Southern Sudan referendum timetable announced

The south is expected to vote for independence

Sudanese officials have announced a timetable for Southern Sudan's independence referendum. The vote is due to take place on 9th January, 2011, but the absence of a timetable outlining the run-up to the vote led to fears that the referendum would have to be postponed, which could spark renewed violence.

Deputy Chairman of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission Chan Reec Madut said on Tuesday 5th October that voter registration will start on 14th November and end on 4th December, with parties allowed to start campaigning on 7th December.

Despite the tight timing this schedule provides, Reec was confident about the prospects. "I am still optimistic that if we are all registered, everybody has his or her card, and then we can be sure that this exercise is going to happen no matter what," Reec told reporters in the southern capital Juba. He added that only 'unseen reasons' could cause the vote to be delayed.

Despite this announcement, Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir told UN Security Council delegates, who are visiting the region, that the south may have to organise its own referendum if the north disrupted the vote. The south has repeatedly accused the north of trying to delay the ballot to keep control of the region's oil, a charge Khartoum denies.

The poll will take place across Sudan, but only southerners will be eligible to vote. The southern Sudanese diaspora will also be able to vote in eight other countries, assisted by the intergovernmental International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The vote will take place in Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Australia, Canada, the US and the UK.

Voter registration material is bring printed in South Africa, and ballot papers will also be printed outside Sudan with security devices fitted to prevent fraud.

The referendum was part of a 2005 peace deal to end two decades of conflict between the north and oil-rich south, in which some 1.5 million people died and millions more were displaced.

Preparations, however, for a separate referendum in the Abyei region, which straddles north and south Sudan, are making less headway. UN-mediated talks are being held in Ethiopia to try to resolve disputes over voter eligibiliy and the physical demarcation of the state's border. The Abyei referendum is also due to be held on 9th January, and people of the region will choose whether to join the north or the south.

The announcement by Reec came as 15 members of the UN Security Council visited the region to make sure the referendums go ahead on time and in a fair and peaceful manner. The delegation will also be travelling to Darfur, where there has been renewed violence after the breakdown of a ceasefire between the government and one of the main rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

The delegation almost cancelled their trip because council members worried that they would have to meet Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir and shake his hand, but the trip went ahead after it was agreed that a meeting would not happen. Al-Bashir has been indicted for alleged war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Sources: BBC News, Reuters, AfricaNews

For more information on the situation in South Sudan, please see the original story here.

Pragmatism and precedent? Territorial order and sovereignty-based disputes

Territorial and sovereignty-based disputes remain important sources of violence in international political life and this remains so despite the evolution of the modern international law doctrine around the management and mitigation of these disputes. Indeed, international law is most obviously premised on the respect for states’ territorial integrity and a powerful, perhaps pragmatic impulse for the preservation of order through exclusive state territoriality.

The pragmatism associated with sovereignty norms and the rights of states, such as territorial integrity, conflicts with the principle of national self-determination and cosmopolitan language of human rights obligations. Self-determination has found a place at the core of the international legal doctrine but at a cost; in its international legal guise it is far removed from its original, political ideological guise.

An emerging remedial right of self-determination has been discussed by academics and international lawyers in recent years. The remedial right would afford an expression of external self-determination, and potentially a right of secession, in cases where a minority people was subject to the wholesale abuse of an oppressive regime.

The article argues that the regional geopolitical context of South Asia cannot readily adopt norms that work to undermine territorial sovereignty. Minority groups in India, a polity broadly based upon a notion of social and political plurality, mean that both the suppression of self-determination groups in the region and instances of external self-determination are intolerable. This is not to deny the existence of a precedent in the remedial right to self-determination, but it is to argue that this might be more easily achieved in other regions first.

The piece concludes that territorial borders can only remain a source of violence in international politics despite the weight of international law that has emerged precisely to mitigate territorial conflict. Regional actors' sharing of broader social and political schemas, beyond the confines of the international legal doctrine, might realise the potential for change that is immanent in existing practice and, specifically, the remedial right to self-determination.

Read the full article here.

Norway and Russia settle Barents Sea boundary dispute, but other arctic disputes continue

Efforts to settle decades-old claims to the arctic got a major boost last week when on 16th September Norway and Russia signed the 'Barents Sea Pact', which divided an 175,000sq km section of the Barents Sea between them.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the historical agreement in the Russian city of Murmansk on Wednesday.

“The treaty resolves what for several decades remained the most important outstanding issue between Norway and Russia,” Stoltenberg stated. “It sends an important signal to the rest of the world - the Arctic is a peaceful region where any issues that arise are resolved in accordance with international law.”

