will be a condition that will force us in the South to declare an independent Southern Sudan without the process that we have agreed upon," he said.

Inside his office in Juba, Kiir told WPR that both sides should ensure that the referendum moves forward as agreed. "Both parties should be committed to the conduct of the referendum, freely without any hindrance," he said. "So I'm sure -- and I hope -- the referendum will be conducted according to the agreement that we have signed."

Southerners are widely expected to vote overwhelmingly for secession. If they do, a six-month interim period would follow before independence takes effect. Details surrounding the process are still being worked out by the referendum commission.

Sudan's ruling partners, the SPLM of the mostly Christian South and the NCP of the predominantly Muslim North, have been bickering over the appointment of a secretary general to the referendum commission, which will organize the vote.

Last week, both parties agreed to name a northerner to fill the position, with the deputy secretary general coming from the South. A local news outlet, the Sudan Tribune, reported that U.S. envoy Scott Gration "persuaded the SPLM's leadership to concede the position."

While officially remaining neutral as one of the backers of the CPA, the United States has been supporting the South's independence movement. The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum announced in a press release last week that it has sent retired Ambassador Princeton Lyman to Sudan to help with negotiations between the North and South before the critical vote.

Much of the discussion will focus on the boundary demarcations along the oil-rich North-South border. Oil money accounts for 93 percent of the South's budget, and the think tank, Small Arms Survey, reports (.pdf) that the South now controls about 82 percent of Sudan's oil fields.

However, the South has no oil refineries and no ports to export the oil on its own. A proposed pipeline would transport the oil south to Kenya for export, instead of sending the South's oil up to the northern-controlled city of Port Sudan as is currently the case.

"This is something we are going to talk about in the coming period," Kiir explained in the WPR interview. "In the post-referendum arrangements, there is the issue of oil, not only whether to be pumped through Port Sudan or a new pipeline going southwards. But also, do we share it with the North or don't we share it? All these things, we are going to talk about them."

But the North has been trying to stall the referendum, questioning the stability of Southern Sudan.

The U.N. recently reported that continued attacks by the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) against civilians in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and the Central African Republic have killed nearly 2,000 people and displaced another 30,000.

Kiir said the violence is not going to affect the referendum. "It is not the first time that the LRA has been killing people in Southern Sudan," he said, describing the LRA fighters as "terrorists" who "terrorize the civilian population [and] innocent people."

"There are people who are sending them," Kiir said, adding that the LRA continues to get its "logistics" from the government of Sudan's President Omar al Bashir in Khartoum. "This is something that will live with us and we'll have to sort it out," he continued.

Another security issue potentially jeopardizing the referendum is the mini-rebellion of former Sudan People's Liberation Army Gen. George Athor. The renegade general ran for governor in the country's April elections and lost. He now claims the vote was rigged. Troops loyal to Athor have since clashed with the SPLA, resulting in dozens of deaths.

"The rebellion of Gen. George Athor is not the first in the history of the world. There are people, when they lose elections, they tend to resort to rebellion, like what George Athor has done," said Kiir. "Now that he's a rebel, there are ways of bringing him back: through peaceful means, which he is resisting. And if the peaceful negotiations fail, of course, to deal with the rebels, you fight them. That is the last resort for us, and we will have to do it."

The SPLM's secretary general claimed in July that the NCP is providing material support to Athor in an attempt to destabilize the region ahead of the independence referendum.

At the swearing in of members of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission this weekend, the U.N.'s special representative in Sudan said the United Nations is "committed" to seeing the referendum carried out in "a free, fare and transparent manner." Much now depends on whether Khartoum is, too.

Frank Wilson is a freelance reporter based in Southern Sudan who also works for a non-governmental organization in Sudan. He used a pseudonym for this article to avoid potential conflicts with local authorities.

Photo: President of the Government of Southern Sudan Salva Kiir Mayardit (Photo by wikimedia user Jenny Rockett, licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0 Unported Agreement).

The Christian Science Monitor, Johannesburg, South Africa

For three weeks now, South Africa’s public schools, hospitals, and other government functions have nearly ceased to function, in nationwide strikes that are as much about political power as they are about civil servant salaries.

Now there is some hope that those strikes may be about to end. Unions representing more than 1.3 million government striking workers have started consulting their membership on whether they should take up a revised government salary package. Indications are that most unions are leaning toward accepting the new offer of a 7.5 percent wage increase and R800 housing allowance, effectively bringing the strike to an end. Others say they need more time to consult with membership.

