Egyptian Interest in South Sudanese referendum: A patriarchy or national interest?

It has emerged from the media recently that Egyptian government and prominent newspaper, Al-Ahram newspaper, had made disapprobation to the Sudanese government for wryly setting the country on the course of separation through a grant adoption of Islamic sharia'a laws, and for further maintaining a divisive crater between the citizens of the north and the south in the same country. 

The editor in chief, Osama Saraya, said that the government of Sudan alone bears the largest part of the tragedy that was lurking in the Sudan. Maintaining doubtfulness on the nature of the mistakes the Sudanese government made in the past which presently appear to warrant the desire for independence among South Sudanese; he believed there were series of blunders committed by the government since it assumed power through coup d'etat in 1989. It should be understood that the National Islamic Front snatched power militarily in 1989 to block the peace deal that was being negotiated by the government of Sadiq al-Mahdi and the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Saraya held strongly to his conscience by asserting that it was the government that emphasized more on the concept of self-determination than southerners.

His preferred modus operandi was for the government to have insisted on integration and included that concept in Northern ideological policies so as to achieve unity and coexistence in the end. Government's failure to pursue such a unionist plane of thinking had - in his thoughts - made the coexistence between the North and the South very difficult and impossible. He called this a sin committed by the government of Sudan. Saraya blamed Sudan too, for the blinding focus and failure to realize that the international powers were ready and lurking behind the Sudanese problem with a view to dismembering the country.

The Sudanese society is aware that Egypt had hopes to have closer relations with the Sudan since Nimeiri's administration. The fantasy behind it all, is to possibly unite with the Sudan under Egyptian hegemony. Earlier visit of president Mubarak to Juba, the first ever visit of an Arab head of state to Southern Sudan, confirmed Egyptian agony over the Sudan, and further highlighting why Egypt would not like to see a divided Sudan. Many scholars and regional strategists see the Sudanese circumstance as a matter of national interest to Egypt.  Egypt, therefore, sees her sphere of influence under threat if countries along the Nile go down the paths of instability and fragmentation. Also, a new country on the Nile means a new geostrategic wrangling over the waters of the Nile as well as a bugging threat to dominant influence bequeathed upon her by the British colonial agreement. The British granted Egypt the role of a shepherd on the Nile for her survival and as part of appreciation in helping Britain administered Sudan, thereby, opening the way to explore the source of the Nile into the interior of Africa.

It was clear that Saraya was right in his doubt because Mubarak's visit to Juba should have come in the wake of Omar Bashir, the country's president. President Bashir's reluctance to visit Juba even when the political atmosphere in the South was ominously laden with separation was an indication that he saw no solution to the situation. Saraya hinted that Egypt had offered advice to the Sudanese government before the 2002 Machakos Protocols and urged that it abandon sharia law for the sake of  maintaining the unity of the country. Even if that advice was heeded, international pressure on Khartoum in which Washington believes Khartoum was among the states responsible for sponsoring terrorism, and Southerners' zeal to wade over to the shore of freedom, would have made no radical change in the realities that were to follow.

Earlier comments in the UAE-based Al-Bayan newspaper by Abdel Rahman Shalgam, Libya’s permanent representative to the United Nation, coincided with the Egyptian fears over the breakup of the country.  Shalgam blamed Khartoum for the damaging Shari’a law embraced by the state. He particularly castigated Hasan al-Turabi for his civilization project which ushered in intensification of fighting in the country through ruthless declaration of Jihad on the southerners.

Southerners, at this historical breaking point, would simply wonder where these voices of reasons were during the two decades of war in which they suffered immensely. To many Southerners, voices emerging at the stage are voices of doom that are blaming themselves for the actions they have not completed right. Nobody will know what Southerners are thinking at this crucial moment. But as the referendum date looms, they will say it loud and clear to Sudan, Egypt and the world what they have been thinking.

Egyptian fears and concerns, more or less, seemed to form a wish of goodwill for a future of peacefulness, good neighborliness and regional stability. But the reality in the Egyptian concern is in the waters of the Nile.

