CONSULTATION REPORT

Systems for Effective Regional Relations –

Ensuring Stability around the Abyei Boundary

Nairobi, Kenya, 15 – 17 July 2009

Part of the Sudan Peace-Building Initiative, financed by the European Commission

Additional support provided by United States Agency for International Development.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European
Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Concordis
International and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position
of the European Union or USAID.
Introduction

Responding to a request of the Presidential Assessment and Evaluation Commission

for Southern Kordofan State (PAEC SKS)1, Concordis International facilitated a
consultation on ‘Systems for Effective Regional Relations – Ensuring Stability around
the Abyei Boundary’ in Nairobi, Kenya, from 15 to 17 July 2009. The consultation
focused on conflict mitigation for Sudan’s Abyei area in advance of the decision on
the demarcation of the Abyei boundary by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the
Hague, which was announced on 22 July 2009.

The consultation brought together influential local leaders and members of civil
society from the Dinka Ngok and Misseriya tribes in order to consider possible
systems for managing effective, peaceful relationships across the Abyei boundary.
The intention was to provide these communities with a space and opportunity to
consider not where the border should be but rather what kind of border relationship
would enable them to realise their livelihoods and be secure. Concordis sought to
provide an opportunity to develop common understandings and consensus between
the communities regarding how they could work together and develop plans to
ensure that wherever the Abyei border is drawn their security, development and
livelihoods needs would be met and they would be more resilient against pressures
to return to hostilities.

The event was part of the pilot period of the Sudan Peacebuilding Initiative that
Concordis is implementing with the financial support of the European Commission.
Within Sudan, practical preparations for the event were primarily undertaken by the
PAEC for Southern Kordofan and the Civil Affairs team of the United Nations Mission
In Sudan (UNMIS) on the ground in Abyei. A proportion of the logistical costs and
support associated with the initiative were provided by United States Agency for
International Development’s Office of Transitional Initiatives (USAID OTI).

Both the Abyei Area Administrator and his Deputy had been made aware of the
consultation in advance and had expressed that it would be a constructive and timely
exercise, which could complement their own initiatives to build peace in the area.

The consultation was an exercise in sharing ideas and developing proposals. It was
not a negotiation. Presentations provided insights into different ways of
understanding borders as well as examples of systems for governing border
relationships and experiences of cross-border cooperation initiatives in other African
contexts. It was hoped that the ideas and experiences conveyed in the presentations
would be useful resources for the participants, as they considered how to address
their own situation.

After the presentations, participants worked together to discuss the fears, needs,
interests and opportunities that they associated with the Abyei boundary.
Subsequently they developed proposals regarding what types of initiative might be
taken at which different levels to ensure peaceful and effective relations in the Abyei

1The PAEC is established in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement Chapter V,

article 3.4.

2
area and across the Abyei boundary. This report details the content of the
presentations as well as the conclusions of the subsequent discussions between the
Misseriya and Dinka Ngok participants and the proposals that they jointly produced.

1. Approaches to understanding borders and relationships across

borders – considering the implications for Abyei

Presentation: Lucian Harriman – Thinking About Borders

This presentation, discusses a few different ideas and concepts related to borders,
which may be of use to the Dinka Ngok and the Misseriya, when thinking about their
own situation. This includes concepts such as boundaries, frontiers and peripheries
as well as the idea of soft and hard borders. (Most of the ideas contained in this
presentation were taken from a lecture for post-graduate students of Violence,
Conflict and Development by Dr Jonathan Goodhand, Senior Lecturer in
Development Practice at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the University
of London.) Before looking at these concepts, we should note that the essence of
the discussion is really about different types of relationships. How can we have
effective and secure relationships, which enable us to coexist peacefully? And if
there is a border, how can we have effective peaceful relationships with that border
in mind?

Sudan has many different borders, including between localities, between different
states, between North/South Sudan, and international borders. The Abyei border
could stay a border within the Sudan or it could become an international border.
Wherever it is demarcated and whether or not it becomes an international border, a
question to consider about the Abyei boundary is how it can be managed in a way
that meets the needs of the communities living around it. Some of the following
concepts may help the Abyei communities when considering this challenge.

