How the Arab monarchs seek to weather the Arab Spring
Picture this scenario and ask yourself, what would I do?
You apply for membership in an exclusive, wealthy club. You are very interested in the benefits of membership and think you have something in common with the other members of the club. For many years the club reviews and ignores your membership application without explaining its behavior. Despite repeated attempts and conversations with club members, they never extend you an invitation to join. Then one day, 15 years later, they offer you an invitation to join. What would you do?
Jordan said yes.
The exclusive club in this real-life scenario is The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a political and economic union of the Persian Gulf Arab states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. And the real-life applicant kept in waiting is the Kingdom of Jordan.
The GCC was founded 30 years ago with the goal of furthering economic and security cooperation between its six members. Jordan had first applied to the GCC for membership in the mid-1980s, at a time when the oil-less country was struggling with foreign debt caused by military purchases to modernize its army.
GCC foreign ministers arrive in Riyadh for talks
The GCC’s change of heart now, however, appears to reveal mounting Arab security concerns following the regional uprisings, dubbed the “Arab Spring”. It will also require a new definition of the GCC from a geographical alliance to an Islamic club of kingdoms. There is “strength in numbers” as the old adage goes, and the Gulf monarchies seem to have dropped the qualification of “gulf” from their membership criteria and added “kings only shall apply” to the first line of the application.
Popular revolutions that have so far ousted the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt, pushed Libya and Yemen into civil war, and brought unrest to GCC family member Bahrain, have forced the Gulf monarchies to reassess their own stability. They have pulled together, railing against what they say is Iran’s fueling of Shiite unrest in the Arabian Peninsula, and looked for new members to strengthen their ranks. Jordan may have also boosted in membership credentials recently by sending almost 1,000 troops last month to Bahrain to help Saudi Arabia quell the Shiite rebellion in that tiny gulf kingdom.
The original 6 GCC members
Seeking a path to emerge unscathed, the Gulf monarch’s invitation to Jordan and now also Morocco, appears to be shaping into a coalition of Arab hereditary monarchies and emirates intent on both facing Iran’s growing intervention in the group’s internal affairs and evading any democratic transformation as dictated by a spate of Arab revolts, analysts say.
Despite the United States and other western support for the expansion of the GCC’s ranks, this mutually beneficial arrangement should not supersede or replace much needed political reform in these countries. In fact, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), an opposition group, said in a May 17 statement that Jordan’s membership in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) could distract from political changes and reforms demanded for by the public. The statement said that the group was surprised that the GCC welcomed Jordan’s bid to join the council 15 years after it submitted a request. Reforms called for by Jordanians are necessary and should not be neglected under any pretext, the statement said.
The integration of Jordan and Morocco into the GCC should be welcomed for the economical and political harmonization benefits that will be shared by all members. At the same time the world should be worried that this relationship will only incubate the GCC’s rulers from political liberalization and prevent them from opening dialogue with reform groups in their countries. Strength in numbers is a short-term approach, but the sharing of best practices, regional political liberalization and mutually strengthened progressive policies is the only long-term solution for the Middle-East.
North Korea simmers but will it boil over? Not if we stir.
News reports about North Korea always catch my eye. I freely admit I am fascinated by the Kim clan’s psychological war games and diplomatic bluffs. I even literally jumped a row of chairs to chat with a North Korean “journalist” (English translation not accurate) whom I eventually got to know while he was visiting the United Nations a few years ago, despite the eavesdropping military handler hovering nearby. So while I understand why the current conflicts in Libya, Cote d’Ivoire, Iraq, Afghanistan and the US federal budget have monopolized U.S. news coverage lately, I thought it was predicatively necessary to share some notable developments that may raise the hermit kingdom to the front page later this month.
Is the son worth the wait?
First, according to a report in the Korea Herald, the Chinese government has asked North Korea’s next leader Kim Jong-un to fly to China instead of using the armored train his father, Kim Jong-il resorted to on past trips. The 28-year old heir is likely to visit Beijing later this month to meet vice president Xi Jinping, the chosen successor to President Hu Jintao in 2012. The request means the ailing Kim Jong-il would unlikely join his son on the trip. For security and health reasons, Kim Jong-il has always used his private armored train in his past six trips to China, prompting China to partially shut down railways and roads when father Kim travels. These closures have caused inconvenience for Chinese citizens, leading some to complaints.