Juba must make Oil Concessions with Khartoum to get Abyei out of the Quagmire

It is imperative that Southern Sudan will overwhelmingly vote for secession in January 2011 referendum as predicted by many keen observers of the Sudanese conflict.  This vote is particularly loathsome to NCP and the entire northern Sudanese population- the economically oppressed and the politically disenfranchised groups by the Muslim/Islamic theocratic leadership.  This makes 2010 and 2011 the years of determination of statehood and survivability. Only one area has become a silver bullet which would, nonetheless, bring about lasting peace in the country, but a threshold for doom to the entire country. This area is Abyei. Abyei had become the footstool where decision-makers rest their feet while debating the future of the country, particularly on wrong and deceitful terms.

The justifiable token for not accepting all the deliberations on Abyei by the NCP Government is not that Abyei holds any significance in the people that live in it for them. The matter in holding on to Abyei at this crucial time is a matter of survival. It is not true to suggest that the transhumance Messeriya herders who seasonally maraud while grazing and watering their livestock in Abyei will be permanently deprived of the use of the resources by southerners - grazing land and water. No supportive historical evidence is present today which can point to any occasions when the Messeriya had unduly been denied grazing and temporary sojourning by the Ngok Dinka of Abyei.

There is something deeper than what is being demanded in a manner particularly so incognito by the Sudanese government and the ruling party, the NCP. Many writers and analysts have highlighted this several times and have come to the conclusion that Sudan’s precious commodity in Southern Sudan is oil. About 80% of the Sudanese revenue is known to come from oil, and much of this lies in southern Sudan, a region presently threatening to go away as an independent sovereignty. What will happen to North Sudan economy should southern Sudan leave with all the oil? What are the guarantees that southerners will, in the near future, decide to reunite with northerners to form a much-desired United New Sudan? And what is the point of holding on to Abyei when all the Sudanese citizens in the north know that the Nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms are indeed Dinka People and, therefore, Southerners?

Somebody doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to discern the demand of the Sudanese government, hidden behind the status of Abyei. But this demand can be asked politely and southerners would consider a brotherly option for it. Clamouring and displaying higgledy-piggledy demeanours will not solve it. If anything, manners as such can destroy the country. Abyei has always been a Southern territory and its administrative sway in the twentieth century does not make it a Northern area of jurisdiction. The point is clear to all Sudanese. It is therefore incumbent upon the SPLM and NCP to do something about the heavy anchor in Abyei's matter. Something has to be done before unconditional return to war. No further tricks or clandestine hypotheses of togetherness will normalise this stalemate but oil. Juba must agree to share oil with Khartoum even if it means doing so on a long-term basis allocation. After all, Sudan has always been one country. This gesture will be honourable to all Sudanese.

This is hard to fathom, but it is evident that before the end of the year and without a concrete breakthrough, Sudan will go to war based on the premise of protecting the right of Messeriya nomads and on salvaging the land of the Ngok Dinka and the oil fields.  Should this happens both NCP and SPLM will carry the burden of the blame. The variance of the war to be waged by either side cannot be conclusively attributed to one party, but the probability that NCP will wheedle the Messeriya to jumpstart the war is one. This affirms the normative argument put forward by NCP that Messeriya, who are the majority in the area and native to nearby Muglad, are to be considered inhabitants of Abyei and therefore, have inalienable right to vote in the deciding referendum for Abyei. Professor Mading Deng disputed the concocted right of the Messeriya to vote in Abyei's referendum on the United Nation TV a few days ago in a response to the Sudanese ambassador in the USA. The ambassador reiterated his government’s call to allow the Messeriya herders to vote. professor Mading quipped and said, “There is no need for a referendum in Abyei then if the Messeriya are allowed to vote. The Messeriya  are the majority in the area and giving them the option on the future of Abyei automatically means they will want to keep Abyei under Northern administration.” He went on to say that what is needed the most is the capacity to build trust between the Messeriya and Ngok Dinka. Some harmonious platform that will allow the two communities to remain in an acceptable coexistence with each other as well as to coexist as peaceful neighbours irrespective of the future of Abyei.

So, where is the logic with which Khartoum is forcing the Messeriya to take up such a radical position on Abyei? The Messeriya were part of the peace delegation five years ago. They knew that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement granted Ngok Dinka suffrage in a referendum to decide their future. Their main complaints as herders at the time were their animals and how they would survive if Abyei went to South Sudan administratively. This complaint was addressed adequately in the CPA.  Existing cordial relationships between the two communities were held in high regards during peace negotiations. The undeniable right to grazing and watering the animals on the part of the Messeriya was part of the agreements. What then makes Messeriya think that the CPA was wrong and the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling was also a bluff? The answer could be found in the oil.