One concept associated with borders is boundaries. Boundaries essentially set

limits. These can be limits of ownership, authority and sometimes of armed forces.
Usually when we talk about boundaries, we talk about limits and differences. These
differences can be between places or between people. Or maybe boundaries define
which places are safe, which places are unsafe. When you are talking about social
boundaries you talk about which people are included and which are excluded. Who
do we describe as being part of the group and who do we describe as outside the
group. But when you chose who to include and who to exclude, you choose which
characteristics to emphasize to define who to include and who to exclude and this is
often part of conflict. You choose which differences are important, and which can be
ignored. Tribal identity, religion, class, political party can all be used to draw social
boundaries and be mobilised in a conflictWe, as one tribe, must fight the other tribe.
We are all this, we must defend ourselves against that. Basically, when we talk
about boundaries we talk about limits, differences, inclusion, and exclusion.

Frontiers are associated with movement, as well as with violence and contestation.
A frontier is something in to which a government or army is extending, a moving
periphery. I am located here and I am extending my influence, all the way further
and beyond.

3
A periphery is the area outside of the centralised focus of power, wealth,
development, or representation. The further you move away from the centralised
point, the less representation or investment there will be. The people living in border
areas may live in peripheral areas. This concept has been discussed a lot regarding
Sudan. Khartoum and Juba are examples of those centralised points of influence. A
question for the people of Abyei to consider is whether they are at the periphery or at
the core of Sudan. Maybe they are part of both

International borders are borders between states. Some international borders are
fixed. They have legal and political significance and they define the sovereignty of
states. They may not necessarily correspond to the social borders between different
groups. In this context, borderland is an important concept to think about.
Borderland is the area on either side of a border. The people of Abyei live in a
borderland and the border between for instance North and South Sudan will have
significance for them.

Whenever there is a border, there is to some extent a system governing it. But the
way in which the authorities on either side of a border regulate it may be different.
The way in which these borders are managed and governed by authorities is of
significance to the people living in that borderland. People living around the border
have to negotiate their relationships with the border system. It may be difficult for
states to deal with border populations. State authorities may not understand the
needs of people living in border or understand to whom the people are loyal. These
issues could be resolved by the authorities taking an interest in the needs of the
people living in their borderland.

It may be very clear to see the differences on either side of the border, for instance
when it comes to language. But in addition to some visible differences, often some
things are the same on both sides of a border. People living in border areas have to
negotiate the border system . Examples of this are: how am I going to live my life the
way I want? What do I need to do in order to deal with these people on the other side
of the border? How am I going to move from one side to the other? Sometimes the
differences on either side of the border provide opportunities to the people living
there, such as trade opportunities. Sometimes borders provide opportunities that the
people regulating the border have not really have thought about, or which they seek
to prevent.

Some borders can be described as hard and some as soft. A hard border may be
understood as a barrier separating people. It can be seen as a restrictive. However,
a soft border can be seen as a place of interaction and as a sight of integration. It
may be associated with mobility, opportunity and the idea of trust. The people on
either side of this border have a common interest; hence there is more interaction,
integration and mobility. On the other hand, a hard border may be associated with
the perception of threat. There is a risk from which we must defend ourselves.
Therefore there may be a more tense, more militarized situation.

But which type of border relationship is more secure, a hard or a soft border? We
see more security people around a hard border, but in which situation are the people
who live there genuinely more secure? Whether or not it may eventually become an
international border, would you prefer the Abyei boundary to have the characteristics
of a hard or a soft border? And what is necessary to achieve the type of border
relationship you desire?

4
Presentation - Dr Wafula Okumu – African Borderland Communities

Having been monitoring African borders for the past 5 years, I can say for certain that
borders are not fixed. This can be illustrated by the example of the borders of
Europe. When one departs from an African country to go to a European country,
stewards on the aeroplane will want to see a visa as proof that you are eligible to go
to that country. The Europeans have moved their borders to Africa.

African boundaries are increasingly becoming a source of conflict. Although there

have been few inter-state conflicts since 1964, there is high potential for border
disputes, because of natural resources and porosity of borders. Porosity of borders
allows for insecurity, and has contributed to rebel activities (LRA, FDLR, RUF) and
criminal activities (terrorism, trafficking, etc).