Much of the Arctic has been disputed between five nations – Russia, Norway, Canada, US and Denmark, for many decades, but as polar ice caps recede, making shipping and oil and gas exploration opportunities more feasible, the importance of delimitation has become increasingly important. It is thought that up to a quarter of the world's untapped oil and gas could lie in the region.

The dispute between Norway and Russia first received attention in 1957, when a short section of their maritime boundary, from the land boundary terminus through the confines of Varangerfjord was designated. This boundary was extended through Varangerfjord in 2007, but disputes continued over the lengthy section extending northwards through the Barents Sea and into the Arctic Ocean.

Norway argued for a median line boundary, while Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) advocated a 'sectorial' approach, which would have extended the boundary north along the 32° 4' 35" E meridian. The boundary agreed last week is a compromise between the two positions, as it sits eastward of a strict median line, but west of the sectorial line. The agreement also includes a provision for a 'special area' that is east of the boundary, but is within 200 nautical miles of the Norwegian mainland where Russia is granted exclusive economic rights.

Norway has used the occasion to encourage the other polar nations to follow their example and resolve disputes in the region. Canadian Foreign Minister, Lawrence Canon visited Russia and Norway last week, but talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have not brought the two sides closer together.

The Canadian–Russian dispute centres around the Lomonosove Ridge, an underwater mountain range running along the floor of the Arctic Ocean from Siberia to Canada's Ellesmere island. Both countries claim that the underwater mountain range is an extension of their continental shelves. The dispute has been referred to the UN.

Canada has a similarly stalled dispute with Denmark over Hans Island, a small inhabited barren knoll which lies in the middle of the Nares Strait, between Ellesmere Island and Denmark's Greenland Territory.

A 1973 treaty between the two arctic countries plotted 127 points delimiting the border, however the treaty did not connect the dots and the island lies in between two points. The dispute flared up in 2004 and 2005 after government officials from both countries visited the island, but no progress has been made in moving towards settlement.

More progress has been made on Canada's dispute with the US over the Beaufort Sea. Ministers of the two countries met to discuss the issue in late July, and for the third summer in a row, researchers from both countries worked in the region mapping the sea floor.

A separate, but related concern is the issue of control over the Northwest Passage, which, due to retreating polar ice caps, is increasingly being seen as a shipping shortcut between Asia and Europe. Ottawa says that the Northwest Passage is Canadian sovereign water, but Washington and several other nations regard it as an international passage.

Despite these ongoing disputes, the fact that Norway and Russia were able to find a settlement, which still needs to be ratified by both of their parliaments, means that diplomatic solutions will probably prevail for other disputes in the future.

Sources: IBRU, CTV, Nunatsiaq Online

Medvedev talks borders in Azerbaijan

Azeri President Aliyev with Russian President Medvedev in 2009

Russian and Azerbeijan took one step closer to resolving their border issues when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilkham Aliyev signed a border agreement to delimitate part of the land border between the two nations on Medvedev's trip to Baku on 2nd September. The two also signed an agreement on the use of water resources from the trans-border Samur river, and Russian energy giant Gazprom and Azerbaijan's state oil and gas company SOCAR signed a deal to increase supplies of Azerbaijani gas to Russia in 2011-2012.

To welcome the Russian leader, Azerbaijan raised a massive version of its national flag in Baku on 1st September. Baku claimed it was the world's largest flag, with dimensions of 70 meters by 35 meters and weighing in at a massive 350kg.

Aliyev presided over the unveiling of the flag and told the crowd, "Our flag is our pride and our soul… It will fly over Karabakh, Khankendi, and Shusha. And we all should work hard to bring this day closer and we are doing it. Long live Azerbaijan!"

This comment highlights the current tension that exists between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, which was a key talking point during Medvedev's visit.

The Nagorno-Karabakh enclave is an Armenian-majority area in southwestern Azerbaijan. The two nations fought a war over the area from 1988 until 1994, which started when the Parliament of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast voted to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia in February 1988. By the time the war ended in 1994, Armeria occupied most of the disputed territory, as well as Azeri territory outside of the enclave, 30, 000 people had died and nearly 1 million refugees had fled, mostly to temporary settlement camps in Azerbaijan.

Violence has continued around the border regions, however, and on 1st September, it was announced that three Armenians and two Azerbaijani soldiers had been killed in clashes near the enclave.

Cesur Sumerinli, the chief editori of the Azerbaijani military-analysis website mil.az, recently said that the cease-fire is being violated more frequently, and that the resumption of military operations in the near future was possible.

The original cease-fire was Russian-brokered, and Russia has continued to be involved in mediation efforts since. In June 2010, Aliyev and his Armenian counterpark Serzh Sarkisian met for bilateral talks hosted by Medvedev in St. Petersburg. It appears however, that tension has been increasingly since the June meeting, and skirmishes have been frequent.

