What's new

Bangladesh becomes part of South Sudan’s independence celebration

kobiraaz

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 29, 2010
9,831
0
11,906
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
DHAKA: Bangladesh has become a part of the celebration of independence of South Sudan as Bangladeshi peacekeepers erected the flagpole of the newly independent African nation.
Bangladesh Sector (Sector-1) is proud to assist South Sudan, which is going to celebrate historic independence today.
Erection of flagpole at the highest point of South Sudan was a need of UNMIS in order to hoist the flag and celebrate South Sudan's independence, an ISPR release said in Dhaka on Friday.
The task was assigned to BANENGR-2/11 (Construction) by the chief engineer of Sector-1.
The work was attempted by a special flight request on June 27 and 10 persons of BANENGR team under the command of Captain Bipul Kumar Goon prepared the flagpole in Juba and carried all other construction items to the site so that the pole can be erected within the shortest possible time.
However, BANENGR team was accompanied by Sudan TV journalists and UNMIS public information officer, the release said.
Indeed, the flagpole was erected successfully at about 10,000 ft on the highest tip of South Sudan at Mount Kinyeta near Nimule within two hours.

2011-07-08-18-32-56-002898000-untitled-10.jpg


South Sudan: The Role of Bangladeshi Military Deminers
Commonly Found Mines

Because the Sudan Armed Forces and SPLA used different sources to procure mines, both mines produced by NATO and ex-Warsaw Pact countries have been found in South Sudan. Bangladeshi deminers have primarily found the TM46 anti-tank mine and M14 anti- personnel mine, but they have also recovered and disposed of TM57 and PRB M3 anti-tank mines. In addition, they have disposed of Type 58, PMN, T72, PRB M35, TS 50, POMZ 2 and Type 69 anti-personnel mines as well as unknown types. On the other hand, booby traps and tripwires have not yet been found in South Sudan minefields.

Requirement of Military Deminers

Until the 1980s, mine clearance was only a sector for combat engineers of different armies. When civilian demining companies began to get involved, professionals such as police officers, dog handlers and construction plant operators of the corps of engineers began working as deminers. Military deminers have an advantage over private companies and nongovernmental organizations in that they already have experience working in hostile environments. As a result, they can help lay the groundwork for other de-mining and humanitarian agencies to work in areas of recent conflict. The military deminers mainly work as the peacekeeping force for U.N. missions in which peace enforcement is included in the mandated tasks.
The author (center) with the schoolchildren after his informal MRE presentation at Lobonok, South Sudan.
The author (center) with the schoolchildren after his informal MRE presentation at Lobonok, South Sudan.
Photo courtesy of Bangladesh Military Demining Company

Technical Survey and Manual Demining

Bangladeshi deminers began clearing Juba township and the surrounding neighborhood, the U.N. compound and the office areas for different ministries of South Sudan in March 2006. Until September 2009, the Bangladeshi Company engaged 137 sappers5 in humanitarian demining. By the end of March 2010, the deminers cleared approximately 2,628,858 square meters (650 acres) of land for safe use. In the process, the Bangladeshi deminers destroyed 6,358 anti-personnel mines and 399 anti-tank mines. Bangladeshi deminers worked in the following four minefields: Gudele with 13,137 square meters (three acres) cleared, Khor Ramla with 14,400 square meters (four acres) cleared, Mafao with 219,666 square meters (54 acres) cleared and Rajaf with 80,575 square meters (20 acres) cleared.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

The EOD team’s job was a technical one, often conducting sensitive spot tasks in risky situations. Occasionally, this activity resulted in the detonation of UXO on site. It is up to the team leader to judge the situations and positions of the UXO. The team never performs any task without providing early warning to the local community. When a half-buried aerial bomb’s position in a grave demanded an in situ disposal, the team discussed the situation with the locals, hoping to receive permission to detonate the bomb. Unfortunately, the local population became agitated; therefore, the team postponed the task and started dialogues with different members of the society, and the bomb has not yet been detonated. Negotiations are continuing with the tribal leaders. The EOD team destroyed 31,523 pieces of UXO and is in the process of disposing over 14,000 kilograms (30,864 pounds) of outdated explosives received from the SPLA.

Battle Area Clearance

Bangladeshi military deminers have aided the local population through the clearance of battle areas. In particular, they cleared the Custom Market area, different ministry office areas, a 24,000 square meters (six-acre) dairy and poultry farm area near Mafao, a 41,000 square meters (10-acre) area near Jebel Kujoor, and numerous danger areas in Juba city. Through March 2010, the military deminers also cleared 1,408,800 square meters (348 acres) for the new United Nations Mission in Sudan headquarters.