Accept the wage increase?

The National Education, Health, and Allied Workers' Union (NEHAWU) said the new offer was acceptable, but pointed out that the whole process needed the workers' mandate.

"Presently we are busy consulting our members on whether to accept the new offer or reject it. But the bottom line is that our union has come a long way fighting from 6.5 percent to 7 percent and now a 7.5 percent wage increase,” said Sizwe Pamla, NEHAWU spokesman.

He said NEHAWU's National Executive Committee views the new offer as short of the minimum demands of its members of a wage increase and housing allowance.

"A decision was then taken [Tuesday] to take the offer back to our members for their consideration," said Mr. Pamla.

On the surface, the strike of 1.3 million government workers – mainly teachers, nurses, clerks, immigration offers, and home affairs personnel – is about salary levels that place many civil servants just barely above the poverty line. But with the leadership of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma in deep question, the many factions that make up the ruling African National Congress are using this time to show their strength and to push the ANC not only for concessions but for greater access to power.

Limit to support

The Congress of South Africa Trade Unions (COSATU) makes up the largest and most disciplined part of the ANC alliance, and one of the strongest supporters of Mr. Zuma’s candidacy for party leadership in 2007. Now, as they seek an 8.6 percent wage increase and R1,000 housing allowance – while crippling public service and leaving thousands of sick patients stranded – they are showing Zuma that their support has a limit.

COSATU, which is coordinating the strikes, said the mandate was now in the hands of its affiliate unions to take the offer to members to accepted or reject it.

"We are happy with the outcome, but once again, the ball is in our union membership’s court whether to accept the revised offer or not," said Patrick Craven, COSATU spokesman.

South African Democratic Teachers' Union (SADTU) said they would not decide until Wednesday afternoon whether they would accept the new government offer or not. SADTU deputy secretary general Nkosan Dolop said government had showed its commitment by putting a new offer on the table.

"This time government showed some seriousness and total commitment,” said Mr. Dolop.” But I can't say much at this moment because we are still consulting with our membership. They (the membership) are the ones to give us a directive whether to take it [the new offer] or leave it."

Consultation for the Public Servants Association of South Africa (PSA), a union of civil service office workers with a membership of more than 211,000, would run until Friday, said Mannie de Clerq, PSA spokesman. "We will only be able to announce our position by Friday morning," he said.

Mr. De Clerq also emphasized that the new revised offer was "a bit serious" as opposed to previous offers which were rejected by workers.

Maggie Fick /South Sudan Watch

JUBA, Sudan--“You are the same people,” the southern Sudanese vice president Riek Machar remarked to a conference room full of elites and traditional leaders from the Lou and Jikany clans of the Nuer tribe. “What is the problem?” he asked, seeming to be genuinely perplexed as to the causes of continued conflict between these two groups.

“If it is the land, if is the water, if it is the fish, can we not discuss it?” the vice president, himself a Nuer from a different clan native to the areas west of the Lou and Jikany peoples, continued. “Water has been here all this time. The fish have been here. So why is there conflict now?”

By “now,” Machar meant in relatively recent times. He noted that there have been serious problems between the Lou and Jikany people in the area of the south which they share since 1993, when clashes between the Lou and the Cie Kuek (a section of the Jikany clan) left a lasting impact of displacement along the Sobat River that remains a conflict trigger today.

This particular area of Nuerland--bisected by the Sobat river which runs through the heart of the “Sudd,” Africa’s largest remaining intact wetlands--has suffered from internal insecurity for decades. Cattle raids, revenge killings, problems between local administrators, boundary disputes, displacement…these are just some of the problems caused by the persistent mistrust and enmity between these two clans of the same tribe.

A friend working in this area explained to me that the area which the Lou and Jikany share, called Wanding, is strategically situated along the fertile fishing grounds and swampy areas of the Sobat. Both communities rely on this area because they are primarily pastoralists, which make them reliant upon cattle grazing grounds (known as toic) and the river for fishing. When drought comes to the Wanding area, fishing becomes more difficult and the toic shrinks, which sparks conflict between the Lou and Jikany communities due to the increased competition for limited resources.