Many African borders are undefined. They are not marked on the ground, and when
they are, they are often not maintained. Because of this lack of management, those
borders become porous. The boundaries one sees on a map of Africa are not the
true borders. Only 25 percent of Africa’s borders are marked on the ground. And
because of the lack of marking of African borders, at least 80 border hotspots are
identified, where there is tension around the border or the border is contested.

In 1964, the OAU made a resolution that African countries will accept colonial
boundaries and if there are any disputes on those borders, they will resolve them by
using colonial records. However nothing was really done since 1964. The borders
that were not defined by the colonialists can be marked with pillars or with other
means, but these markings are often not maintained. The AU has discovered that
this lack of defining and demarcating the boundaries can lead to conflict. Therefore
the AU is now seeking to turn borders into bridges of cooperation in order to prevent
border disputes.

Regarding the history of Africa, when the African borders were first drawn there was
little knowledge of local conditions. Only 200,000 square miles had been surveyed in
detail by 1900 in the whole of Africa. The presence of mineral wealth was the
motivation for the colonial agencies to mark these boundaries. These markings were
also influenced by war and imperial interests. Certain areas were demarcated
sloppily due to costly personnel and equipment and many of these have now become
hotspots. However, the research does show that in some areas border marking was
very well done, because local interests were incorporated into the border
demarcation. The main reason for the border markings was colonial power relations.
The borders were defined to prevent different European authorities from fighting
each other for mineral sources in Africa.

Africa has more than 1700 different ethnic groups and they have been squeezed into
53 countries. For instance, the Somalis found themselves in Kenya, Somalia,
Djibouti, Ethiopia. Some colonial boundaries are arbitrary and artificial. But some are
very methodological and catered to local interests. An example is the Urundi-Ujiji
Boundary. In this case, the people responsible saw their mistakes in denying local
communities their right to land and water and they had to redefine the border. Ilemu
Triangle border communities were also taken into consideration. These border
communities used to move North and South for water when the seasons changed.
This kind of pastoralist lifestyle involves movement of arms and cattle and therefore
security became an issue. It could not be controlled from Khartoum, so it was
decided that Kenya would control the security along the border. This explains why
there are two lines between Kenya and Sudan, namely the administrative and
political boundaries. The biggest challenge between Kenya and Sudan is that they

5
have not been able to resolve this boundary issue over the Ilemi Triangle. This is one
of the hottest border spots, especially because it was used in the conflict between
North and South Sudan.

Boundaries have a large impact on borderland communities. Borders define

nationality and sovereignty of a nation or people, but they can also be exclusionary. It
means that borders grant ownership and use by a specific group(s) or person(s).

Borderland communities exploit boundaries in different ways. Examples are trading,

the use of middle people to see which commodities are cheapest on which side of
the border, and choosing social benefits such as education or health services in the
country where they are best.

In traditional African societies, land was communally owned and land was a common
good you could not exclude someone else from using. With the arrival of colonialism,
ownership was introduced. And that meant people or communities excluding others
from the land that they were traditionally entitled to use. Now that we have borders
as a reality in Africa, we have to learn how to use them, and how to live with them.
They can either define us or we can define them. We can determine how to use
borders or how borders will use us.

An example of a border community is the Masaai. The boundary has divided the
Masaai in two states, namely Kenya and Tanzania. In the 60s, both countries
developed two radically different policies and administrations, which highly affected
the Masaai. They lost a lot of their grazing land to national parks.

One of the impacts on the Masaai lifestyle is the land tenure system. On the
Tanzanian side, the system allowed joint wildlife and pastoralist land use. Kenya
allowed individual land tenure. Also in Kenya, land was privatized, which diminished
reciprocal access. An example of the differences between the Masaai on the
Kenyan side of the border and the Masaai on the Tanzanian side of the border
concerns milk. Milk is regarded as a commodity in Kenya, but is a social currency in
Tanzania. On both sides of the border, milk, however, is still a powerful mechanism
for maintaining social networks. There are also some other noticeable differences
between the Kenyan Maasai and the Tanzanian Masaai. The Masaai in Kenya have
more resources. They have increased their menu. You can find rice, onions, beans,
ugali, milk, and meat on the table. In Tanzania, it is only milk, meat and ugali.