As co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, together with France and the US, Russia has been at the centre of the international efforts. Russia's involvement, however, is not unproblematic. Medvedev visited Yerevan, Armenia, just weeks before his trip to Baku, where he extended the lease on a military base in Armenia. Amendments to a 1995 bilateral defense treaty signalled an increased Russian presence in Armenia, as it was agreed that the 4,000 Russian troops stationed in Armenia will not only protect Russian interests, but also the security of Armenia. This was interpretted by many as a pledge of Russian support should tensions over the disputed enclave result in full-fledged war, although Medvedev has been clear that he supports resolution through direct talks.

Oil-rich Azerbaijan is also an important neighbour for Russia, and Medvedev called them a 'strategic partner'. Recent rumours of a Russian sale of antiaircraft missiles to Azerbaijan have been denied by the Russians, although military cooperation was discussed during Medvedev's visit, and the sale of four Russian Ka-32 helicopters was announced some time ago.

Sources: RFE/RL, Hurriyet Turkey, Georgian Daily

Chinese warships in Burmese port worries Indians

Chinese navy officers aboard the Guangzhou at Thilwa Port

Two warships from China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) docked on Sunday 29th August at Thilawa Port near Rangoon, Burma. It was the first time Chinese naval warships have visited Burma in their 60-year relationship, and is being viewed as a statement of intent to exert control over the Indian Ocean.

Chinese media has reported that the warships were sent with the aim of promoting friendly relations with the Burmese navy. While Burma has long been a rogue state in the eyes of the West, China is the junta's key ally, investor and trading partner. In November 2009, China began construction of a pipeline across Burma and has been involved in the development of hydro power. China has also sold Burma arms and has been able to shield it from UN sanctions as a result of its permanent member status on the UN Security Council. In return, China has secured access to raw materials from Burma, such as teak and gems.

A key factor of their relationship, however, is China's desire for access to the Indian Ocean. A 2009 report by Chinese scholars Li Chenyang and Ley Liang Fook said:

“China wants to shift from a one-ocean state to a safer and more stable two-ocean state to enhance its security. Hence, a core objective of China's policy towards Myanmar [Burma] is to establish a strategic network of road, rail and air transport from Yunnan Province in the southwest through Myanmar to the Indian Ocean and also to construct water, oil and gas pipelines.”

While Indian and China have a 3,500km-long disputed Himalayan border, it is possible that in the future the flashpoint for disputes between the two Asian heavyweights will be the Indian Ocean. Both countries have been raising the international profile of their navies, for example, in fighting pirates off the coast of Somalia. But China has been the more aggressive country in using its navy for diplomatic purposes, such as last week's visit to Burma. According to US Navy Commander Steven L. Horrell, the US Navy, India and China are all competing for influence in the Indian Ocean, to protect their strategic interests. He insists, however that China's moves are "not incompatible with a peaceful rise."

In recent years, China has expanded its port facilities in countries that border India, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Burma, but while it should be noted that the ports are commercial structures, not naval bases, Indian strategists have nonetheless refered to the projects as a 'string of pearls' encircling India in its strategic back yard. The Indian Ocean has been described as the 'Silk Road of the 21st century', moving Gulf oil and African minerals to the world's two most populous nations.

The visit of the Chinese navy to Burma comes a time of already heightened tension between China and India; Beijing recently denied a visa to Indian Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal because he oversaw Army operations in Indian-controlled Kashmir, and an Indian newspaper reported on Saturday 28th August that India had responded by suspending military exchanges. Chinese media sources have said they are unaware of any change in relations, and the Indian government has refused to comment.

The Indian Ocean's role as a key shipping route is only going to increase as the Chinese spread their investing power around the world. How India react to China's actions could be of crucial importance to not only the region, but the world.
Sources: Yahoo news, The Irrawaddy, The Bangkok Post

Google in trouble again over Kashmir map

Given the prevalence of disputed borders around the world, the task of mapping the world is fraught with difficulties. Google Maps, a theoretically objective service, often find themselves caught in political disputes between nations, and there is often no clear 'right' answer on where to mark the border.

Mapping India's borders has been one of the company's biggest challenges. The issue first emerged in 2005, when Google's political map of the subcontinent had a clearly defined boundary between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) on the Pakistani side of the border. Political remonstrations resulted in Google marking the border as disputed. The issue flared up again on 21st August when Indian authorities announced that Google Maps had 'given' POK back to Pakistan. Indian officials threatened Google with legal action if a change was not made immediately.

