In the 1990s, the world averted its eyes to genocide in Rwanda, and to the “Great Lakes War” in eastern Congo, which claimed over 5 million lives – the most in any war since World War II. Will such silence and neglect reign again if civil war is renewed in Sudan?
The peace deal struck in Naivasha, Kenya in 2005 between
Sudan’s government and rebels from the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement
(S.P.L.M.) committed both sides, at war for most of the previous 50 years, to
work for unity. But, as the so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (C.P.A.)
reaches its climax, the SPLM, based in the autonomous region of South Sudan,
has abandoned all pretense that unity with the North and the government in
Khartoum is either possible or desirable.
A referendum scheduled for January 9 will give voters in
the South the opportunity to create their own sovereign state. A separate but
simultaneous vote in the oil-rich province of Abyei will allow voters to choose
if they want to join the North or South.
The artificial fusion of the mainly Arab, Muslim North of
Sudan and the African South, where Christianity and traditional animist beliefs
are predominant, has been an abject failure. Since Sudan won independence from
the United Kingdom in 1956, the country has been convulsed by almost constant
civil war based on the North-South cultural and religious divide. Matters were
subsequently complicated by a separate conflict – this time between Muslims –
over resources in the Western Darfur region.
If the non-Muslim South had gained at independence a
large degree of religious, cultural, and administrative autonomy within a
devolved federal structure, it is conceivable Sudan could have remained at
peace. But the South gained these freedoms only in 2005, with the C.P.A., and
only after a huge and bloody conflict.
For most of the previous half-century, the North sought
relentlessly to impose its will on the South. Southerners were subject to
systematic and institutionalized marginalization. Islamization was the main
tool of repression, in particular the imposition of Sharia law. More than 2
million people were killed in the second Sudanese civil war alone, which broke
out in 1983 (essentially continuing the first war, which ended in 1972).
Millions more became refugees.
Few places on earth are poorer and more destitute than
Southern Sudan. In most places, infrastructure is non-existent and millions of
unexploded land mines litter the soil. But the South was never conquered, and
its army, the S.P.L.A., twice fought the North to a standstill.
The case for South Sudan’s independence is bolstered by
the fact that it would be economically sustainable. Some 80 percent of Sudan’s
oil is in the South, and the country’s vast swaths of fertile, naturally
irrigated land hold much promise for commercial agriculture. South Sudan’s
mineral wealth could also be substantial, though no one knows because
exploration has been impossible for so long.
All polls suggest that, given the choice in a free, fair,
and well-organized referendum, Southerners will vote overwhelmingly for
independence. But the run-up to the plebiscite has been fraught, with Sudan’s
President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal
Court on charges of genocide in Darfur, seeking to delay, disrupt, and
overshadow it.
The North has been orchestrating a series of small-scale
military strikes on South Sudanese territory in the past few months. It is also
suspected of drilling horizontally into the South’s oil fields, in defiance of
the C.P.A. And the S.P.L.M. fears that Bashir would use a vote in favor of
independence in the South as justification to resume all-out war.
War, however, is in no one’s interests, not even
Bashir’s. After all, he relies on oil for government revenue, and, according to
recent leaks, is allegedly accumulating a massive personal fortune overseas.
Bashir knows the tenacity and persistence of the S.P.L.A. But if the S.P.L.A.
ends up controlling or shutting down most of Sudan’s oil resources, the North
could end up with nothing.
Renewed conflict could also drag in the United States
(supporting the South) and China (Bashir’s key international backer) into a
dangerous and potentially escalating proxy conflict of the kind that was common
in Africa throughout the Cold War. China has been investing heavily recently in
neighboring Ethiopia in the hope of buying neutrality from Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi in the event of war, though the government in Addis Ababa is more likely
to side with its Christian co-religionists in the South.
It is the prospect of a proxy war that makes all the
unsettled issues – the division of oil revenue, the demarcation of the border,
and the fate of the adjoining Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile region – so
potentially explosive. But, proxy war or not, this almost unprecedented
redrawing of Africa’s colonial borders (Eritrea two decades ago was the last example)
could have profound consequences for the continent’s future.
An independent South Sudan would force the West to
confront established orthodoxies about Africa, in particular the belief that
countries like Somalia and Nigeria are more stable whole than they would be in
two or more constituent parts. Indeed, an independent South Sudan is expected
to grant diplomatic recognition to Somaliland, the successful and stable former
British protectorate that has had de facto independence from the rest of Somalia
since 1991.
As Sudan’s referendum approaches, the world holds its
breath. Undoubtedly, South Sudan would face colossal challenges as a sovereign
state, but the alternative – an inevitable return to war – would be
incalculably worse, both for Sudan and for Africa. The people of South Sudan
now have a chance finally to decide their own destiny. For them, and for the
cause of lasting peace in the region, that could be an immensely valuable start
to the new year.
**Charles Tannock is the coordinator for the European
Conservatives and Reformists on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European
Parliament. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with
Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).