Peace conferences between the Lou and Jikany elites and traditional leaders yield resolutions and promises that are often broken when tensions between the two groups spike for one reason or another. The meeting in the southern capital Juba where Machar spoke was a “brainstorming workshop” between these leaders. Although I do not doubt that this meeting served as a useful forum for the two communities to discuss the issues their people are facing, it is hard not to note the irony of the western jargon, which was necessary given that the meeting was sponsored by USAID.

It is easy, however, to be a critic, and harder to understand what exactly could be done to bring an end to the extremely localized tensions between various groups in southern Sudan.

Vice President Machar made the case for why finding the answer to this question is so important for the future of the southern Sudanese, who will likely choose to form their own country in their self-determination referendum in January 2011:

Sustainable peace is connected to development. If people don’t see changes in their lives…If their kids don’t go to school… then [these areas] will continue to have insecurity. But if there are schools, development, people will change their attitudes toward life.

I've lived through slaughter
By: Reuben Garang      www.borglobe.com

Sudan is on the brink of a renewed civil war, a continuation of a past catastrophe that killed millions and could kill millions more. I know because I've lived it.

Pursuant to a peace agreement signed in 2005, the residents of southern Sudan were promised a referendum in January 2011 on independence for their region. The parties, however, are clearly stalemated on implementation. If talks break down completely, war is almost certain to follow.  When the parties couldn't agree on who should head the referendum commission and other technical issues, they began massing military forces on opposite sides of a border that is not clearly marked.

The government backs the men with guns on horses, going under the name Janjanweed, who have been active in Darfur.The same government-backed militia operates in the South as Murahaleen. They are killing and displacing civilians in the border regions.

Large-scale war can erupt at any minute if the situation remains as it is.  More than 20 years ago, I left Sudan, the country of my birth. As I left, military planes flew in the sky over my head, bombing my vulnerable African village. Ground forces were firing on each other, with civilians caught in the crossfire.

As a result, grasses and trees were in flames. Family members -- dead and alive -- were scattered. Human remains were desecrated by animals and birds, which lost their fear of humans. Even doves, symbols of peace, learned to attack.

Friends and family from the village were killed in the war or died in its aftermath, including both my parents.

From 1983 to 2005, the Sudan civil war claimed 2.5 million lives, most of them children and other innocents. Most North American media have ignored one of the longest civil wars in history.

People in the predominantly African South want to secede. The government in the largely Arabic North doesn't want them to. Other parties -- African governments, China, Russia -- are not helping.

Democracy in Sudan is critically ill, if not dead, or it has never existed, I'm sorry to say.  The other war in the western region of Sudan, known as Darfur, has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives since it began in 2003. Fighting continues despite a series of peace settlements.

If the South and North return to war, while fighting continues in Darfur, I cannot imagine the scale of human lives lost.  The issues at stake include the desire by the North-dominated government to join with China and other countries in exporting oil found in the South, which was already a marginalized region.

The government has exploited the religious differences between the Muslims in the North and the Christians and animists in the South.  The government gives keys to its warriors to guarantee entry to paradise and some Christians wear crosses. Killing others is seen as God's work by both sides.

When I left Sudan in my childhood, I ran to Ethiopia, which was already a steaming volcano on its own. When its war erupted, we were forced back to Sudan, where the war situation had grown even uglier. So a few of us -- unaccompanied minors -- joined in the fight. The guns were taller than most of us. Becoming a child soldier was the only means to survive. I got enough of war when I was a child. So I am for peace. I do not want other children in Sudan to relive the experiences I had.

Because Canada is known in the world for its role in the promotion of peace, this is the time for Canadians to work for peace in Sudan. Amnesty International, Winnipeg Peace Alliance, church groups and human rights groups have to wake up and do more to prevent war again in Sudan.

Canadian peace-lovers and Sudanese-Canadians can write to their MPs to keep their "Eyes on Sudan," the name of a group working for peace.  As Winnipegger Marshall McLuhan once said, we live in a global village. People in a village have to care for one another.

Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg, extended that concept when he was Canada's foreign affairs minister to include the civilized world's "right to protect" innocent people threatened by war. I invite people in Winnipeg and Canada to demonstrate how much they care about the village we share by working to stop the imminent war in Sudan.

Reuben Garang is a student at the University of Winnipeg. He is one of the "Lost Boys of Sudan."