Second, General Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. forces in Korea was in Washington D.C. this week and foreshadowed a precarious impasse regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program while briefing the Senate Armed Services Committee. He believes North Korea will not abandon its nuclear weapons as it views them not only as a deterrent against regional interference but as a tool to attract international attention and economic aid. North Korea is “balancing a reliance on Chinese support and patronage with a desire for maintaining independence,” Sharp said, while the regime is also “engaging the U.S. with the likely goal of garnering financial, food and energy assistance, as well as security guarantees”.
This bleak assessment comes just 3 days in advance of Secretary Clinton’s trip to Seoul this upcoming weekend, and while South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy is visiting Washington this week to meet top officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. special representative for North Korea policy. The combination of these events lends seriousness to the General’s assessment and lowers the possibility of a breakthrough in any negotiations with the North.
Third, on the Financial Times’ “Beyond BRICs” blog, Christian Oliver described new anxiety within South Korea’s central bank over the North’s currency volatility and its erratic monetary policies. The South has been planning for the reunification of the two Korea’s for decades, examining almost every aspect of commerce, politics, natural resources, social services, education and eventually the adoption of a shared currency. The full article is worth reading, so I will not do Mr. Oliver a disservice by trying to completely summarize his findings in a short paragraph, but the basic message is that “Kim Jong-il has lost control of an effectively dead economy. His decision-making has become dangerously erratic. With one kilo of rice amounting to most of the basic monthly wage, there’s no way to go but barter and black-marketeering”.
Former US President Jimmy Carter met Kim Il Sung, the current leader's father, in 1994 and convinced him to freeze his nuclear development programme in exchange for an ease in international sanctions.
Lastly, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will fly to Pyongyang in two weeks, (April 26-28) in an attempt to broker an agreement on North Korea’s denuclearization, a peace treaty and humanitarian food aid to the impoverished communist state. In 1994, Carter met with then-North Korean leader Kim Il-sung and arranged a bilateral denuclearization deal during the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Carter’s trip is not an official visit on behalf of the U.S. but his high profile will likely garner a conversation with the increasingly recluse Kim Jong-il. Further adding to the importance of his trip, Carter will reportedly be accompanied by former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, former Irish president Mary Robinson and former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The four are members of a group of ex-leaders known as The Elders.
Many analysts who study North Korea believe the government in Pyongyang antagonizes its neighbors and the U.S. for attention while it barters its nuclear program for much-needed aid and prolongs negotiations. The U.S and its allies should consider playing Kim’s game for a while, offering cosmetic gestures to placate the regime while waiting out Kim Jong-il. This could include sending a series of high-level envoys, relaxing some import restrictions, and supporting more “track two” diplomatic exchanges similar to the visit by a 12-man delegation of North Korean officials to Silicon Valley last week organized by the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at University of California, San Diego.
While no one can accurately say whether Kim Jong-un will be more accommodating than his father, his western education and the fact that he was born almost 30 years after the Korean War are encouraging points to consider and may be worth the wait.
Iraqi refugees need a roadmap for America
by: Alexandra Moller
Every day I answer questions from Iraqi refugees resettling in the U.S. about how to navigate life in America. A recent sampling includes, “how do I build a credit history” and “how can I become a licensed engineer?” Although refugees receive government assistance and the attention of a caseworker when they first arrive in the U.S., the assistance is limited and they invariably have numerous questions that remain unanswered. Refugee Roadmap, a program of the organization IRAP (Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project) aims to help Iraqi refugees by providing answers to their questions about life in America.
The 8th anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom recently passed. On March 19, 2003, bombs started falling on Baghdad. Ironically, as the Iraq war receded from the headlines, the number of Iraqi refugees arriving in the U.S. increased. Since 2003, the U.S. has admitted approximately 78,000 Iraqi refugees, the vast majority have arrived since 2008. In 2010, 18,000 were admitted and the State Department intends to maintain that level for the near future.
Iraqi refugees unfortunately bear especially heavy burdens. A resettlement agency official referred to the challenges they confront as the “perfect storm.”
Iraqi refugees admitted to the U.S. are considered among the “most vulnerable” out of the hundreds of thousands who are waiting to be resettled. The refugees are vulnerable, for instance, because they were targeted due to membership in a religious minority group or association with the U.S. or other foreign institutions.