The Masaai symbolize the old adage that “when two elephants fight, it is the grass
that suffers”. They have suffered as a consequence of the many differences Kenya,
Uganda and Tanzania have had since the 70s. Despite the border there is no
significant difference between the two parts of Maasailand as far as indices of
average livestock production and human nutrition are concerned. Even the culture
remained more or less intact. But some cultural practices have changed, because
the Masaai have had to adjust certain practices to the changes in their pastoralist
lifestyle. They had to take up other activities such as becoming tourist attractions and
selling Maasai products. Masaai culture is very attractive and it is used for
commercials and advertisements. The Maasai culture has become commercialized.
Some people started posing as Maasais for tourists. Maasai have competed with the
Game, the wild animals. One of the eight wonders of the world is the movement of
wild beasts and when it happens it affects the Maasai cattle pastures.
.
Another border community to look at is the community that lives on the border
between Uganda and the DRC. This community shows what a border can do to
people of the same community that originate from the same culture and speak the

6
same language. On the Congo side of the border the members of this community are
called Batalinga and in Uganda they are called Baamba. The extensive differences
between the Baamba and the Batalinga can be seen in the following table:

Batalinga Baamba

Roman Catholic Protestant

Strong traditional believers/practitioners Less traditional

Polygamous Mostly monogamous

Bigger families Smaller families

Francophone/Kiswahili speakers Anglophone (Kiswhili discouraged)

Claim to speak pure Amba & resisted Toro

Speaks Amba mixed with French & Kiswahili assimilation

Wear bright colored clothes (vitenge) Prefers English version

Without this border, these differences would not have been there.

In conclusion, boundaries have had profound effects on trans-boundary

communities, particularly in their movements to enhance their livelihoods. The
impacts of boundaries on trans-boundary communities vary: the Maasai pastoralist
lifestyle was highly affected by the boundary but they somehow managed to retain
their distinct identity with few differences between the two parts of Masaailand,
whereas the Baamba have been deeply divided by the boundary and two distinct
identities were created.

Overall in Africa, boundaries seem to have created animosities between people of

the same cultures and inculcated in them national orientations and lifestyles that
distinctly define them rather than their cultural practices. The people of Abyei have a
chance to determine how the border is going to affect their lives and their
relationships.

Presentation - Shamsaddin A. Dawalbait – How the CPA addressed the Abyei

border issue

There are three documents in the CPA that addressed the Abyei issue, namely the
Protocol on the Resolution of Abyei Conflict signed May 26 2004, the Additional
Agreement on Abyei signed September 17 2004, and the Implementation modalities
of Abyei Protocol signed on September 13 2004. These documents do not offer
detailed arrangement and treatment for how the border is managed. However, they
provide different indicators that help us to deal with general guidelines regarding the
border.

The Abyei Protocol defines the Abyei area as the area of the ‘nine Ngok Dinka
chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905’. The residents of the Abyei area are the
‘members of Ngok Dinka community and other Sudanese residing in the area’. The
Misseriya and other Nomadic peoples retain their traditional rights to graze cattle and
move across the territory of Abyei. Besides defining the geographic and demographic
framework of Abyei area, the Protocol is a mixed framework. It concludes that Abyei
is a bridge between the north and the south linking the people of Sudan. Abyei is
accorded a special administrative status. Its residents will be citizens of both South
Kordofan and Bahr el Ghazal and they will be represented in the legislative councils

7
of both states. The Protocol also allocates both the Dinka Ngok and the Misseriya
2% each from the oil revenues produced in Abyei area.