To break the deadlock on Abyei, freeze war, inculcate a mutual understanding among the Sudanese citizenry and solicit a mutually assured development between the two sides of Sudan, the South should, by virtue and wisdom, allow the North to share oil with it.  This natural bounty is the last thing that keeps the two Sudan together. 

General Arabisation Quandary in South Sudan Could also be a Pan Africa Problem.

Northern Sudan had experienced a tumultuous time in its history and is now grappling with the most austere political test it had never dreamt of - the break of the nation into two possible independent countries. This sincere and difficult development will come about as an achieved status quo resulting from political miscalculations by many governments in Sudan. The Sudanese government had often adopted covert policies to neglect people within their country and devised extreme measures of mistreatment to silence them. This pressure of injustice and maladministration had been imposed on the people for approximately half a century. 

When injustices outdo their limits, the masses always act on their own accord to demand justice for themselves. South Sudan was the first point of explosion as the pressure to demand justice and freedom mounted on the civil populace in Sudan. South Sudan has now alerted the Arab world that Islamaisation through slavery, sheer neglect of the people, and conquest (through the employment of divisive measures) has been halted. Throughout the entire Sudanese unity, much of what the people of South Sudan have offered to their country (since independence from Anglo - Egyptian condominium) was a brotherly coexistence in a free and prosperous country. The first Sudanese civil war that ended in 1972 proved that citizens of South Sudan only demanded unity and togetherness - the rights of the citizenry to all Sudanese people - in the country through meaningful and compromising understanding. Southern Autonomy within a united Sudan was the vehicle through which this could have been achieved.

But, Islamists in Sudan gave an impression and erratic belief that infidels or non-believers can never lead them, or even share equal Rights with them in a democratic country. It is a woe of a belief which should be generalized to assume that no world government under a non-Muslim is desired by the people of Islamic Faith. Summary application of such a thought in Sudan had not been helpful. It falls short of respect for human dignity and becomes a weapon for not doing right for the people being governed. This fallacy of Divine call for mistreatment will make Sudan's oppressive regimes, which had ruled the country for decades, carry the blame for any eventuality in Sudan. The unity of the country so desired today had been availed as an option for a period of time, but no one saw the repercussions of turning it down. This is why it is painful today to think or hear about south Sudan seceding from the country.

Many successive governments in Sudan, starting from the government of Prime Minister Ismail al Azari to Omar el Bashir did little to heed the 'Call of Rights' by the oppressed in the country. Sudanese People’s expeditious attempts to keep the nation in harmony via the demand for equal treatment and respect of values had been recurrently turned down. This will of togetherness by southerners has been demonstrated in many peace talks and also through violent arm struggle but to no compromise.

The latest test in which the people of south Sudan love to be in an autonomous state within united Sudan was accorded to Khartoum in a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005. Five years have passed since Sudan ushered in the peace but Khartoum is still arrogantly leaning on the traditional belief that it will ensnare the Southerners to vote for unity even though laxity in the implementation of the peace agreement remains mischief, pointing the people in a different voting direction.

The ultimate demand of CPA is where the citizens of South Sudan and the adjacent marginalized areas, who are partners in the peace process are allowed to exercise their democratic rights to choose the Sudan they would like to join. That is a choice between New Sudan and Old Sudan. National Congress Party has again routinely thwarted this CPA protocol with a view to derailing peace and tranquillity that had settled into the minds of the people. At the border, NCP is amassing troops; a troubling and a masterminding sign to drive the country back into war anew.

The question they should ask themselves is whether war with the south will begin in Yei this time or at the border, and whether aerial bombardment of the cities in South Sudan will be exclusive to southern cities and not northern cities this time around? Any war in Sudan in 2011 will be a war that will be very close to everyone’s children. And this should be marked very clearly.