However, being admitted to the U.S. doesn’t mark the end of their struggles. The U.S. government and the resettlement agencies which receive government funding to provide aid and services to newly arrived refugees acknowledge that due to the poor economy and an outdated U.S. resettlement program, they are failing to adequately help refugees establish their lives here. In an effort to improve the situation, the White House is in the midst of a full scale review of U.S. refugee resettlement policies.
Iraqi refugees unfortunately bear especially heavy burdens. A resettlement agency official referred to the challenges they confront as the “perfect storm.” The Iraqis are in the U.S. because of a war America started and many arrive expecting the U.S. government to provide them with a job and a comfortable lifestyle. Before being accepted for resettlement, most Iraqi refugees spend several years depleting their savings while in limbo in neighboring countries where they’re not permitted to work. Other features of the Iraqi refugee population include a high incidence of trauma, a large number of widows without job experience and numerous skilled professionals who want to return to working in their fields.
One way that Americans can help is by answering questions from Iraqi refugees about life in America. I’m a co-founder of Refugee Roadmap, which has created a website where Iraqi refugees resettling in the U.S. can ask questions.
The vision for Refugee Roadmap belongs to an Iraqi refugee, Naseer Nouri. In the 1970’s Naseer spent seven years in the U.S. studying aircraft engineering and the next 30 years working for Iraqi Airways and running a travel and tourism company. Reflecting on his life before the war, Naseer explains that despite hardships in Iraq, his family was happy. “We never thought about leaving Iraq,” he says, “even though I flew every day to different countries. Life was really beautiful.”
As the American army entered Baghdad, Naseer checked on his travel and tourism office and stopped an Iraqi woman from looting his office. A Washington Post reporter, Anthony Shadid, witnessed the exchange and interviewed Naseer. “I explained to him,” says Naseer, “that I had studied in Tulsa, Oklahoma and he said he was from Oklahoma. We chatted and I invited him to my house. When he suggested that I work for the Washington Post, I replied, ‘doing what, the only thing I know about newspapers is that they’re the best thing for cleaning windows.’ He arranged a meeting for me with the new bureau chief, Rajiv Chandrasekaran. When Rajiv asked what I thought about working for the Post I said I didn’t have any experience. ‘We’ll teach you,’ he said. I started the next day.”
Naseer worked for the Post from 2003-2008. “I saw that when American reporters were out focusing on a story, no one was watching their back. They didn’t want to be guarded by the military or just work from the Green Zone. They wanted to be in the Red Zone, among the people. So I watched their back and told them what was dangerous.”
Naseer is thanked in the acknowledgements of several books written by Post reporters. Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote in Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone, “[t]he Post has been fortunate to have an amazing team of Iraqis working as interpreters, drivers and guards. They put their lives on the line every day to help me understand what was really happening in their country. For that, and so much else, I am eternally grateful…”
Anthony Shadid wrote in Night Draws Near: Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War, “[this book] would have been impossible without the generosity, compassion, humor and courage of my colleagues at the Washington Post in Baghdad. They are the spirit of this book. In a time of conflict and chaos, a group of Iraqis and Americans came together, enduring long moments of drudgery, stress, and uncertainty, interspersed with bursts of exhilaration. In a shattered country, we came to believe in one another…” And in “The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq,” author Tom Ricks wrote, “I am in awe of the Iraqi staff of the Washington Post’s Baghdad bureau, who through death, kidnappings, and bombings have not only held together but produced superb journalism.”
Naseer’s work for the Post ultimately endangered his family. Armed men tried to kidnap his 14 year-old daughter and succeeded in kidnapping his nephew. The boy managed to escape and told Naseer that one of the kidnappers had said, “your uncle thought that he could hide his daughter, but you see how we were able to get you. Your uncle works for the Americans, spying on Iraqis.”
Naseer’s Washington Post friends encouraged him to apply for refugee status in the U.S. He was accepted for resettlement and chose to live in the DC area to be close to friends. “When we arrived at the airport in Washington,” Naseer says, “my family asked ‘do you think anyone will remember you now that you’re not working for the Post.’ Before I replied, I saw several Washington Post colleagues waiting for us. One of them was wearing an Iraqi soccer team t-shirt and waving an American flag. They hugged us. You can’t imagine the positive impression that left on my kids to this day.”
