Sudan on the Balkanization Track

On Sunday, Southern Sudan dwellers participated in a referendum that will determine the fate of the largest Islamic country in Africa.

Both by its nature and geopolitically, Sudan is unique among the Islamic countries of Africa. It is the largest country in the continent and shares borders with nine countries. A large part of the world’s longest river, The Nile, snakes through Sudan (its two branches that originate from Uganda and Ethiopia join together in this country). A look at Sudan’s map shows the wealth of its southern region. More than 80% of Sudan’s forests are located in this area, and without them Sudan is an arid land with hot deserts. The country also enjoys a wealth of massive oil resources, 68% of which are buried under the southern region. The country also has a strategic position. It consists of two parts: the dominantly Arab Muslim region of the north, and a population of black African descent in south. Sudan is the only Muslim country which has progressed into the heart of the Black Africa. Its role in the dissemination of Islam in Africa has also been prominent. Such features have for long attracted the attention of Western and Christian countries.

This new referendum is actually rooted in the time of British rule over Sudan. Britain had employed its trademark divide and rule policy, which created a rift between the Arab Muslims of the north and blacks, mostly animist and some Christian, in the south. Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, southerners sporadically initiated independence wars against the north, so Sudan’s troubles are not a new story. The strife continued into the presidency of Ja’far Nimeiry. The primary goal of southern rebels and their Western supporters was separation, from the very first battle they waged. This was to erect a wall against Islam’s progress in Africa and curb Muslims’ influence on the south, in order to better loot the massive resources of this region. Nimeiry’s alliance with the West helped him reach an agreement with the South and end the civil war temporarily. However, after the 1985 bloodless coup that brought the Islamist Sadeq al-Mahdi to power, Western provocations fomented another round of civil war in this country. Umar al-Bashir’s 1989 coup against al-Mahdi, his totalitarian rule, which even marginalized allies such as Hassan al-Turabi, and his radical policies created a schism between domestic political groups and undermined Sudan’s position on the international stage. In 2005, under international pressure and biting sanctions, al-Bashir consented to a peace treaty with the south in order to maintain his position in power. From the very first day, it was clear that the fate of this treaty would be the south’s separation. According to the agreement, a referendum would be held in January 2011 in order to determine the fate of southern Sudan. Agreeing to this was Umar al-Bashir’s fatal mistake.

According to the agreement, half of Sudan’s oil revenues were allocated to the southern autonomous region. The southern government spent its lucrative oil profits and financial aid by Western countries and its anti-Sudan neighbors on military development. According to some data, Western countries have spent a billion dollars in equipping and training Southern Sudan’s army. Even if war breaks out between the north and south, the latter will defend itself. The autonomy granted to the south in the 2005 agreement even allowed them to set up consulates in some other countries and issue visas. There is little doubt that the referendum will ultimately lead to a separation of the south from north. Despite popular belief, Christians form a religious minority in this region. Animism is the most practiced religion, though Christian missionaries have never abandoned their conversion campaigns and their proselytizing.

So far, Muslim countries have remained low-key vis-à-vis Sudan’s disintegration, although there was little they could actually do considering what they have accomplished on a more serious issue, i.e. Palestine. Meanwhile, many Muslim countries are at odds with Umar al-Bashir’s government. The Islamic Republic of Iran has unfortunately remained silent on the developments in Sudan. I have been warning diplomatic officials and Iran’s ambassadors to Sudan in recent years and pleaded with them to focus more on the Southern Sudan crisis. My efforts, unfortunately, fell on deaf ears.

I believe that Southern Sudan’s separation will deeply impact other African states, particularly Egypt. This country is heavily dependent on the Nile, and the rule of a Christian, pro-West party over its lifeline –which may trigger calls for a revision of each country’s share of Nile water- may cause it serious problems. As stability comes to an independent Southern Sudan, the West and Israel will begin their premeditated plans.

Why did a totalitarian ruler like Umar al-Bashir accept a referendum that could tear his country into two parts? Neo-colonial plots were definitely effective. Nevertheless, a rational, pluralist, multi-ethnic state could have easily countered such conspiracies and unite the entire population of Sudan under one flag and advance the country’s interests. Unfortunately, short-sightedness and greed for power sowed discord among nationalist and Islamist forces, and led to the current catastrophe. Lack of political development and frail democratic structures in a large country like Sudan, and General al-Bashir’s insistence on marginalizing all rivals provided Southern separatists and their patrons with the best opportunity to fuel opposition to the central government. An isolated al-Bashir had no option but to yield to peace and the referendum.

Poverty and non-development, which I clearly observed in a trip to Sudan, has damaged the face of the southern region of the country. Compared with Northern Sudan, the southern part of the country is quite underprivileged and underdeveloped, and its dwellers deeply feel the bitter apartheid imposed on them.

Relations with the international community were also influential on the acceleration of the separation process. A superficial comparison between the situation in Sudan and Morocco’s treatment of the Western Sahara region can be illuminating. For years, relying on its internal stability and powerful allies, Rabat has resisted international calls to hold a referendum in order to determine the fate of Western Sahara. This happened while the African Union has acknowledged Western Sahara as a sovereign state -a decision that led to the Kingdom of Morocco’s withdrawal from the union.

Bashir is definitely unhappy with Southern Sudan’s separation, but the volatile domestic situation and crushing international sanctions leave him little space to resist. The story of separation may not remain exclusive to Southern Sudan. The Sudanese government will face a more difficult situation in Darfur. Three provinces, the North, South and West Darfur, having an overall population of five million, may also seek independence, especially when erroneous policies of the central government and the presence of international peacekeepers in this area has fostered a situation ripe for separation. The Balkanization of Sudan is well on its way.