Recently, Egyptian and Libyan Arab brotherhood had been revealed when they all expressed support for Sudanese unity and pressured Khartoum to do whatever is probable to keep the country united. Gadaffi accentuated support for one entity of Sudan, stressing fears that the whole of Africa will break up. This was an irresponsible statement from the African Union chairman. Human Life is important and preserving its sanctity is a noble and moral calling than dismantling territorial boundaries. Sinking mountains and draining out rivers do not mark African borders. Borders can be reshaped but people cannot be procreated once they are lost. The same imaginary phenomenon of borders is right and abounds throughout the rest of the world.  Asia has never ceased to carry its name and will of power after the partition of India to yield Pakistan, Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan and Indonesia's giving way to East Timor.

If Sudan is keen on territorial boundaries, why is it not talking about The Elemi Triangle with the republic of Kenya and Ethiopia? This is a productive area with unknown reserves of mineral endowments. The other case is the Hala’ib Triangle taken over in a broad daylight by Egypt. It has been annexed with all the Sudanese citizens residing in it. Recent population census and democratic elections in Sudan following the CPA were not carried out in Hala’ib and Elemi Triangles. Is there any reason why the government is soft on foreign aggression and annexation but tough on its citizens' demands for rights?

Sudan should not dwell on the factor of unity for no apparent reasons. It has the moral and state duty to protect the Messeriya and the Baggara endangering themselves through a future hostile clash with the southern army by dissuading them not to think of Abyei as their area of jurisdiction. If Messeryia votes wherever they graze their animals, then why don’t they vote in Aweil and Warrap states as well?

The Baggara are the last tools in the NCP human arsenals. They will not escape the wrath of Riverine Arabs who always discard people after they have served their purpose and continue to pinch them should argumentation ensues. Darfur war is a clear and unmistakable Sudanese government heedlessness and disrespect for the people who made it possible to keep southerners at bay for twenty years in the war of a new Sudan. The Darfuris formed the bulk of government militias that tormented South Sudan during the lengthy period of war. Today all weapons of the Sudan Armed Forces are stored in Nyala ready to be used against the Furs.

The Baggara must learn to know the government they serve well. They must read into the history of Sudanese tactics of starting with the furthest enemy. The Anya Nya war between Khartoum and southern Anya Nya guerrillas was almost exclusively fought by the Nuba people who were the government’s favorite source of manpower. The war with SPLA/M saw the government targeted the Nuba people harshly while favoring the Fur and the Baggara as the favorite source of manpower against the southerners. Today, the Fur are the enemies and the Baggara are the immediate darlings. The question is who is next? And what about the united Sudan portrayed as peaceful matrimony? It may not be a realistic union but an ideal type.

Unions are not always permanent. And this includes the integrity of a country as a united sovereign entity. In Africa, the then East African Community (comprising of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) which saw the early African renaissance in trade broke up and abandoned many services that were managed jointly by one regional body such as the East African Airline and East African Customs and Trade. But the same body has been revived after a fairly negotiated settlement in the spirit of a new and mutually benefiting trading bloc.

Ethiopia is another country where dissidence had been the order of relations between the government of Emperor Haile Selassie, the army under Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, and the TPLF (Tigray Peoples Libration Front) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front). Since the 1993 secession of Eritrea, no warring groups had demanded an analogous request as Eritrea.

Africa in general has never disintegrated because of Eritrean freedom. Eritreans were justified and this is the similar condition in which marginalized Southern Sudanese and others are held at present. The Arab world should not be disheartened by what is going to transpire in Sudan following January 9, 2011. It is an experiment that had been tried but went berserk and people are left without any preference but to opt for destiny and life over terrorization and enslavement. And they are geared up to sacrifice everything to get it. 

The recent strong wording from president Obama is quite encouraging to Sudan and Africa in general. Islamization is bad for the continent and Islamists should not be allowed to terrorize the Sudanese people. If America stands and watches what is going on in Sudan, they will be surprised by the reemergence of another terrorist wing in Sudan. The results are always felt everywhere even in America.   

The Subsahara of Africa must also be vigilant for Arabization and Islamization is trickling down south faster and menacingly than ever. It is a south Sudanese problem now, but it will be an all Africa problem in the future. If the Sudanese militias (Zaghawa-also found in Chad in good numbers) could bring down governments in Chad and Central Africa, where can they not go? The government in Khartoum is a terrorizing lump to all of Africa and the world. Uganda seems to understand this fully well because Sudan Islamic government supports the Lord's Resistance Army in the north of the country. The rest of Africa must wake up to the realities of the Islamists in Khartoum.