"Any wrongful depiction of Indian map and its boundaries is liable for action under the India Information Technology Act. Google has been asked to immediately correct this inaccuracy," Minister of state for telecom and IT Sachin Pilot said. Google has said that the responsible department has rectified the maps.

Google has faced issues in India before, when in 2009, Google's satellite maps showed parts of Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory, labeled with Chinese script. China claims parts of Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet, while India claims it in its entirety.

One solution Google has used in the past has been to depict maps differently for local versions. The Chinese version of Google Maps for example shows parts of Arunachal Pradesh as inside China's borders. Similarly, the Indian version depicts the state as part of India. The global version of Google Maps shows Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territory through using broken lines on the map.

Further disputes include the placement of the border between Thailand and Cambodia, with Cambodia complaining that the map ceded territory to Thailand. Thailand and Cambodia have a longstanding dispute over an 11th century Hindu temple called Preah Vihear. Despite an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 1962 in favour of Cambodia, disputes have remained because the area around the temple was not covered. The two countries came close to dispute this summer over new site management plans submitted to UNESCO by Cambodia; in particular, a 4.6sq km area at the base of the temple is under continued dispute. Cambodia argued that the Google map put half of the temple in Thai territory.

Even countries which have resolved their border disputes have had issues with Google Maps. In March 2010, Vietnam claimed that Google had misrepresented their border with China, situating it a few kilometers south of the agreed line.

Tensions remain, but Thailand and Cambodia look for diplomatic solution to temple dispute

In recent weeks, tension between Thailand and Cambodia over the 11th century Preah Vihear Hindu temple – after which one of Cambodia's northern provinces is named - on their border has heated up to near breaking point, but military conflict seems to be a less likely option now as both countries have committed themselves to a diplomatic solution.

Tension has existed over the temple for many years, despite a 1962 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the temple was in Cambodian territory. The ruling did not, however, include the adjacent land where access to the temple largely lies, and which Thailand insists is its own territory.

Thailand sought to have the countries jointly seek World Heritage status for the site, based on a 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). However the then Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, was forced to resign in 2008 after it emerged that he had signed a joint communiqué with Cambodia in breach of the Thai constitution. This opened the way for Cambodia to make a separate application for World Heritage Site status which was granted in July 2008. Border skirmishes between the two countries broke out soon afterwards.

The issue re-emerged in late July 2010 when Cambodia moved to submit a new management plan for the temple and 4.6 sq km of adjacent land during UNESCO's World Heritage Committee meeting in Brazil. The Thai delegation, led by Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, attended the forum to lobby against the plan, and argued that the committee should not consider the plan until Thailand and Cambodia have agreed on a demarcation line. Thailand fears that acceptance of the Cambodian management plan would result in a buffer zone being created around the temple, and on 29th July, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said that his country would withdraw from UNESCO if the committee accepted the Cambodian plan.

UNESCO agreed to delay making a decision on the plan until the next World Heritage Committee meeting, due to be held in Bahrain in 2011. This failed to resolve the tension however, with both countries accusing the other of military threats. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote to the UN accusing Thailand of threatening to use military force, while Thai troops on the border have reported Cambodian troop movements. Cambodian officials have requested mediation from both UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Vietnam, which is the current chair of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), but Thailand has said it is a bilateral issue that does not require third-party intervention. Vejjajiva has, however, set up talks with Ban in an effort to ensure that the Secretary-General understands the Thai position before his scheduled visit to Cambodia on 27th October.

Domestic political issue in Thailand have also contributed to the dispute, because the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which is in alliance with Vejjajiva's Democrat Party, led the 28th July protest at UNESCO's Bangkok office. This was in defiance of the emergency decree prohibiting political gatherings that were put in place after political violence in the spring. The group wants Thailand to cancel the 2000 MoU which it claims put Thailand at a disadvantage.

While both sides now agree that diplomatic solutions can be found, Cambodia has postponed a General Border Committee meeting that was due to be held on 27th August, citing tension as the cause.

Thailand, however, has continued to push for a new meeting of the Joint Boundary Commission, to prevent international interference in the dispute. Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Hor Namhong met with ASEAN General Secretary Surin Pitsuwan in Phnom Penh on 16th August, but Thailand declined to send a representative, arguing that the dispute should not be raised to a regional level.

The Preah Vihear temple is only one issue in the long-running border dispute between the neighbouring countries. The maritime dispute – resulting in the 27,000 sq kms Overlapping Claims Area (OCA) – has been in force majeure for decades and has prevented any exploration in the seemingly oil-rich area.

Menas Borders has undertaken detailed analysis of the Thailand-Cambodia maritime dispute. For further details please contact info@menasborders.com

Sources: MCOT, MCOT 2, Bangkok Post, Bangkok Post 2, Voice of America