Other Significant Contributions

In addition to demining, the military conducted the following activities:

Clearing chemical hazards from all of Juba city
Disposing of 9,485 landmines from Sudan Armed Forces
and 5,000 landmines from SPLA in accordance with the Ottawa Convention
Providing health-care support to the local communities
Conducting mine-awareness activities during the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action and the International Day of Disabled Persons
Visiting local schools to conduct informal mine-risk education for children

Explosive-ordnance-disposal operators disposing of UXO stockpiles in Mugoro village.
Explosive-ordnance-disposal operators disposing of UXO stockpiles in Mugoro village.
Photo courtesy of Bangladeshi Military Demining Company

Challenges

Demining in South Sudan is an ongoing challenge. Weather, road conditions and the hostile attitude of some groups and tribes can restrict the deminers’ mobility to the remote minefields and danger areas. Unorthodox mine-laying patterns and interaction with local wildlife can pose additional stress to the deminers in their work.
Abdullah_Img4_web.jpg

Conclusion

Hidden mines and UXO are a continual threat to aid workers, deminers and the local population of South Sudan. Rough weather, rugged terrain, restrictions on movement in the area of operations, working far away from their families and even occasionally watching their comrades sustain injuries represent the working conditions for deminers. Despite working under tremendous physical and mental stress, the deminers rarely received recognition for risking their lives. However, their motivation is clear: the happy faces of the villagers upon the safe return of cleared land for cultivation or community use.J
 
Another nation born out of conflict,
anyways if the southerns feel its time celebrate,
we should celebrate. Glad we could assist some
people.
 
South Sudan is a landlocked country and will have to depend on the neighbours for transit.

It produced 85% of the Oil of Sudan.

Country

images


Flag
125px-Flag_of_South_Sudan.svg.png


Emblem
85px-SouthSudanCoatofArms.png
 
Some interesting issues of South Sudan. (though a bit dated in the context they have got Independence today).


South Sudan: A History of Political Domination - A Case of Self-Determination, (Riek Machar)

by

Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon
Chairman and Commander-in-Chief, SSIM/A.

Since the historic Nasir Declaration of August 28, 1991, the demand of the people of South Sudan for the right of self- determination, as a peaceful political resolution of the forty year war in the Sudan, has been a real challenging problem to Sudanese political forces and parties. The SSIM/A (formerly the SPLM/A-United) had been engaged in many peace initiatives with this present regime of the National Islamic Front (NIF) to find a solution to the conflict. Among these initiatives are: the Frankfurt Talks of January 25,1992; the Nigerian mediated Abuja Peace Talks of May/June 1992; the Nairobi May-June 1993 Talks and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD) mediated Peace Talks , January 6th, 1994 through September 19, 1994. In these talks, the SSIM/A had demonstrated its commitment to the search for lasting and just peace in South Sudan and above all the SSIM/A had specifically underlined the right of self-determination for the people of South Sudan as the cornerstone for settlement that would meet their legitimate aspirations.

The people of South Sudan have been denied this right by the different regimes that ruled the Sudan since its constitution as a state. However, it is now imperative that peace shall prevail only when the people of South Sudan are acceded their inalienable right to self-determination.

On the other hand, although it is generally accepted that there is racial, religious, cultural, linguistic and historical diversity in the Sudan, these diversities have not been used to help enrich and consolidate the unity of the new state, but rather were used by the ruling Arab elites in the North to oppress, subjugate and exploit the people of South Sudan resulting in conflicts and wars.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

To clarify the objective of the struggle of the people of South Sudan, it is important to go quickly over the colonial history of the South Sudan - the territorial unit claiming the right of self-determination.

Before the Turko-Egyptian invasion of 1821, the Sudan consisted of Kingdoms and tribal communities without modern forms of government as we have today. In other words, Sudan in its present boundaries did not exist.

The Turko-Egyptian occupation of 1821 was promoted by the expansionist ambitions of the Ottoman empire and its craving for wealth and markets. The main commodities of interest were slaves, gold, ivory and timber. South Sudan and her people became the main source of these commodities. The Turko - Egyptian and the North Sudanese collaborated in their raids against the South Sudan for slaves resulting in millions of South Sudanese people being taken into slavery in the Arab and new World.

Although the Turko - Egyptian rule lasted for a period of sixty years, it did not control all the Sudan. South Sudan in particular was not fully brought under the administration of the invading alien power. Similarly, the Mahdist administration of 1883 - 1898 did not succeed to impose its full authority on the whole of South Sudan.