Naseer explains that during his first months in the U.S, “every time a door seemed to close, a friend helped.” Strangers helped too. Naseer’s friends hadn’t mentioned that there was a bus from his apartment to the metro. “One rainy day,” Naseer recalls, “as we walked from the metro with our bags, a man offered us a ride. I asked if we could pay him and he said ‘no, just pay it forward.’ A friend later explained to Naseer that all refugees in America have had to “pay it forward.” Refugees can’t repay those who initially help them but they can eventually help others.”
Now, a few years after resettling in the U.S., Naseer’s family is doing well. They recently bought a house, Naseer’s younger daughters are in college (with full scholarships), his older son and daughter are working and Naseer is employed as an aircraft engineer with US Airways at Reagan National Airport. “Every night,” says Naseer, “one or two aircraft that take off from DC are maintained, signed and released by me.”
When Naseer noticed that newly arrived Iraqi refugees were making many of the same mistakes he had made he began “paying it forward” by giving advice and answering their questions. Refugee Roadmap’s mission reflects Naseer’s desire to share the lessons he has learned and to offer to other Iraqi refugees the type of guidance that his colleagues gave him. “These Iraqis,” Naseer says, “if they don’t succeed here they’ll return to Iraq. I know two families that returned and were killed by insurgents. What we’re doing is saving lives.”
Refugee Roadmap’s website was launched in January 2011 and more than 150 questions have been answered with contributions from American and Iraqi volunteers. Among the most dedicated American volunteers are those who spent time in Iraq, such as veterans and journalists. The Iraqi volunteers are refugees who have lived in the U.S. for only a short period of time but, like Naseer, they are already “paying it forward.”
Alexandra Moller is a co-founder of Refugee Roadmap. Her academic and professional experiences have been in the fields of journalism, international relations and law. Alexandra is a licensed mediator and served in the federal government as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist at CSOSA, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. She received her JD from Northeastern University Law School, a master’s degree in international relations from the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a master’s degree in print journalism from Stanford University. As a journalist, Alexandra worked at ABC News and Congressional Quarterly.
A no-fly zone was never an option, we can do better.
Filed under: Africa, Commentary, Libya, Responsibility to Protect
I can understand why President Obama was hesitant about a no-fly zone in support of the rebel groups fighting Qaddafi’s troops and mercenaries in Libya. There are many reasons not to, including the negative perception of the U.S. attacking another Muslim country, the calls from within Libya to fight the revolution on their own as the people of Egypt and Tunisia did, and the potential for a Somalia-like “Black Hawk Down” incident. Ultimately, the reality is that we cannot be sure a limited response such as a “no-fly zone” would achieve any stated goals and it may end up requiring a more serious troop and equipment commitment later. I get it.
People in Benghazi, Libya at a protest rally.
But the chance to pull the trigger on this option expired several days ago as Libyan troops loyal to Gaddafi pushed rebels into a corner. Nevertheless, we still need to get involved and the reasons to do so vastly outweigh the negatives. I have listed my top 5 below.
- We did not come to the rescue before: Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica…do we really want to add Ajdabiya, Libya to this list?
- The 22-nation Arab League, which froze Libya’s membership last month, passed a resolution this past weekend calling for the UN to impose a no-fly zone, bringing much needed legitimacy.
- Let’s assume Gaddafi’s forces smash the opposition and win back control. Do we then return to normalcy? Do we ignore the huge humanitarian crisis and displaced people fleeing Libya? Can Gaddafi come to New York in September for the UN General Assembly opening session? Is it safe or responsible to assume that he is only a threat to his own people now and will not resume a nuclear program or Lockerbie bombing style activities? Of course not. He will be a paranoid, vengeful, threatening menace to the entire western and Arab world.
- For the first time in history, China and Iran have sailed naval warships through the Suez Canal and into the Mediterranean Sea. Iran sent two ships to visit Syria, possibly delivering weapons to be smuggled into Gaza and China has redeployed the 4,000 ton missile frigate Xuzhou from its anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden to assist in the evacuation of Chinese workers from Libya. Talk about overkill, a cargo ship would have been enough. Maybe I’m reading too much George Friedman, but the U.S. needs to step up. Crises brew instability, which in turn ferment opportunities for speculators to take advantage.
