South Sudan and the Arab Spring: The Minister on Willful Resource Grabbing

Just as the popular axiom illustrates, ‘for whatever has a beginning there is an end,’ it is the end of the climax of the Libyan revolutionary struggle against the regime of Gadhafi. It is also the stall point in the sense that the people of Libya have achieved what they fought for in the wake of several months of the uprising against Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, a leader loathed so much by the West and praised abundantly by the African Union and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Chavez seems charmed by Gaddafi’s arrogance in keeping the opposition at bay at home and hauling over the coals the Western condemnations against his regime. In any nous, they share dictatorial arrogance and bravery – blind bravery. 

The West hated Gaddafi for his eccentric and enigmatic support of Al Qaeda activities in the Arab world and most disturbingly, the bombing of the Pan American World Airline flight 103 – known tragically as the Lockerbie Bombing – over Scotland in the UK in 1988. Gadhafi had also made Europe lived with the awful experience of bitterness through internal meddling. This was evident in Libya arming the IRA in Northern Ireland.

The African Union on the other hand is a baby of Gaddafi. He was adored and almost nearly worshipped by its leadership so that he could keep the organisation sufficiently funded thereby eliminating unscrupulous processes of soliciting aid from the Western World. This near-total dependence on him made him hoped and believed that he could one day become the president of Africa. This commitment was clear in Libyan offering of huge financial support to the weak AU that did so little to stop the killing in Darfur by the Sudanese government through their counter-insurgency unit - the Janjaweed. His personal attires, festooned with maps of Africa are overt scenes of his deep admiration for the continent. He saw himself as a model and yearned to be recognised as its father- father of Africa. 

Realistically, many African leaders who rejected Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) in its initial stages of the war appeared like parodies on Gadhafi’s highway to a very long reign in power. Others like Chadian president, Idris Derby, had their own motives in supporting him all the way through. But why is Libya, under the auspices of a well-crafted Green Book that led her to relative stability and a strong economy in both Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa not satisfied with Gadhafi?

It is a question that will always linger around. In African political demagogue, leaders pledge many developmental and social reforms when seeking and biding for power; a stepping stone to be democratically elected into the office and after which a ruthless crackdown on oppositions ensues. Constitutions eventually become menus that could be changed overnight to solidify grip on power. This is a politico-ideological disease that has infested the Arab world and perhaps, the Arab world, too, does not look very different from Africa in this regard. 

One wonders if the Arab Spring, as the uprising throughout the Arab world is referred to, is not moulding other dictators to replace the incumbent ones whom they seek to overthrow through mass protests. In the Libyan case, an armed insurrection was the fundamental tool because all other political persuasions to introduce democracy never moved Gadhafi. He viewed such attempts as cheap shenanigans. The question, therefore, remains as to whether the NTC will not stall and a hard-won liberation handed over to other dictators in waiting, as is the case in Egypt. Libyans should be quizzical with the NTC leadership and these leaders too must show that they are immune from power hunger and demonstrate that they will not turn against the very civilians who look upon them for change as exhibited by Bashar in Syria.

It all starts with resources. The government of the people must use the country’s resources to the satisfaction of the populace. Irregularities and desire to amass country’s resources for one’s ethnic, religious sect and regional affiliations cannot redeem the country, rather, they will jettison it into a free fall in the direction of the abyss of corruption and other socio-political degeneracies.

It is in light of this question that one is forced to reflect on the situation in South Sudan. The wind of independence is abating and the country is beginning to be habituated by her erstwhile-displaced population, trickling in from the diaspora and from the Sudan. The imperfective meditation that the two Sudans will remain a single entity or under a convoluted confederacy even after the breakaway of South Sudan is now an obvious past. Or was it an academic twist to the war possibly orchestrated by South Sudanese?  It needs time to be fully comprehensible. But one thing is clear, Sudan will always remain a foreign land. Today, South Sudanese citizens are looking up to the tutelage of their leaders to transform their homeland into a liveable community. But will this thought intercommunicate with the desire of the flamboyant leaders who see the national cake as something to grab for oneself and one’s own people?