The Belgians in 1892, advancing from the former Belgian Congo (now Zaire), captured Western Equatoria up to Mongalla and established the Lado Enclave as part of the Belgian Congo. During the same period(1892) the French led by Major Marchand occupied large parts of South Sudan (Bahr el Ghazal, Western Upper Nile up to Fashoda) and by 1896 they had established a firm administration in these areas. Another French expedition which started off in 1897 from Djibouti moving through Ethiopia and along the Baro and Sobat Rivers failed to link up with Fashoda expedition. The French had wanted to annex South Sudan to the French territories in West Africa. However, an international conflict developed between the British and the French over South Sudan commonly known as the Fashoda Incident.

Again, in 1898 the Sudan was re-conquered by a joint British and Egyptian forces resulting in the signing of the Condominium Agreement between the British and the Egyptian to administer the Sudan in its present boundaries.

In 1899 the British and the French concluded an agreement in Europe which made the French pull out of South Sudan handing over its portion of South Sudan to the same authorities who were already in control of North Sudan. A similar incident took place in 1910 when the Belgians withdrew from the Lado Enclave after an agreement was concluded in 1896 stipulating that the Enclave was to be handed over to the British after the death of King Leopold. The king died in 1910. The withdrawal of the French and Belgians from South Sudan ceded the territory to the British.

THE BRITISH SEPARATE ADMINISTRATION POLICY (1898-1947)

Owing to the geographical, political, historical and cultural differences between North and South Sudan, the British devised a system of a separate administration for the two countries. To guarantee the effectiveness of the separate administration policy the British passed the Closed Districts Ordinances of 1920s. In consolidation of this policy, the Passports and Permits Ordinance was promulgated in 1922. This ordinance required the use of passports and permits for travellers shuttling between the two countries of North and South Sudan. The permits were to specify the conditions and purposes of the visits. The Immigration Policy was further strengthened by the permits and trade order enacted in 1925. This law required North Sudanese to obtain permits to conduct trade in South Sudan. Finally, a Language Policy was developed and enforced in South Sudan in 1928. This policy adopted English as the official language for South Sudan and approved the use of the following local languages: Dinka, Bari, Nuer, Latuko, Shilluk and Zande. Arabic was categorically rejected as a language in South Sudan. The cumulative effect of the immigration and trade laws coupled with the language policy was to maintain South Sudan as a separate country from North Sudan. In fact, colonial governors from South Sudan used to attend regular administrative conferences in East Africa instead of Khartoum.

After the establishment of the Condominium rule, the British continued to consolidate its position in North Sudan by creating the necessary administrative and political structures for the state of North Sudan. In an effort to prepare the North Sudan for self-rule, the North Sudan Advisory Council Ordinance was enacted in 1943. The ordinance covered all the six North Sudan provinces: comprising of Khartoum, Kordofan, Darfur, Eastern, Northern and Blue Nile provinces. This council was empowered to advise the condominium authority on how to administer North Sudan in certain specific areas. Members of the Advisory Council were all North Sudanese. The ordinance had no application or relevance to the territory of South Sudan. Thus far, North and South Sudan were regarded as two separate countries colonised by the British and Egyptians.

COLONIAL BRITIAN HANDS OVER SOUTH SUDAN TO THE NORTH

Instead of establishing an advisory council for South Sudan similar to that of North Sudan, the resolutions of the Administrative Conference held in Khartoum in 1946 surprisingly advocated the colonisation of South by North Sudan. It must, however, be pointed out that the conference took the decision at the back of the people of South Sudan as they were not represented and because the conference was meant for administrators in North Sudan only, the British administrators in South Sudan did not attend. Consequently, this unexpected outcome revealed the conspiracy between the British and the North Sudanese supported by Egypt to hand over South Sudan to North Sudan as a colonial territory. Certainly, this plan provoked bitter reaction from the South Sudanese and their sympathisers.

The betrayal of South Sudan by the British was finally concluded in the infamous Juba conference of 1947. Precisely the conference was convened to inform the chiefs of South Sudan of the irreversible decision to hand over South Sudan to the new colonial masters from North Sudan. This unpalatable decision was crowned by the promulgation and establishment of the Sudan Legislative Assembly in 1948. Thirteen (13) delegates from South Sudan were handpicked and forced to represent South Sudan in the Assembly. The Cairo Agreement of 1953 was no exception to the rule. Once again, the colonial masters from Britain and North Sudan masquerading as representatives of national political parties with tacit support of the Egyptian government conspired to grant self-determination to the Sudan without the participation of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan were deliberately excluded on the pretext that they had no political parties or organizations. This was yet another ploy made by political parties of North Sudan to claim representation of South Sudan with the erroneous and unjustifable assumption that the Sudan is one country. Nevertheless, the people of South Sudan regard themselves as 'internally colonised people'. The deliberate hand over of South Sudan to North Sudan by the British was one of the greatest blunders ever made in the diplomacy of the British colonial history. If the British had felt that South Sudan was not yet ready to become an independent state by itself then, they should have either handed over its administration to an international body like the UN instead of North Sudan or should have left North Sudan get independence separately as they did with North Rhodesia. It is now up to the British to correct this serious error of judgement, that has cost millions of lives of the people of South Sudan, by supporting the call of the people of South Sudan for full independence.