Africa should embrace stern measures in dealing with political oppressions. This requires reformation in the AU charter that prevents meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. With this charter unchanged, Africa will continue to wallow in the mess of wars and neocolonialism economic ideologies. Africa must not be left to free thinkers like Nelson Mandela. Africa of Nelson Mandela is tantamount to Africa of Kwame Nkurumah of Ghana in the 1960s and Gadhaffi of Libya in this century. Some of the ideologies by these strong men are somehow impractical: Africa where states of affairs are allowed to chart their own courses without political pressure applied to the oppressing regimes. It is ridiculous and inhumane to watch people die while playing a messianic mission. Even the Messiah gave up his own life for the oppressed. 

What we have in Sudan is no different from apartheid in South Africa in the twentieth century. That was the reason why pan Africans, both at home and in the diasporas, garnered support and faced the apartheid government unblinkingly. South Africans recently harvested the result of the Pan African Movement when they hosted the first world cup in Africa. They knew that without empathies and actions of other African brothers, all would be different. 

Massive threats and propaganda have become the norm in the Sudanese media of late. If the intentions were to force southerners to vote for unity, then the question that remains indelible in the minds of the voters in southern Sudan would be the nature of the credibility in a forced unity rather than by choice and what would happen should someone vote for unity amid threats and curses. Of course, the Sudanese government's traditional threats and killings will not abate even if Sudanese in the south vote for a united Sudan. So, why die in unity and not in separation? 

It is possible the government in Khartoum is squandering the referendum and popular consultation time on Abyei. NCP must not waste time on Abyei for Abyei is the ultimate curse for them. If they choose to go to war because of this oil-rich state, then they have to know that southern Sudanese know nothing else other than war and they are ready to turn around and fight for self-defense.

Peace in Darfur should not be at the Expense of South Sudan.

Abdel Wahid El Nur is a real patriot who has seen and witnessed firsthand the cunning and uppity-prone behavior of the Khartoum government. Just as many writers have pointed out, Sudan is in a rush and in dire pain to sign peace with all Darfur rebels in order to embark on its Southern Sudan schemes of Jihadism. They know pretty well that no army in Sudan will ever succeed against the SPLM/A without the plethora of power that comes from the Fur, the Baggara, and Eastern Sudan’s Beja people. For this, they are looking for fighters. But wounded fighters can better be your enemies. And a wounded friend should not obey his former enemy in a masqueraded face. 

A Chinese renowned general, Sun Tzu had this testimony in his memoirs, The Art of War: "There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, and positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed." Alexander the Great later successfully used Tzu’s military wits to conquer his known world at the time and spread the Hellenistic culture with a great record. The memoir would be superficially interpreted in various ways to meet the need of the vanquished. 

In this case, the people of Darfur must solve the dilemma they have with Khartoum. There are enemies that you must not enter into an agreement with when they so wished. But this is up to the people of Eastern Sudan and Darfur to decide: for how long will they keep fighting for the plunderers and mass murderers of their people; for how long will a people continue to suffer in the struggles in which they are not rewarded? They will have to choose. Any rushed peace with the Fur this time is just a moratorium asking them to stop for a while, and coercing them to turn and fight the South, and later, they will have to be thrashed completely according to the procured tactical order. That will be a justified peace to end in the total extermination of the Fur people.

It will be wise, as Nur seems to understand, to hold on until the rights of Fur people are guaranteed and grievances addressed before signing any elusive peace. The people of Southern Sudan know what is going on in Darfur and that is why Bashir had refused categorically not to allow GOSS to take part in the peace processes in Darfur. The point is clear here: both Darfur and South Sudan are equal enemies of the Islamic government in Khartoum and bringing them together may lead to a formidable alliance. As serendipitous as the case indicates, the people of Darfur must not be dubbed into the peace of ambition by Khartoum, which will result in their total miscalculations. It would be wise to maintain the course of struggle and Southerners to bolster a firm grip on CPA. Should anything happen, it will be fine for the two parties to go on the drawing board on equal practicum.