A recently formed government of president Kiir has a minister who thinks that regional enrichment will answer the quest for development. All across South Sudan, states that felt happy for having been awarded sufficient ministerial positions went out in celebration and called for fancy thanksgiving parties, not to the president but to their elected ministers for having made it to the top. It started with Western Bahr El Ghazal, then Western Equatoria before the deprived state of Northern Bahr el Ghazal wiped out tears of disquietude and misrepresentation in the national government and held a party for their two sons who were appointed  ministers in the national government.

In all these parties, comments made by various leaders were supportive of the presidential decision to appoint ministers within rank and files of their capable colleagues. Praises to the president were not considerate of calculated forthcoming elections manoeuvres in 2014. Others thought a cumbersome Dinkanisation of the national leadership had finally been broken.

Then came promises and tribal attitudes from the leaders. And none other than Alison Manani Magaya uttered the comments that jerked some patriots who might have illusions that a long time serving professional of that calibre had a key to proper and equitable development knowledge for the country. Manani urged a fellow minister in the foreign ministry who comes from W. Equatoria to fill the books of staff with West Equatorians. 'We are not asking you to put our people there but you must do it.' He elaborated more, 'we have to grab for ourselves too because others are doing it.' 

The comments, if put into action unreservedly as in the words of the pundit himself, would have long term results akin to the precursory grievances that led to the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa. If it starts with grabbing for our regions, what will stop South Sudan from following in the footsteps of Libya? We are at the corner turning left onto the 'Arabian Highway.'

Day of Contentment Replaced the Day of Devastation

Finally, the day has come for South Sudanese, the African Continent, and the world. A new nation is born, the people once marginalized have now spoken by bullets and ballots, and the struggles to achieve an identity had been realized. For South Sudanese, the old slogans of Aluta continua and comradeship, which to many, the meaning and overtone are shadowy, must now continue in different forms - the forms of social-economic development, social cohesion, moral justice, and above all, nationalism and patriotism that can be translated into action for the well-being of citizens who have been devastated by the protracted wars. The challenges are still great and the wind of change is still blowing.

The next war is somehow unconquerable, but maneuverable: the war of development. It demands the correct and astute application of democratic ideals. But with wisdom and good watchfulness and national pride, an impetus in the willpower to advance can be created and this new nation can meander around the giants to the top. It is a small world but there is a place for all that breathes.

So far South Sudanese have learned in the first and second Sudanese civil wars, 1955 – 1972 and 1983 – 2005, that it is not wise to take a bull by its horns. But there are incidences that the only thing you can catch of the bull is only the horn. The impasses of a multifaceted development must be tackled squarely by the horn.

Ideally, on this day of independence, this is not the central theme. Expectations of South Sudanese seem to suggest that they know what lies ahead. I must advise here that economic development is a kind of war that a nation should prepare adequately for. The tides are rough, but manageable if correct and honest strategies are formulated, adhered to, and consistently applied.

The rest of Africa is waiting to haul South Sudan on to the truck of economic development, where the monsters with which several economies wind around, are the Economic Blocs of different kinds: The World Bank, The IMF, and other financiers. It is a figurative and calculative arena that requires a country to prepare its human resources or workforce very well for the competition. Education would be the key to success in such a whirlpool of interests, often marked by legal manipulations. We have a world where we must tread carefully and always lay a low profile. 

South Sudanese should now know that the path towards progress has many potholes of problems, with not a single panacea for these problems. It is where a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. It is a world where no one helps you sign deals but baits you to. Many countries have signed agreements and with that, they lost the trend and poverty became commonplace. And oftentimes you get into eternal hereditary by your own signature. Wise and lucky ones become wealthy. In such countries, children are born with 'original debt' they can never pay in their lifetime. But there is little you can do to surpass the economic mightiness of those familiar with the game. Remember, man has already mass-produced the ultimate weapon. They have a name for it. Human feet have defiled the goddess for some of our communities, the moon, already. The blue sky that forms the everlasting mosquito net over South Sudan has some people living in it up there. 

