Has a new door opened to conflicts over oil and land, asks Asmaa El-Husseini The International Court of Arbitration in The Hague reached a decision on the new borders of the disputed Abyei region in Sudan. Before the ink of the court's document could dry, however, new disputes have risen between North and South Sudan. The National Congress Party of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) so far have welcomed the decision and affirmed their commitment to it, but problems remain concerning the actual implementation of the court's decision. The court did not determine whether Abyei will belong to the North or the South; this will be determined in a later referendum. It only determined the new borders of the region. For some time, the borders that were decided by the Abyei Protocol under a commission consisting of five foreign experts, gave the Abyei region to North Sudan. This, of course, did not satisfy the National Congress Party, for they wanted the land. The SPLM welcomed the decision and considered it binding. This conflict of opinion led to an escalation of violence between the two groups. In May of last year, violent fights broke out resulting in the destruction of much of Abyei, the murder of scores of people and the flight of 50,000 residents. So great was the fear of the consequences if the court's decision did not suit the interests of either of the two main tribes concerned -- the Dinka Ngok and the Missiriya -- that officials raised a state of alert not only in Abyei, but also in its four neighbouring states. The court's decision, compared to the former decision by the commission to award all of the oil-rich areas to North Sudan, is a balanced decision. It redraws Abyei's east and west borders with consideration of grazing rights and the rights of secondary tribes in Abyei. Not even 24 hours have gone by and already the Missiriya tribe is expressing its dissatisfaction with the court's decision. Some of the tribe members have outwardly rejected the court's decision, calling on the president of the Sudanese Republic to compensate them for the loss of most of their lands under the new ruling. The National Convention has cheered the court's decision in a wild outburst of emotion. Vice-President of the government of South Sudan Riek Machar praised the court for not ascribing Heglig to North Sudan, even though it is located on the disputed border between South Kordofan and Unity state. Dardiri Mohamed Ahmed was quick to bring up the issue of immediately putting a stop to the transfer of dividends from the sale of Heglig oil. The Hague's decision may have closed the books on the Abyei case legally, but it seems that the implications of this decision will open the door to further conflict between North and South Sudan over borders, not just in Abyei but in surrounding areas as well. If the two sides do not work at skillfully managing this border conflict, the implementation of The Hague's decision might jeopardise the stability of the region again. Many observers believe that the government's celebration of the return of Heglig oil will be temporary, as this issue is sure to create new conflict between the North and South. Judge Awn Al-Khasawneh, a Jordanian who sits on the Court of International Arbitration in The Hague was one of those who did not agree with its decision on Abyei. Al-Khasawneh found the decision unconvincing, full of contradictions, and the result of a political deal. Al-Khasawneh says that the experts of the Abyei Boundary Commission had clear-cut authority to demarcate the area of the Nine Tribes that was given to Kordofan in 1905. This does not mean that the Dinka Ngok tribe was actually living in that area at the time, which Al-Khasawneh considers a completely different issue. For Judge Al-Khasawneh, the idea that the Dinka Ngok have fundamental rights to the Abyei region and that the Missiriya have only secondary rights, is not supported by reality. It creates a situation in which the Missiriya are second-class citizens in their own country. Al-Khasawneh points to the fact that the commission experts awarded large tracts of land to the Dinka Ngok which had never belonged to them, neither in 1905 nor in 1965. This land actually belonged to the Missiriya. Al-Khasawneh stresses that the decision of the court is a controversial combination of the desire of the majority on the one hand, and on the other, a desire to reach a compromise that would distribute Sudan's oil. Unfortunately it did not take into account the Missiriya in South Kordofan. The court missed a golden and rare opportunity to bring peace to the Abyei conflict. If this issue is not resolved, the borders of Abyei could become international borders, splitting Sudan in two, which would deny the grazing rights which Sudanese lives have depended on for over two centuries. Perhaps an intervention in the situation in Abyei could produce a truce until a referendum is held. However, the future of developments will be open to many possibilities that could put the case back in world headlines, particularly the question relating to who should be entitled to a referendum in Abyei. While leaders in southern Sudan affirmed that the right of a referendum to decide the fate of the Abyei would be restricted to the Dinka Ngok tribe, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir and other leaders in the National Congress affirmed that it was the right of the Missiriya as well. This means that there will be another dispute over Abyei after the borders are defined. Depriving the Missiriya of their right to take part in the referendum would create even greater conflict. While the controversy surrounding The Hague's ruling on Abyei could quiet down a bit in Sudan, the issues of awarding oil-rich Heglig to North or South Sudan, and who has the right to vote in any referendum will be the next landmines awaiting Sudan.