Khartoum must come to terms with the fact that the people of Darfur do not feed on the Quran. They need health facilities across Darfur, not only in Nyala; sustained formal education, not basic Islam which leaves the masses so illiterate to be knowledgeable Muslims; sustainable food provision and sources, not crowding the people at water points with nomad Arabs thereby brooding hot tempers and frequent civil clashes; water, electricity and improved infrastructure. These are some of the basic services that the government of Sudan has denied them for half a century. A government that can do this will be a government led by the son of Darfur. No amount of polite promises will suffice the suffering of Darfur people. Fallacious propaganda must not waiver the movement, the Sudan Liberation Movement, but ironically takes the weaknesses and lies from the Islamic government in Khartoum as the cornerstone to re-establish the strength and unity towards a unified fight for the people of Darfur.

A few days ago, SLA general commander, Abdel Gadir Abdel Rahman Ibrahim, alias, Gadora, was reported to have defected from El Nur’s SLA/M to join another rebel movement. This was the work of Sudan-Government-bought-Darfuri-man, El-Tijani El-Sissi Ateem. El-Tigani had worked tirelessly to please his masters in Khartoum while equivocally undermining the justified struggle of the people of Darfur for their rights.

The wisdom that came from Gadora in reply can be equated with the position held steadfastly by the Darfuri strong man, El Nur himself. His answer was enough to thwart desperate hopes raised in Khartoum about a possible agreement with the rebels before referenda and popular consultations that will take place across the political spectrum presently known as Southern Sudan. He had this to say: " We are not against peace but opposed to untrue peace and the fabrication of rebel groups." Gadir, Sudan Tribune, September 28, 2010. El Nur had refused to accept Dr. Garang’s persuasions to be part of the SPLM/A in1990s, citing the rationale behind the absorption, and highlighting the circumspect that the SPLA/M manoeuvre to secure the South at the expense of the whole country would kill the aspirations of his people. He never thought for a second about the reason behind the sheer wisdom which had compelled the people of the Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains to join the SPLA/M as early as its inception in the 1980s.

It was such a brilliant thought from Wahid nevertheless, it lacked insight. And this lack of insight will, for a while, linger around Wahid and his group even though they always appear to be forgetful of this self-afflicted ordeal. The Darfur rebels later demanded that the CPA be made absolutely conclusive by providing a clause to accommodate both The SPLA/M and The Darfur movements, SLA/M and JEM, something earlier rejected by Wahid. Had the two movements joined the SPLA/M and followed Daud Bolad’s example, Darfur’s clause in the CPA would be the flashpoint for all marginalized Sudanese on January 9, 2011. Furthermore, SAF and Sudan government would singlehandedly be accountable for the atrocities committed in Darfur. But many Darfur leaders and Abdel Wahid did not heed this tactical vision in particular.

Daud Bolad was left to the mercy of the Sudan Armed Forces, which captured and killed him right in the middle of his people. As historical blunders are not often deemed to extinction, the vision that was turned down resurfaced like a phantom a few years later when the SPLA/M and the Sudan Government were in the quest for peace in the country. The first group to refuse the Darfur clause at the CPA negotiations in Kenya was the group led by the Sudan Government. They neither recognized that there was an ongoing conflict in Darfur that required any precaution to be similarly addressed just like the questions of Blue Nile, Southern Kordufan, and Southern Sudan, nor did it sound imperative to explain the real facts surrounding the war in Darfur. They convinced everybody, the troika, the IGAD, and other international observers that Darfur was not a concern that required greater attention like Southern Sudan. The situation in Darfur was described as a simple clash of the nomads at water points. Today we are talking of genocide.

The Red Army in Ethiopia in the 1980s sang a song entitled: ‘"what happened in the past Anya Nya struggle must not repeat itself." They sang this in presence of Dr. John Garang and other commanders in Fugnido, Ethiopia. That song was imprinted in the minds of Dr. John Garang and his military commanders who were steering the movement. They had kept it in their hearts and Garang chanted the shortened version of the song after he successfully negotiated and signed the six protocols in Nairobi, Kenya in 2005: “What happened long ago must not happen again.”

Abdel Wahid and his counterparts in the Darfur struggle must not let what happened to Daud Bolad’s Vision happen again. The souls of the perished Darfurians in the struggle demand that the aspirations of the people are prioritized and the outcome of any negotiations be substantial, prudent, bear no malice, and flawed free. This is the prism upon which a missed historical opportunity could be rescued for the pride of posterity. 