My dear young nation of South Sudan, welcome to the world of perfidy, the world of national interest, the world of alliances, the world of masters. It is the world of agreements, treaties, memoranda of understanding, and so on. We can live there, can't we? It is better in this world than it is in the land of Janjaweed and Murahaleen. And if you are asking for the solution, then the solution I don't know. Just don't borrow where you can never repay. Own no masters or at least be a master. Develop your human resources or perhaps be a test case in a different scenario. South Sudan can benefit if it chooses to follow the path of successful nations. 

The main focus for the people of South Sudan was to end the marginalization and set themselves free. This had been a subject that often carried an emotional charge. Today South Sudanese have geographical confinement. The truth is that they have always been here. Even prophet Isaiah talked about people that resemble them. The long-desired Promised Land is now right here. It is the milk that is yet to be seen. We needed a home country, a cocoon to recline to when necessary. It is now a full realization and it was an achievement worthy of an attempt. It was an identity we lacked. South Sudanese have so long been made to live with a misnomer that they are part of the Arab world and therefore Middle Easterners. Arabs – black Arabs? The misnomer was baffling and people struggled to shed it for almost half a century.

Now they have got a country they will forever hang on to till the end of time:  the Republic of South Sudan where the word Sudan will really insinuate the ‘Land of the Black.’ With the creation of this new state comes the excitement and jubilation for millions of South Sudanese whom maladroit of war have made to assume the tunnel they were in had no exit where light would appear. Today it is shining at the tunnel’s end for the people of South Sudan. And into the tunnel goes no hope, desire, or willingness for turning back. We are out and free.

In his speech, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General on July 9, 2011, in Juba said that South Sudan has become the 193^rd nation that will soon acquire membership in the United Nations. The African Union welcomes Africa’s 54^th, sovereign state. The East Africans want them on their economic bloc for the next war. South Sudan is a country!

The Africans who have put up with the pressures of Sudanese refugees influx and have borne the brunt of malevolent of a lingering war in Sudan have also expressed their joy and support for the new nation. At least a neighbor is at peace. South Sudan was a no-go zone for the rest of business Africa and the world. It is time now for Africa and the world to come and see what Southerners have been fighting for in this land of the Sudd and The Mighty Nile. South Sudanese are saying, ‘You are welcome!!’

And what do South Sudanese think of the day?

The world that has stood with the people of South Sudan through humanitarian sustenance; the world in which generous countries like Australia, UK, America, New Zealand, Norway Canada and others stretched their generosity further and offered millions of South Sudanese resettlement deserve our appreciation. It is on this day that we acknowledge their generosity. We the South Sudanese thank them abundantly. We say unto them “Since you have been with us during our times of need, you are friends indeed and we say thank you.” The new president of the Republic of South Sudan never missed the point of thanking them overwhelmingly today, July 9, 2011, during his swearing-in ceremony in Juba when South Sudan legally declared her Independence.

It is today that many South Sudanese believe that the NCP party in Khartoum, which signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Southerners in 2005, has acquiesced to sitting down and watching them raised their flag and singing a brand new South Sudan National Anthem. To the South Sudanese, it was a dream comes true; it was the day of reckoning. They have wisely and courageously refused to be dragged back into war willy-nilly in the months leading up to Independence Day, and vehemently avowed to secure their freedom, land, and their future. Aspirations of the people of South Sudan have now been realized after a rough ride.

To the Jellaba in the North, they saw it as a failure in the policy of Arabisation of Black Africa, broken by southern resistance. The African stubbornness in demanding freedom through the opposition of the Sudan’s Mahdism and Muhammedanism of the country had been portrayed throughout the 54 years of war. Southerners have since demanded their rights while steadfastly inclined geopolitically to the free world where human dignity and freedom are prized above religious dogmatism. It is madness to see some people fighting wars in the name of God. God, from an all-powerful angle, has been displayed in the Holy books as truly capable of winning His own battles and does not need human succor and actors for the mission. In the name of whom do the weak humans fight for the powerful? The philosophy of religious affiliation must be psychological to a certain degree.

South Sudanese quest for a secular democratic system of government in Sudan had always been met with ululations and religious chanting that called for war in the name of God. We have been through it long and hard that some boys and girls parted with parents at the tender age of ten and have ever since known nothing but themselves to rely upon for the past two decades.