Ultimately the Protocol commits the Presidency to immediately start a peace and
reconciliation process to work towards harmony and peaceful coexistence in the
Abyei area. The ABC report found there was ‘considerable misunderstanding about
the effect that setting a boundary for the area will have’. The report stresses that the
‘boundary that is defined and demarcated will not be a barrier to the interaction
between the Misseriya and Ngok Dinka communities. Therefore it can be said that
the Protocol for the Resolution of Abyei Conflict and the CPA in general envision the
tribal boundaries, the borders of the Abyei area and the state borders as open
administrative lines to regulate and administer to these areas, and not to restrict
movement or change the life patters of Dinka Ngok, Misseriya, or other Sudanese
associated with these borders. So these borders can be like any other administrative
border inside of Sudan. People move from, for instance, Gezira to Khartoum to live
and work there, which means that borders in this context do not restrict the
movement of the people. It is important to note that the arrangement to view the
borders as ‘open administrative lines’ is within the interim period. The challenge is to
extend this status and situation in the period after the interim period and definitely as
the announcement of the court ruling.

Group Dialogue – Border Relations

The main sentiment expressed by the participants was the desire for peaceful
coexistence between the Misseriya and the Dinka tribes. They wanted to use this
consultation to learn how to build strong relationships amongst them in order to
achieve peaceful coexistence. Abyei wa said to be a peripheral area, outside of the
area of development, and struck with poverty, even though it is abundant with natural
resources such as oil. Abyei needs to be included in joint efforts to combat poverty
and develop the region.

The participants recognised that it is important to let the borders serve them,
wherever they are demarcated. The border of Abyei should not be a hotspot and
therefore a soft border relationship will be desirable.

Presentation Olu Arowobusoye – Guaranteeing Security and Development of

Border Peoples: A View from West Africa.

This presentation is focused on examples from West Africa, and its topics are
security and development. With security I mean human security, which refers to
physical security but also includes security from starvation, and security from not
having a home or livelihood. Development means having the ability and the capacity
to harness the resources and opportunities one has in Abyei or wherever to suit your
needs in that particular context.

A border is a boundary that defines and establishes the physical space of a state,
region or community. Borders could define identity and a sense of belonging, while
excluding others who do not fall within the confine of that defined physical space. A
border can be positive in that it brings people together and fosters a sense of
commonality and belonging. It can also be construed negatively by that definition so
that it results in exclusion and possibly xenophobia. Even if a border is defined as
such, we can remove the negativity completely by managing the border and the
relationships, no matter where the border is, how it is defined or where it is located.

8
The dynamics of a border involve several kinds of relationships: social,
political/security, humanitarian, and economic. These dynamics present choices and
show that the border is what you make of it.

Regarding social dynamics, in some cases inhabitants on either side of a border can
share education centres, community centres and health facilities. Special
opportunities can exist for cross national interaction and understanding. Living in a
border area can present a unique opportunity for cross cultural exchanges,
interaction and understanding. But it is a matter of choice. A border relationship can
either become collaborative or not.

There are also political/security dynamics. Usually there are checkpoints and
inspections at borders. It depends on how the border is managed and governed. If it
is managed badly, this can have an extremely negative impact. Political structures
can be weakened by poor management and this can result in banditry, the flow of
small weapons and light arms, tensions and conflict, disruptions to life and property,
and death. With these risks in mind it is clear how beneficial good border
management can be and the importance of good border relations.

If you are in a border area, a unique feature is the impact of humanitarian

challenges such as refugee flows on your services and your infrastructure in the
event of conflict and displacement. Associated challenges such as the potential
spread of diseases and the various pressures on social behaviour and social
authority are distinctive if you are placed in a border area.

The last dynamic that needs to be discussed is the unique economic opportunity
that the presence of a border can offer. Such opportunities depend on your choice;
they can either be positive or negative. The opportunity exists to make a border
beneficial. For example you can create a free zone, a special economic trade zone.
There are several benefits of collaborative management in the border area. The point
is that the choice is there to be made.

The case of West Africa is illuminating. In West Africa there were cross-border
problems and regional insecurity, associated with armed groups, refugees and
internally displaced people. Conflicts were exported from the epicentre and easily
transported from one country to another, especially as there were porous artificially
created borders across ethnic groups. Can a border area in Sudan be the epicentre
of conflict in Sudan, if not properly managed? Our analysis and experience in West
Africa has shown that poor border management assists in the spread of conflict.
Problems contributing to conflict included scarcity of food, water and medicine, poor
management of resources causing tensions, overcrowded schools and health clinics,
youth unemployment, proliferation of small arms and light weapons, inadequate
sanitation facilities, land and other infrastructure, collapse of economies including
informal cross border trade, high population growth, and so on.