Southern Sudan Should Endure Bad Wishes

The diplomatic warning of a Russian diplomat in Cairo, Egypt, about possible Somalization of the South Sudanese region is by all means healthy. No one, even the South Sudanese wants to see the Somalization of the region because of insatiable dissidence or other political power wranglings. It is a worry for all! A sympathizer is undoubtedly a passionate peace guard.

However, the time, place, and interest disguised during the making of the statement are dubious and seriously ill-intentioned. Honesty wasn’t the best policy at the time of the voicing of this diplomatic advice and concern.

There was no better place for a Russian diplomat to make such a bootlicking statement if not in Cairo, Egypt. Egyptian interest in Sudan extends to South Sudan where a major resource pedestal to its survival, The Nile, picks up its alluvial soil for food farms and its water drives the Aswan High Dam turbines for electric power. The volumetric flow of the Nile, too, increases in South Sudan due to frequent seasonal rains. To Egypt, Sudan is the source of the Nile even though awareness exists that more water and minerals come down the Ethiopian highlands' Lake Tana in the Amhara region. For South Sudanese to live a decent life, Egypt must understand the inalienable rights and significance of the river to all others that live on its banks and at its sources. Perhaps, this would be the message it sends to South Sudan.

South Sudan, from any amateur developer’s view, can never really prosper without the Nile being at the center of developmental mêlée – whether directly or indirectly – and this seems to be the source of concerns for Egypt. For this reason, anyone who is postulating a pleasant comment of dissuasion in reference to South Sudan’s referendum on January 9, 2011, and who, for certain wild speculation, is consequently and discreetly courting the world to turn a blind eye to South Sudan as a possible state-to-be, is, by all means, a redeemable ally to Khartoum and the ruling National Congress Party. And the Russian Mikhail Margelov fits that job perfectly well.

However, Russia should gather all the thoughts and call to mind that many nations that violently or peacefully split with their ruthless masters have been taunted as would-be failures if they pull out from a union. They were warned falsely should they opt-out, they would be met with security and economic quagmires. As time and history justify, these countries have in time surpassed such prophetic stigma. Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, etc., are today vivid examples that were threatened with failures and were forced not to leave the Russian Federation. Today they are thriving democracies, sometimes better than Mother Russia itself. If it is conceivable Russia should view the situation in South Sudan with the same magnifying lens as it did in Chechnya, then there is a gross marginal error involved.

It is true the Russian economic crisis is a reason for such comments from the diplomat. However, Russian economic struggles are domestic concerns that require internal reforms and outward policy of non-interference to those others who have nothing to do with matters pertinent to economics but whose focus is on the right to self-determination. 

It will be understood in South Sudan that Russia needs a soft place and space to swing her idled tentacles of influence for economic gains. Russian arms manufacturing will not be allowed to hold Sudan prisoner like in Eastern Europe and the Middle East where Russian gas sale has become a geopolitical weapon. Russia’s great and marauding quest to find easy partners to prey on is noticeable in Sudan and other vulnerable African countries.

Sudan had been Russia's partner in trade for arms as well as a destination of a lame technology of terror for many years. Of course Southerners still evidently retain information on the Russian-made Presidential helicopter that killed John Garang, his guards, and the Ugandan crew. Russian gunships have tormented women and children for many years in Southern Sudan. Other bombers like the Antonov, a feverish high altitude bomber, became the roaring thunders in Southern skies year in and year out for decades.

Nobody tells the world what it already knows; that South Sudanese have never known state development and handouts since the inception of the Republic of Sudan. Southerners who often flee to the North in times of crisis do so because of security concerns caused by the Northern regimes, not economic downturns or a crumbling system in the South of the country.

It is presumptuously true that Sudan owes Russia a lot of money in debt for the purchase of arms as well as the training of bomber pilots during the war.  This money will not be paid when South Sudan goes away with her bounty natural endowments, which have been the sources of Sudanese undisputed ever-trickling revenue. 

God forbid if the post-referendum negotiations currently underway between the government of South Sudan the National Congress Party on the national debt will involve tricky concessions in which South Sudanese will be bound by an agreement to pay for the bombs dropped on their kids during the war! 

Ultimately, it seems the best option for Russia, Egypt, and NCP to maximize their economic potentials is to keep the South within their grip as an assurance of support by continually concocting and thwarting the referendum vote.

But this reckless maneuvering too is as dangerous as the Somalization of the South.