The breakup of Sudan does not make us happy, not in the least. We the Sudanese citizens both North and South have always wanted to be together. But something went horribly wrong in the political systems of the country. South Sudanese had no options left in their armory of togetherness in a united Sudan. Islamisation policy has destroyed the hopes of many. Southerners had to go and to go they went with everything that is South Sudanese above and beneath the ground. That includes oil and other endowed natural resources. And in the sky and heavens above, we have gone with part of our God that does not declare war on His people for submission.

The break up may leave North Sudan with a sense of fear that a country with more than five hundred ethnic groups, in which 63 or so tribes of South Sudan have already chosen secularism will surely stand the test of hypothetic Arabisation in Africa and not more implosive disintegration. Many experts believe this. Erroneous and palpable of this anathematic Arabisation policy is the statement that Sudan is an Arab Islamic State, while ignoring the fact that a sizeable population of the country is truly African. Additionally, this group of non-Arab neither knows nor understands anything of the policy of ‘die or believe.’ Sudan’s government’s call for Holy War or Jihad upon its own citizens as previously witnessed in Darfur through the use of Janjaweed as a force of counterinsurgency against the African Muslims, and more recently in Abyei, will stand as a testimony to the world that needs to know the truth.

To South Sudanese, both at home and in the Diaspora, it is a freedom worth celebrating.  It is a break in posttraumatic stress that we often fear to speak about. It is a searchlight that exposes our confidence and assertiveness. It is a sudden sigh of relief for unpredictable questions that led to our displacement. It is a calming and sedative force for those whose hopes in the survival of their families have been dashed and replaced with pain that seemed to go on for eternity. 

Independence Day is a great day. This is the day that Southerners: amputated, maimed and artificially deformed as a result of gun wounds, snake bites and animal attacks shed tears of joy and pain for; the day in which those whose bones remained scattered in the open and under the trees of Sudan and Africa for the course of their freedom will be remembered by the living; the day that those whose empty stomaches stopped them from breathing will be called to mind; the day in which we recall when our bodies became deficient in fluids and people fell dried and dropped dead while the mighty Nile never runs dry; the day that the entire social structure of the people of South Sudan which had been devastated by war and its concomitants will certainly be given attention. This is the day that announces the end of the blatant devastation and heralding a new day – the Day of contentment. The day is July 9, 2011.

Kura ya Maoni Kusini mwa Sudan

Ni masaa machache tu ndiyo yamebaki ili watu wa Sudan kusini wapige kura ya maoni itakayoleta uhuru kwa watu. Twasema Kaskazini mwa sudan, "ubaki na ugoigoi wako." Sheria yenu iwe ugombezi wenu. Akilini mwetu kwa nusu ya karne hapa kusini, tuliona dunia ikiwayawaya nu kuyugayuga tukitafuta usaidizi wa kila aina ili tupate haki zetu. Mpira wakati huu uko kwa koti yenu.

Mwayowayo na mkipenda mlia machozi. Mola ni wa kila binadamu naye ni mwenye haki na upendo. Kwaherini. Na msisahau kwamba tutatengana na kufarakana nanyi milele kwa sababu tuliumia sana mikononi mwenu.

Katika vita vya kupigania uhuru, vita ambavyo wataalamu huwaamini ni ndefu barani Afrika, tulikufa kwa risasi, wanyama wa msitu na wa pori walipata chemsha kinywa na miili wetu, wanawake wetu walinajisiwa, wengi wetu walichochewa na kufukuzwa nchini mpaka wakapata makao wa ghafula ughaibuni, tulichekeshwa tukiwa tunajaribu kutulia ugenini, watoto wetu wamezaliwa nje ya nchi hata hawajui Sudan ni upande gani wa dunia, kila kitu kimegeuka na kutugeukia vibaya mpaka akili zetu kwa sababu ya uhayawani wa wachache huku Sudan.

Lakini sasa, ijapo tulidhani Mungu hasikii, tunampatia shukrani, tunamwabudu na kumheshimu kwa kuwa mwishowe, anaonekana kama husikia watu wake, duniani kote na hususan, watu wake Kusini mwa Sudan.

Abwoon D'Bashmaya - The Lords Prayer in Aramaic

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.