It is worth noting four approaches to managing border relationships: Border security

and management; Integrated Border Management; Free Movement of Peoples and
Goods; Cross border Concept/Local Integration.

Traditional border management emphasizes only physical security and exclusion.

A concerted effort and approach to manage borders in a particular and specific way,
which can be described as integrated border management, seeks to coordinate
systems for managing borders between participating countries.

9
Free movement of people and goods is practiced specifically in West Africa – the
system seeks to facilitate migration and trade within the region.

The Cross-border Concept/Local integration is also practiced in West Africa. It seeks

to better understand local border realities and to share cross border cooperation in
several ways.

ECOWAS uses two overarching methods simultaneously, concurrent and

intersecting at the regional and national/community levels, in its approach to border
management. It is important to note that the basis of ECOWAS is to assure the
integration of West African countries. Therefore a treaty was signed and a protocol
was established seeking the right of entry and abolition of visas among West African
states. This includes the right of residence to live in any West African country and to
establish myself, and my business, in any West African state. This protocol required
all countries in West Africa to abolish all obstacles to freedom of movement and
exempt everyone in the community from visas and allow them to work in any of the
member states. It also has several protocols and agreements on transportation and
health, etc. There are fifteen countries, ten of those fifteen countries use the same
currencies, five do not at the moment, but a deadline has been given that those five
must also use the same currency. Eventually one currency will be used all over the
area of West Africa.

It is important to note that although the abolishment of borders originally started as

an economic process, with the exportation of conflict from one epicentre to other
countries, ECOWAS found itself then deeply involved in peace and security. The
organisation has been criticized for being too top-down. The eradication of borders
was between governments but people-to-people community-lead initiatives and
collaborations were missing. These developments lead to the cross-border concept
and local integration. This concept is more grassroots and several initiatives, such as
WABI, SAHEL, the West African Club, and Enda/Diapol were set up with the support
of ECOWAS. Major purposes of these community-based initiatives are:
- To boost economic development through trans-border cooperation and
integration, creating synergies between local and national economies;
- To improve trade, particularly of agricultural and fishery products within
common border areas;
- To share and improve integrated public health programme/facilities for
populations on both sides of the border;
- To engage in conflict mediation.

What are the conditions, challenges and opportunities of cross border cooperation?
For us to have good cooperation and collaboration, we need a certain kind of
consciousness. This consciousness is the mental element, the awareness of
enlightened self-interest. We have the capacity to make a choice, preferably for
border cooperation, because of its benefits. Therefore the start point is a mental
consciousness and an agreement to be willing to collaborate no matter how
restricted the system is and how the border will be demarcated. Building
consciousness means communicating the concept and ensuring that others
understand.

The second condition is a cross-border observatory. If there isn’t already a

network, we should establish a network, association, council or group, either formally
or informally, responsible for strategising and monitoring the border, advocating the
positive benefits of a good cross border initiative that serves as a vanguard, the

10
champion of all issues of border relationships. This should include people from both
sides of the border.

Another condition is an integrated approach for the creation of cross border pilot
projects, specific win-win projects. The integration should take place on several
levels, involving several groups of people origination from different strata within the
society: women, children, Christians, Muslims, farmers, pastoralists, etc.

The fourth condition is complementarity and subsidiarity. Cross border initiatives

should complement and build upon the diversity of existing strengths and resources
in a region. Subsidiarity takes into account peoples different skills and advantages;
it means allocating roles based on the distribution of skills, so that all can play an
appropriate part in the process.

In conclusion, it is possible to have a win-win situation. No matter what the

demarcation of a border may be, good cross border relationships bring many benefits
to both sides.

Presentation: Professor Anthony Asiwaju – A Cooperative Border Regime in

the Abyei Area: Perspectives and Insights from Nigerian Experience & the
African Union Border Programme

This presentation explains how both Nigerian case history and the emerging African
Union Border Programme illustrate that there is an observable shift in Africa from a
passing era of conflictual borders towards a new age of the cooperative border
regime.