POST COLONIAL ERA: North - South Relations

Independence for Sudan meant nothing for South Sudan but a change of masters as the North Sudanese took over the colonial state. The North Sudanese elites failed to evolve policies that would have consolidated national unity and stability. As a result, the Sudan has been plunged into continous state of political, constitutional, economic and military crisis till today. Various governments and regimes in Khartoum waged war and denied the South Sudanese equality, social justice, freedom and effective participation in the running of the State.

In brief, North - South relations since independence until now has been characterised by the following:-

-Political marginalization of the South through under representation, discrimination, and other restrictions that did not permit South Sudanese to occupy certain important constitutional posts.

-Deliberate retardation and neglect of socio - economic development of South Sudan as all socio-economic development projects are concentrated in North Sudan.

-Cultural subjugation through imposition of Arabic culture and Islamic values on the people of South Sudan in a deliberate attempt to destroy their African culture and heritage. The declaration of Sudan as an Islamic state by the present regime has relegated South Sudanese to third class citizens. This imposition of cultural and religious laws - Islamic sharia - is a negation of common citizenship which could be the basis of national unity, equality and social justice in a heterogenous state such as the Sudan.

-The crisis of national identity is a creation of North Sudan which defines the Sudanese identity in Arab and Islamic terms. The North political elites consider the Sudanese citizenship as a transition to full integration into the Arab identity. This undermines the right of the vast African majority to whose identity should be fully embodied in the character of the state.

-Abuse of fundamental human rights of South Sudanese people through the following practices:-

a.Decimation of the population of South Sudan through prosecution of war and perpetrating large scale massacres of innocent people by various North regimes:-

-Yei, Maridi and Kodok Massacres in 1964 were carried out by the regime of Abboud.

-Juba, Wau, Torit, Warajwok, Bor, Akobo Massacres in 1965 were carried out by Mohammed Ahmed Mahgoub government.

-Dhaein Massacre 1987/88 in which 3,000 South Sudanese were killed by government militias and police.

-Wau Massacre in 1987 in which more than 100 people were killed by government army.

-Jebelien Massacre in 1989/90 in which more than 2000 South Sudanese were killed by government militia.

b.Indiscriminate bombing and raiding of civil population centres leading to massive displacement of people from their homes. Already there are over 3 million South Sudanese in the North living under sub- human conditions in the outskirts of Khartoum and other major cities in the North.

c.Denial of basic human needs and use of food as a weapon for conversion into Islamic religion.

d.Forced Islamization and Arabization of the educational system in the South with the aim to kill indigenous languages and cultures to accentuate Islamic and Arabic dominance.

e.Political executions, detentions without trials and disappearance of South Sudanese in the government controlled towns.

f. Reviving of slavery and slave trade during this war.

The enumerated violations and pratices are true evidences of the failure of the two parts to co-exist and live harmoniously as a nation. As matter of fact, it is the people of the South who are the victims of this tragic situation. Attempts made in the past with the successive regimes that came to power in Khartoum to find a durable solution to the problem of South Sudan all ended in failure. Even the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 which brought relative peace and stability to the South was unilaterally abrogated by General Numeiri in 1983 returning the Sudan to war.

PRINCIPLES FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE SUDAN: THE RIGHT OF SELF- DETERMINATION

On the basis of the facts stated above, it is obvious that the Sudan has been at war with itself for the last forty years. This state of affairs if allowed to continue would work to the detriment of the people of the Sudan in both North and South, and could have negative consequences on regional peace and stability. It is our strong belief that the only way forward in the resolution of this conflict and the attainment of just and lasting peace is to allow the people of South Sudan to freely exercise their inalienable and democratic right to self- determination through an internationally supervised referendum.