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 28, 2010 A19

By MAGGIE FICK
Associated Press Writer

JUBA, Sudan (AP) -- The government of Southern Sudan said Monday it will purge child soldiers from the ranks of its former rebel army by year's end, a policy change that could see thousands of young troops pushed out of the military.

The Sudan People's Liberation Army launched a new "Child Protection Department" intended to help the army fulfill an agreement it signed with the United Nations in November. The agreement commits the army to release all children in its ranks by the end of the year and to end the use of child soldiers across Southern Sudan.

The U.N. Children's Fund estimates that about 900 children serve as soldiers in the south. The southern military did not say how many child soldiers it believes it has, but the chief of staff indicated it was several thousand.

Oil-rich Southern Sudan is widely expected to vote for independence from northern Sudan in a scheduled January referendum, an outcome likely to lead to the breakup of Africa's largest country.

The 2005 peace accord that ended decades of war between Sudan's north and south committed the armies to an extensive demobilization process. But because both armies are preparing for worst-case scenarios as the southern vote nears, analysts say neither side has an interest in reducing the size of their militaries.

Still, southern officials say they will completely purge the ranks of children. William Deng Deng, chairman of the south's Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Commission, said the army has "never wavered in its commitment to children," recalling how children recruited into the guerrilla army during the civil war received schooling along with their military training.

"I want to confirm that the generals are doing what they can to make sure that the SPLA by the end of this year is child-free," said Deng. "Any child that comes back is a child who came back from the village because we couldn't offer them anything to do."

Deng said that responsibility lies with the government to provide schooling and other services for demobilized children, but he was firm that the army would never again recruit children.

"This army doesn't lack manpower. If they wanted they could call millions now. But not children," he said.

Southern Sudan is one of the poorest places in the world. More than half of the population requires food assistance to survive. The southern government is likely a long way off from providing its people with alternatives to life in the army.

"All of us here we were born in war," said southern army Chief of Staff Gen. James Hoth Mai. "And we don't want to pass on this war again to our children. We are very committed to develop our children."

Mai said that providing schooling and other services to demobilized children is "a huge task."

"We are talking about thousands and thousands of children," he said.

The U.N.'s top humanitarian official in Southern Sudan said the task of transforming a rebel movement into a professional army is "a long road."

"The way in which a country's army operates is a reflection of the country itself," said Lise Grande. She added that the "the entire world community is looking at Southern Sudan" in the run-up to the referendum.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A Sudanese Imam shut the mosque in a Saudi town and told worshippers he would not re-open it before he gets his promised salary, the Saudi Arabic language online paper Kabar said on Monday.

Residents of the Salheyya neighbourhood in the central province of Wadi Al Dawasir headed for night prayers after Iftar on Sunday but were surprised to see the mosque locked, the paper said.

“The worried residents phoned the Imam to tell him about this but were surprised to know that he shut the mosque,” Kabar said.

“He told them that he would not re-open the mosque before he gets his salary…the residents went back home without performing prayers.”

The paper said an “unknown benevolent” person had promised the Imam to pay his monthly salary after the Endowments Department refused to appoint him.

“The benevolent person did not pay the Imam the promised monthly salary, prompting him to shut the mosque,” the paper said without making clear whether the problem has been sorted out (Emirates).
 