Regarding arbitration of the Abyei area, Nigeria had a similar case in 2002. The
International Court of Justice had to decide on the demarcation of the land
boundaries between Nigeria and Cameroun. There was hardly any consultation with
people on the ground level. Instead it was a high-level summit between the two
heads of state. When the verdict from The Hague came, it took the local communities
completely off guard, and resulted in conflict and displacement.

However, the situation in Abyei can be different, because local communities at the
grassroots level have an opportunity to agree, not on the position of the boundary,
but on how they are going to deal with the boundary. Unfortunately, we are still in a
position that decisions on boundaries will have to come from the outside, but we can
make decisions on what to do with the boundary when it is on the ground. We can
choose between a soft or harder regime, or, as some call it, between an open and
closed border. Each border type produces its own typology. A soft border or an open
border produces what we call integrated border lines. Whereas a hard border or a
closed border produces alleviated borderlines. Each of these suggests that there is
situation of a liberated policy choice. Which is our choice? At the end of the day,
what kind of borderlands do we want to have once the border is here?

Earlier discussions during this meeting show that our choice is not for a hard border
and alleviated borderlines. Our choice is not for conflicting border regimes. Rather
our option is for an open border and an integrated borderlines system, based on a
cooperative border regime.

Nigeria knows several border communities, it inherited colonial boundary

arrangements and the country faces challenges associated with international
borders, internal borders (provincial, district & native authority), borders between

11
traditional rulers, the problem of boundaries of prescribed authority and challenges
associated with ethnic boundaries and tribalism.

The Nigerian government was persuaded, after a very sustained policy dialogue, of
the need of a special development focus on these border communities. The result
was a national conference on the development of border regions in 1989. Local
communities, local governments and state governments around the periphery of the
Nigerian space participated in this conference. The focus was to bring people from
the state borders to speak politically and to indicate to the government of Nigeria that
the communities located in the periphery of the Nigerian state are structurally
disadvantaged. These border communities are disadvantaged, because they are far
from regional capitals, they have poor infrastructure and facilities, and they are being
criminalized as smugglers and cross border criminals. The 1989 conference came up
with a unanimous voice. They spoke and presented their cases as structurally
disadvantaged people. The national boundary commission realised the need of a
specialized development focus. Therefore the national border region development
border committee was formed and a special development forum was created.

In 2003 a special law came in place, namely The Border Communities, Development
Agency Enactment. From 2003 until now 7.8 billion dollars have been allocated for
border community development and the creation of Border Region Development
Agencies at the level of the states and local government. The law in Nigeria provides
certain benefits for people in borderlands and tries to turn the disadvantages into
advantages. This law is an example of affirmative action and it results in the Nigerian
border communities experiencing positive discrimination.

The border communities in Abyei should insist on a special focus for development
from the GoNU and GoSS. These governments should allocate a special fund for
these border communities. In Nigeria, the government undertook national unilateral
action to address challenges in border areas by creating the Nigerian National
Boundary Commission. This initiative had the unique mandate not only to ensure
demarcation of international and national boundaries at state and local levels, but
also to resolve or advise on resolution of all arising conflicts and stimulate a
systematic and accelerated socio-economic development of border areas. Also, in
January 2005 the cross border initiatives programme was adopted and its
implementation is ongoing with pilot projects.

In 2007 the most comprehensive policy instrument ever was established at the
African continent level, namely the African Union Border Programme. This
programme is aimed at a systematic conversion of borders in the continent from their
inherited postures as barriers to new roles and functions and as bridges between
member states of the Union. The African Union Border Programme places premium
attention on cross border communities and it has a threefold objective:

- Acceleration of the border demarcation processes in the continent, with the

target date of completion set for 2012.

- Cross-border cooperation in planning and development of shared cross-

border areas as the new cornerstone for deepening African integration
process and preventing conflict.

- Capacity building, notably training, research activities, development of

innovative knowledge infrastructure and specialised institutions to support the
new cross-border cooperation and regional initiatives.