THE SUDANESE POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE RIGHT OF SELF- DETERMINATION

In this connection, it would be recalled that a major breakthrough was made between the SSIM/A (formerly SPLM/A-United) and the NIF government, particularly in the Frankfurt Talks of January 25, 1995 and in the Nairobi Talks of May 1993, where the NIF regime conceded referendum to people of South Sudan. Yet, we are concerned by the fact that the same NIF regime has respected neither the agreed issues in the Frankfurt nor Nairobi Talks. This intransigent attitude, if maintained by the regime, will not bring to an end this tragic chapter of war, suffering and hopelessness in the Sudan.

Historically, the other Sudanese political parties, namely:- the Umma Party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the National Islamic Front and the Communist Party have been against acceding to the people of South Sudan their inalienabe right to self-determination. However, since the historic Nasir Declaration of August 28, 1991 some of these parties started to make public pronouncement about self-determination. Since 1983, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) has been fighting South Sudanese groups that called for the right of self-determination for the people of South Sudan. This was epitomised in the bitter wars the SPLM/A waged against the Anyanya II 'separatist' from 1983 to 1991 and against the Nasir faction of the SPLM/A since 1991. Despite the hostility of the SPLM/A against SSIM/A, the SPLM/A reluctantly recognised the right of self-determination in Abuja I Peace Talks , the Washington Declaration and Common Agenda for IGADD Peace Talks. The Communist Party of the Sudan has been discussing the principle for sometime but with no commitment to its implementation. The Umma Party has made a move to recognising self-determination as stated in Sayyed Sadiq el Mahdi Discussion Paper of 10 November 1993 and reinforced in the Chukudum Agreement beween the Umma and the SPLM/SPLA. In addition, all the Sudanese opposition political parties that met in Bonn recognised this principle, except the DUP which inserted a reservation. Although, the DUP has consistently stood against the right of self- determination for people of South Sudan but it recognized the principle at subsequent meetings in Asmara .

Internationally, the right of self-determination for people of South Sudan has gained credence and has been recognised as a basic human right as well as a democratic principle for resolving conflicts by Pan-African 7th Congress in Kampala, April 3-9, 1994 and IGADD in its Declaration of Principles (DOP). It is now imperative that the demand of the people of South Sudan for exercise of their inalienable right to self- determination has gain substantial grounds in the Sudan, regionally in Africa as well as internationally and therefore cannot be anymore ignored .
South Sudan: A History of Political Domination - A Case of Self Determination, (Riek Machar)
 
A new beginning for the people of South Sudan.. End of choas and anarchy , its time for rebuilding without the menace of irritants.
 
So i guess it will be called South Sudan itself.

Afaik, Sudan was a primary source of oil for China and given South Sudan has become independent now and has most of the oil, it would be interesting to see how China goes about it.

Someone correct me if i am wrong.


Cheers!!!
 
UN approves troops for disputed Sudan area

The UN Security Council on Monday authorized a 4,200-strong temporary peacekeeping force to be deployed in Sudan's disputed Abyei region for six months.

Approval of the U.S.-sponsored resolution came amid worries about fighting in oil-rich Abyei as South Sudan prepares to declare independence from the north on July 9.

The United Nations has a 10,400-strong peacekeeping force monitoring implementation of the 2005 north-south agreement, but the Sudanese government informed the UN that it wants UN troops in the north to leave on July 9 when the south becomes independent.

As a result, the UN created a new mission for South Sudan.

More at:
UN approves troops for disputed Sudan area - World - CBC News

One more place where conflict will be left behind!
 
Bangladesh recognizes South Sudan

DHAKA: Bangladesh has decided to formally recognize the Republic of South Sudan, a new nation born in Africa on July 9 to put an end to strife between rival Sudanese nationalities.

As contacted, Allama Siddiki, Director-General of Africa wing of the ministry of foreign affairs, confirmed the decision to banglanews on Wednesday night.

Besides, Shameem Ahsan, Director-General of external publicity wing of the ministry, also told banglanews that a press statement is going to be released soon to this effect.

Allama Siddiki said, “The independence of South Sudan on 9th July is the manifestation of the long-cherished aspirations of the people of South Sudan for self-determination.”

On the recognition letter, the Ministry of foreign affairs said, `Bangladesh wishes the Government and the people of the new Republic a peaceful and prosperous future.”

`Bangladesh pledges full commitment to support the Republic in its journey towards consolidation of democracy, sustainable development and equitable social justice`, says the recognition letter

The Director General of Africa wing said, `It may be recalled that Bangladesh was among the co-sponsors of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution that admitted the Republic into the United Nations as its newest member on 14 July 2011.`

He added, `It may also be mentioned that the Bangladesh contingent of Peacekeepers comprising of more than 1500 troops played an important and constructive role under the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) in implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in January 2005 that led to the full independence of the Republic of South Sudan.`

United Nations has recognized South Sudan on July 14.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom