Big Fight Over A Small Area

The article I found was in the economist and it is about South Sudan and the rest of Sudan fighting over  a border that they both think is rightfully theres.  Two years ago Sudan's southerners voted to have a country of their own and the border of the new Sudan versus the old Sudan has always been blurry.  Furthermore, Acuil Akol is a leader who comes from Abyei and Abyei is a territory whose people are mostly Ngok-Dinka (a branch of Sudan's largest tribe) and this small territory was supposed to take a vote whether they wanted to join the South in their quest for independance or stick with original Sudan and contribute to the oppression.  But, conspiracies over who would vote exactly is holding up the small country form making their decision.  This decision could ultimately put Sudan in a position where civil war is inevitable again, as we talked about in class.

With that being said, Acuil Akol is now taking efforts into his own hands and leading efforts to stage an unofficial vote which is making the rest of Sudan very uncomfortable.  Most of the people within this small territory are cattle farmers and crop growers and would prefer their agricultural contributions to stay with the North so therefore they are not taking part in the vote and it will have no legal force meaning its outcome will not be recognized by the government.  Because most of the people are not able to vote this could reignite fighting between  north and south Sudan who have had a history of civil wars.  The International Crisis Group says that the outcome of whether this territory becomes apart of North Sudan versus South Sudan could spark the ultimate outbreak of violence, "what happens in Abyei is likely to determine whether Sudan consolidates the peace of returns to war.  Abyei would cause such an uproar with the opposing territory because despite claims that is is chalked with oil, the agricultural products are quite profound and this small territory would be considered very valuable for the people of the country it will be associated with.  North Sudan is trying to bribe Abyei to be apart of their country by the President promising that he will never cede on their pastures and the president is ignoring all foreign peacemakers advice and is doing everything he can to convince this territory to be apart of his country.

The debate in class we have been talking about is whether or not international institutions help with interventions or make them worse.  And in this case, whenever the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands tried to impose a binding decision on the North so a solution would be made more quickly, the North has challenged this imposition and sent its army and allied militias to drive out thousands of the Ngok-Dinkas of their North State in almost a reverse tactic that if they do not join, then their indigenous people can no longer live there.  But, with that being said, many professionals say that Sudan is NOT willing to make past mistakes and that although help from outside influences is not welcome, they truly feel like they have it covered and the vote should end up in a peaceful outcome rather than a violent one.  Do you guys believe this to be true or should institutions intervene before Sudan has the opportunity to start another civil war?  Although right now the intervention is causing more violence, that does not necessarily mean that at the end of the vote the violence will continue.  I personally do not believe that Sudan will risk sanctions and other consequences that will come if another civil war breaks out but I am curious as to what international institution activists think of this big dispute over a small territory.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588431-border-dispute-dangerous-ever-big-fight-over-small-place