12
Boundaries are a paradox, they “can divide or unite; they may bind the interior and
link with the exterior, they can be barriers or junctions; they can be walls or
doors;…they can be managed either to eliminate conflicts and promote cooperation
or to stimulate tensions” 2

Ultimately, there are only two policy options: open or closed, peace or war, life or
death, risks or opportunities, ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. The choice is in our hands when The
Hague decides on the borders. What do we want to make of it?

We can learn from the experience of Europe, which created us as states of Africa.
The period from 1648 - when a treaty was signed that lead to the birth of the
European classical states - up until 1945 was a period of tragedies and war within
Europe. The time from 1945, however, shows a change in direction as Europe
moved from war to peace, from conflict to cooperation from authoritarianism to
democracy, from state concerns to people’s concerns, and from ‘mights’ to rights.
This was accompanied by an increasingly open and cooperative border regime
between European states as embodied in the European Union.

As mentioned above, the Nigerian response to challenges associated with borders

was to create new state and local government boundary committees and
commissions. In the aftermath of the 2002 ICJ judgment on the Nigeria-Cameroun
border, we still face challenges and there is a lingering crisis regarding the settlement
of affected Nigerians. But apart from these challenges the National Boundary
Commission can claim some credit. The joint development zone/joint development
authority with Sao Tome & Principe since 2005 is one of the successes.

Ultimately, the Nigerian experiences teaches us that we do have the option of

establishing a cooperative border regime to resolve border conflicts and meet the
needs of people living in border areas.

3. Developing common approaches and proposals

Participants discussed in groups fears, needs, interests and opportunities associated

with the Abyei boundary.

Fears
1. Insecurity in the case of unaccepted demarcation of the border
2. Conflict and tension between the two tribes
3. Legislation that contradicts with the interests of one or the other party.
4. Lack of freedom of movement for people and the animals.
5. Smuggling, especially in relation to arms
6. If border freedoms are unequal – i.e. if they only apply to one of the groups but not
the other
7. Borders being hard – i.e. restrictive, tense and militarised
8. Potential harm to development
9. Development of insecure hotspots
10. Undermining of the exchange of mutual interest between the tribes.
11. Transport being disrupted on the Abyei road to Khartoum

2 Raimondo Strassoldo, 1989

13
12. In case of separation of the South, in the case that Abyei belongs to the South,
the border becoming closed or hardened.
13. Lack of will of citizens, influencing border management.
14. Peaceful coexistence becoming a theory and not a practice
15. The possibility that politicians of one of the parties use some vulnerable elements
between the two tribes for their own benefit
16. Potential impact of secession on stability in Northern Sudan
17. Prevalence of culture of violence

Needs/Interests
1. The need for comprehensive security
2. The need for sustainable development
3. The rational utilization of non-renewable resources, particularly oil
4. Cooperation and joint activity between members of both tribes
5. Guaranteeing access to grazing land
6. Health service provision
7. Provision of agricultural services
8. Spreading the culture of peace in both tribes

Opportunities
1. The desire to lead a life of peaceful coexistence and reconciliation
2. The natural renewable resources
3. The possibility of having local community leaders who are competent
4. The possibility of creating a model for attractive unity
5. Modernizing local and international funding to meet community needs
6. The allocated 2 percent of oil income for development of each group
7. Benefitting from the Unity Fund.
8. The interest of the international community to support peaceful coexistence
9. Benefitting from the support of Civil Society Organizations for the purpose of
peacebuilding

Participants produced a matrix of proposals for potential cross-border initiatives

which is appended to this document.

4. Epilogue

Wafula Okumu shared some final thoughts with participants.

In order to have peaceful coexistence, certain values need to be upheld:

communication, trust and respect.

It is important not to create another system of apartheid. South Africa is still crushed
by the negative consequences of their apartheid system. Please don’t allow yourself
to be the grass on which elephants fight. Do not forget the peace dividends of
development, justice and good governance cannot be traded for mistrust,
miscommunication and disrespect. Whether you like it or not, the current reality is
that boundaries are being dissolved. You can create a boundary but you cannot
prevent Africans from crossing it. Even the Sahara has not stopped the Africans from
migrating northwards towards Europe.

14