- We can do plenty of other things, besides dropping bombs and securing a no-fly zone which will have a better outcome and a lighter footprint in this sensitive situation
Remember, we don’t need to defeat Gaddafi, just force him to negotiate with the opposition or make him so weak his own forces desert him. He has plenty of cash stashed away and plenty of weapons and gasoline. So what can we do? Well, we can start by:
- Scramble and disrupt Gaddafi’s communications systems, all of them, so he’s a frightened Bedouin living in the dark ages, unable to deliver orders to commanders in the desert.
- Share intelligence on movements by Gaddafi’s military and command staff to the opposition
- Set-up aid and supply depots with Tunisia and Egypt’s assistance on the borders of Libya
- Repeal the UN arms embargo to Libya and supply the rebels with light artillery and other defensive arms
- Launch an unmanned drone and let them know we are following Gaddafi or one of his sons. That will make them stop in their tracks
- Increase Arabic radio and television broadcasts by the VOA across the country to counter Gaddafi’s propaganda
The age old phrase, better late than never, rings true here. As Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote in the New York Times last week, we are “fiddling” away our opportunities to prevent this massacre. The Obama administration has been moving forward, drafting UN resolutions, sending Secretary Clinton to Paris for G8 talks and a 45 min meeting with representatives from the opposition but all this talk is exactly what Gaddafi and his clan want. While we talk about Muslim sensitivities, national interests and insignificant budgetary implications, he sweeps through towns with tanks and machine guns blazing. By the end of this week, there might not be an opposition movement to support and come next September, Colonel Gaddafi could be smugly pitching his tent in New York for the UN summit.
A journey further up the Nile: democracy in the world’s newest country
By: Bennet Cerven
The drum beat of revolution in Egypt, Tunisia and across the greater Middle East has diverted attention away from what may be the international community’s greatest opportunity to make significant progressive headway in a region that has been characterized by war and bloodshed for half a century.
Southern Sudan continues to celebrate the historic outcome of last month’s referendum, making it the world’s newest country, but the celebrations could be short lived if international assistance is not forthcoming. Although Southern Sudan is independent, it is young and fragile, having sustained itself on foreign aid and United Nations support for the past decade. Therefore, outside commitments and institution building assistance to the newborn state are critical for its future growth. In Southern Sudan, the gates to democracy and economic prosperity may have been flung wide open, but the international community must not fail to assist Southern Sudan with the opportunity its people have presented themselves.
View of a polling centre and poll worker at the Comboni School in Raja, West Bahr el Ghazal State, South Sudan, on the third day of balloting in the South's referendum on independence. UN Photo/Paul Banks
A war with history
Before discussing Southern Sudan’s future, one must first understand its past. Throughout its history, Sudan has showed little desire to exert economic prowess, predominantly because the country’s isolationist tribal culture. And while it was not until the era of colonialism that Sudan became a player in world trade, Sudan’s lack of indigenous development beyond this point can be laid at the feet of the colonial system. A resource rich land like Sudan was coveted by all of the European imperial powers, and similar to North America, they began to carve out loyal colonies. However, the difference between the events which followed African colonialism and North American colonialism lies in education. The North American colonists left the mother country to build a new future for themselves and their families. This is the important distinction between North American colonies and African colonies, the rise of the American revolutionaries. Once the United States had won their independence, they sought to unify and build a system based in the laws of Western norms. The pretexts of the current international economic system laid the foundation for their new state. As the United States moved forward, its culture became intertwined with economic success. Perhaps the most important factor, which is often overlooked, was the ability of the newly independent United States to function independent from direct foreign contact. A sustainable growth pattern was developed, and America’s wealth found itself in the hands of mostly American citizens. Africa has not been graced with the same opportunities which the Americans realized.
African colonialism remained for nearly two centuries beyond the American Revolution. The sting from the American Revolution was still fresh on the imperial mind, and the colonial organization of Africa began to take a different form in the years following. By the late 19th century, Western European colonial powers had converged on the Nile headwaters. The Nile territories were of the utmost strategic importance to the imperial United Kingdom. At this time, the Sudan was a condominium of Egypt and the United Kingdom. According to Dr. LL.M Mohamed H. Fadlalla’s book, A Short History of Sudan, the United Kingdom pursued a policy of divide and rule, in order to prevent the unification of the Nile Valley under Islamic Egyptian leadership and prevent an uprising. The British policy was to prevent Arab nationalists from unifying and challenging control of prominent economic objectives. The policy was implemented within Sudan as the British sought to exacerbate tensions between a multitude of ethnic groups. By 1924, the British divided Sudan into two separate territories – a predominantly Arabic Muslim North, and an Animist and Christian South. Even language barriers were put in place, as the speaking of Arabic was encouraged in the North, and English in the South. The gerrymandering of British colonial territories did prevent a substantial uprising from occurring, but the hostile environment it created, is still being realized today. The state of Sudan endured decades of civil war following its independence, the ramification of the British divide and conquer strategy.