By Mohammad Ali Salih

  Washington, Asharq Al-Awsat- In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat in Washington, Dr. Lual Achuil Deng, the new Sudanese Minister of Petroleum, and the first Southerner to be appointed in this position, after years of disputes between Northern and Southern Sudanese over the production of oil wells that are mostly in the South, said he has started “an era of transparency.”
He added: “We will put everything on the Internet, for the Southerners, the Northerners, and the rest of the world to verify. We will put up daily production figures and daily revenue figures.” Describing himself as a “long-standing unionist,” he acknowledged that the amount of time left before the scheduled referendum in the South, in January 2011, might not be enough to convince Southerners not to vote for Southern secession. But, he stressed: “I am an optimistic person.”
Deng (61 years old), was born in Bor, in Jonglei State in Southern Sudan. He holds two degrees from American universities: an M.A. in Economics from the University of Iowa, and PhD in Economics from University of Wisconsin. In Iowa, his colleague and close friend was John Garang, who studied there and obtained a PhD in Economics. Later, Garang established and led Sudan’s People Liberation Movement (SPLM), Sudan’s Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), and fought in the struggle that culminated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended half a century of civil war between Southern rebels and the Sudanese army.
Deng, after completing his PhD, joined the World Bank, then the African Development Bank, and later rejoined his friend Garang as an economic consultant, and participated in the talks that culminated in the CPA. When the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) was established, in accordance with the CPA, Deng became Minister of Finance in Juba. Later, he moved to Khartoum to join the Government of National Unity (GONU) as State Minister of Finance.
After the national elections in April 2010, and the reshuffling of the National Government, Deng was appointed Minister of Petroleum, the first Southerner to take the post. Last week, he visited the US, for the first time in his new position.  
Q: What is the purpose of your visit to the US and what were the results of your discussions with American officials? A: I am visiting the US as a private person. I did not meet with any American officials.
Q: Do you believe that the US officials support the continuation of Sudan as a united country, or prefer that the Southerners vote for separation? A: I haven’t participated in any discussion with American officials on this subject. Of course, the US has repeatedly declared its support for the full implementation of the CPA, including the scheduled referendum in January; and also its strong desire that the Southerners vote freely and fairly for either unity or separation. I understand this position and strongly support it. But during private talks, it seemed that the Americans would prefer the continuation of a united Sudan. I believe that is the case because, according to their interpretation of American national security and strategic interests, a separate South would not be a viable state. It would face many internal problems; and would endanger the unity and stability of neighboring countries; in the overall region of the Horn of Africa, to the east of Sudan, and the region of Equatorial Africa, to the south of Sudan.
Q: Do you think General Scott Grasion, President Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, supports Sudan’s unity or the secession of the South? A: As I said, I didn’t have any official discussions with any American official on this subject, but my [previous] private talks with General Grasion led me to believe that he was in favour of unity.
Q: How about President Obama? A: I have never met him. But, I believe he also prefers a united Sudan. If for no other reason, because instability in the South, the North, and in the wider region, would not serve US interests. Now, you work and live in Washington, and you know the complications surrounding US foreign policy. As for the US policy towards Sudan, you know there are different lobbying groups that, at least during the last few years, have played important roles. I don’t want to name names, but you know the organizations and the lobbying forces that prefer Southern Sudan’s separation. You and I know this is how US foreign and domestic policies are formulated. I would say: let us make use of the freedom of the American system and present our views as strongly as we can.
Q: You are a leader in the SPLM; do you support the separation of the South or a united Sudan? A: I am indebted to John Garang, my colleague, friend, boss and teacher. I was initially in favour of separation, but he convinced me that it is in Southern, let alone Northern, interests to keep Sudan united. Garang used to say: “Look at the Americans. They fought each other and their country was almost divided into two or more [countries] during the 19th Century. But, they succeeded in ending the Civil War, and agreed to peacefully solve their problems and maintain a united country. Now, the Americans are a shining example for the whole world in terms of plurality, and racial and religious tolerance.” I also support Sudan’s unity because I have been a strong believer in Pan-Africanism, as pioneered by Kwami Nkruma, Ghana’s first president, and in Negritude, as pioneered by Leopold Senghor, Senegal’s first president. Therefore, wouldn’t it be logical that I also support the unity of Sudan?  
Q: What do you say to your fellow Southern Sudanese who support the separation of the South? A: What I just told you. On one side for me, it is a matter of principle, that unity has more advantages than separation. In other words, one hand can’t clap, but two can. On the other side, there are tangible advantages as far as the Southerners are concerned. Take my example. I used to be a member of the Southern government, and am now a member of the National government. Not many Northern Sudanese have this advantage. Right now, the Southerners rule themselves and share in ruling the North at the same time. What else do we, the Southerners, want?
