Victim of a protracted and bloody civil war, Sudan is now facing the choice of either remaining a united entity or breaking up with the secession of its southern part. By signing a peace protocol with the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), Khartoum has agreed to hold a referendum after a six-year probation period giving southerners the right to self-determination.
There are striking similarities between the developments in Sudan and what happened in Indonesia when guerrillas in East Timor succeeded in gaining independence. Western pressure ensured the breakaway of the Christian-majority region from Muslim-majority Indonesia. If there is any difference between the events, it would be in the manner in which the scenario is finalized by the foreign powers that are putting pressure on the Sudanese government.
One must wonder if the ramifications of this policy are fully appreciated by those who advocate it. It carries within it a call for every minority in the world to demand separation under historical, ethnic or cultural justifications. It would mean, for example, that the Spanish government could one day agree to allow the Basque region to break away. I think throwing weight behind such demands could pose a serious threat to the security and stability of all countries.
The signing of the protocol by the Sudanese government is a clear indication that secession of the south could ultimately follow the six-year interim period. The question here is why the government agreed to such a protocol in the first place.
Khartoum was desperate to secure America’s political support. It wanted its name removed from the US list of countries supporting terrorism. It wanted to secure economic assistance from Western countries and international financing institutions. The promises of such assistance include an offer from Britain to drop the country’s foreign debt as well as promises from Norway, Italy, Canada and Germany to rescue its faltering economy, check inflation, alleviate poverty and strengthen the national currency.
The West’s strategic interests in Africa are behind such a deal. To promote those interests, Western countries sidestepped a joint Egyptian-Libyan initiative that aimed at containing differences between the government and the rebels through mutual agreement and understanding while preserving the country’s unity.
At the start of the second round of the peace negations in Kenya under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and its Western partners, the two sides were to discuss the division of power, arrange for a cease-fire and agree on security matters. However, in the meantime, the rebels breached earlier commitments and pressed on with military action. Reacting, the government suspended the negotiations and withdrew its delegation, arguing that the rebels were not talking in good faith.
The government has sensed the dangers that could come out of the protocol, which was opposed by several opposition groups in the country. Opinions differ as to why the protocol has faltered. Some feel that the failure is temporary and that the powers involved would seek to contain the situation and revive it by pressing Khartoum to return to the negotiating table after both parties suspend hostilities. Others see the failure of the talks as a bad sign signaling the start of fresh fighting that may go on indefinitely because of the many complex problems blocking the peace road.
The Sudanese problem is still a long way from being solved. Its continuation will have negative repercussions on the Great Lakes Region as well as on the Nile River countries.