Setting the stage for success
After enduring one of the longest civil wars in modern history, a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was reached in January 2005 between the central government in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) known as the Naivasha Agreement. An important outcome of the Naivasha Agreement was the Sudanese referendum, which officially took place from 9 January to 15 January 2011, and allowed the people of Southern Sudan to vote on whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or become independent. On 7 February 2011, the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission announced in Khartoum that the people of Southern Sudan had voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence (98.83%). President Omar al-Bashir recognized the legitimacy of the decision cast by the South Sudanese voters, officially signaling an exciting new page in the history of the region. This excitement extends far beyond the region, as the international community now has an opportunity to forge a new standard in the region. Though the first historical battle has been won, the events which follow will determine whether a path toward sustainable peace and development can be drawn.
Despite the success of the referendum, tensions between rival clans in Southern Sudan have sparked numerous violent clashes over the past week, killing more than 200 people. Political leaders in the south will likely call upon the UN Peace-building commission to help ensure that the people taste the best dividends of peace-building. Austria will likely take the lead on the Southern Sudan peace configuration following their role as Chair of the Sudanese Sanctions Commission. UN agencies are currently reviewing how to best ensure inter-agency cooperation over the coming decade, with emphasis on building transparency and stable pillars of democracy.
Building a new standard
The fate of the Southern Sudanese state is contingent upon their response to two important questions: Can they cooperate with Khartoum, led by al-Bashir? And can they build a successful democratic society characterized by economic growth and political process? The ability to cooperate with Khartoum will be determined over the coming months. Certain human rights organizations and members of Southern Sudan desire to see al-Bashir before an international court for crimes against humanity, an action that could threaten the historic peace which emerged from the Naivasha Agreement and last month’s referendum. In order for a peaceful coexistence between Khartoum and the newly independent south, the people of Southern Sudan and the international community at large must be willing to sacrifice any aspirations for justice over past grievances in the name of sustainable peace. One can refer to the success of the National Conference in Benin as a model for success in a similar capacity. Dr. Jacques Koko, professor at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, attributes the success of the National Conference to the willingness of the once oppressed people to work with then President Kérékou towards a peaceful state transition in his book National Conference as a Strategy for Conflict Transformation and Peacemaking. The people of Southern Sudan and the international community must respect al-Bashir’s willingness to recognize the people of Southern Sudan’s right to self-determination in the hopes that a lasting and sustainable peace is will endure.
Jimmy Carter (second from right), former President of the United States, and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (right) speak with reporters outside a polling station in Juba, capital of South Sudan. UN Photo/Tim McKulka
An incredible opportunity has been laid at the feet of the international community to build a new state model in Africa, using Southern Sudan as the new standard. The importance of education in democratic theory and economic principles must be stressed in its communities, and programs encouraging political participation and entrepreneurship should be designed and implemented at all levels of society. Furthermore, we as international actors must allow the people to take control of their own destiny, putting full faith in the people to design a political and economic system according to their values and culture. Joseph Cornelius Donnelly, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations of Caritas Internationalis an international relief and development NGO said, “what deep hopes for peace dividends were imagined five years ago with the signing of the much-heralded CPA have been ever so cautiously reignited with last month’s historic Referendum. The near 99percent registered voter participation clamored for independence. In a few months this long-sought liberation in South Sudan marks the start of another timeframe. We all hope it does not require another lifetime to materialze with objective, confidence building local and regional mechanisms.”
The coming months in Sudan will be critical, and must result in creating opportunities for economic growth and infrastructure. Now is the opportunity to put some of that gargantuan supply of international development aid to good use, seeing to it that the money directly funds programs which benefit the building of a new state. I challenge the international community to formulate the next innovative programs that will make the newly independent Southern Sudan the new standard for state-building in the developing world. Let us not miss another opportunity to win the war against history.