Q: What do you say to the many Southern Sudanese in the US who clearly support the separation of the South? A: First, I believe those who live in the US, this free, democratic and highly developed country should learn a lesson or two and try to apply some of the American achievements in Sudan. Secondly, we all might complain about the conditions in Sudan, but we know that once we leave Sudan and live in foreign countries, we tend to miss our native country, and tend to appreciate it despite all its problems. Thirdly, as I said, I was in favour of separation, but became older and wiser and changed my mind. I hope this young generation of Southerners in the US will grow up and become wise. In the meantime, I would say to them: “Don’t sit here and make judgments about the far away Sudan. Don’t talk about the possibility of the renewal of war if you are not ready to go there and fight. Don’t enjoy the air-conditioning here and think you can express the feelings of your brothers and sisters in the forests.”
Q: Some Southerners severely criticize, and complain about, the policies of the National Congress Party (NCP, led by President al-Bashir and the ruling party of Sudan); and say that its Islamic Civilization Project (ICP) is the reason they support separation? A: I don’t want to defend al-Bashir and the ICP because they are able to defend themselves. But I want to defend the Sudan, its unity, heritage, hopes and aspirations. The Sudan, throughout centuries, has seen rulers come and go, and projects appearing and disappearing.
Q: Some of your Southern colleagues say you have abandoned “Sudan Jadeed” (New Sudan) slogan that was pioneered by John Garang? A: John Garang raised the “Sudan Jadeed” slogan. Also, he raised “Sudan Wahid” (One Sudan) slogan. Also, how can the Southerners establish a new Sudan, if they want to leave Sudan itself? Furthermore, I strongly believe that the new Sudan is simply the old Sudan. I believe that Kush civilization (before Islam and Arabism) was a pure African civilization. I will tell you a story: recently, my daughter, who was born in the US and is a US citizen, visited Merowe in northern Sudan and saw the pyramids that were built by early Sudanese civilizations. She came back and told me that I was right in opposing Southern separation, and in saying the new Sudan is indeed the old Sudan. So, if the North is indeed the South [i.e. a united Sudan], why would the Southerners want to leave it to the Northerners [laughs]?
Q: There is a leader in the SPLM who is clearly against Southern separation, Pagan Amum, SPLM Secretary General. Yet in an interview with “Asharq Alawsat’ two months ago, he said the SPLM shouldn’t declare whether it supported unity or separation, and should let the Southerners decide for themselves? A: First of all, Amum, sometimes, says things that reflect only his personal views. Secondly, why are we leaders if we do not want to lead? Thirdly, Silva Kiir, Vice President of Sudan, President of the GOSS and of SPLM, has said many times that he supports a united Sudan.
Q: Some Southerners accuse President al-Bashir’s government of cheating the South out of oil revenues, since most of the oil wells are in the South. A: On my first day as Minister of Petroleum, I declared my policy of transparency in Sudan's oil sector, and promised that I would start publishing figures regarding the daily oil output on the Minsitry’s website, on the Internet. I strongly believe that it is this lack of transparency, or the perceived lack of transparency, that has fuelled mistrust between partners. We want to enhance trust between the North and South.
Q: Some Southerners say it is not enough that you declare transparency. You should compensate the South for the al-Bashir government’s deception since the CPA in 2005. A: Like I said, I will publish daily production figures. Also, I will conduct a full independent audit regarding the oil industry since 2005, to prevent future conflict over oil. I hope to comfort all the Sudanese by stating that there will now be transparency, even if it did not exist in the past. The audit will basically look at oil production since 2005 - it will be conducted by an independent firm. Our preference is to accelerate the process so that the results are made available before the referendum.
Q: The international non-governmental organization Global Witness said last year that there were inconsistencies on the part of the Sudan government, regarding the exact figures of oil production and revenues. Furthermore it claimed that roughly six billion dollars, supposed to go the South since the CPA in 2005, were missing? A: I don’t think this is true. And you can ask Global Witness. Recently, Global Witness participated in a landmark transparency seminar in Khartoum, which we organised. Global Witness said it was impressed by the openness with which all sides participated in the event. They emphasised that the discrepancies uncovered did not mean that six billion dollars were missing, but only about 10 percent (about 600 million dollars). Anyway, I assured them of my new policy of transparency.
Q: What are the prospects of oil production in Sudan? A: We expect to increase oil production by up to one-third by next year, reaching as high as 600,000 barrels per day. Current average output is between 450,000 and 470,000 from the two blends - Nile and Dar. Recently, we and the Finnish firm, Fenno Caledonian, signed an oil and gas exploration agreement for the north-eastern part of Sudan, in the states of Gadaref, Kasala, River Nile, and Gezira. The company also works in Dongola. As you can see, this indicates the influx of European investment in Sudan. French oil giant Total, which has a huge untapped reserve in south Sudan, asked us about guarantees to keep its concessions after the referendum. I assured them of this, whatever the result of the referendum. As you know, Western firms mostly pulled out during the North-South civil war and the sector is currently dominated by Asian companies. But, I want to open the door for every company, from every country.