webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2010
All rights reserved
From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Fri Sep 24 2010 - 15:37:12 EDT
The Sudanese Divorce and the American Witness
24/09/2010
By Osman Mirghani
A few days ago, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Sudan
"is a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence", indicating that the
secession of the South is inevitable, and the situation must be dealt with
on this premise. At the same time, she advised the South to offer
compromises and deals to the North, in particular regarding the issue of
oil, "unless they want more years of war".
Last Friday, Salva Kiir Mayardit, First Deputy President of Sudan and
President of the Government of Southern Sudan, said in a meeting to the
Black Caucus in the American Congress, that the future of Sudan was "hanging
in the balance". He indicated that unity was no longer an attractive option,
and that all evidence indicates that the southerners will choose
'independence', in the upcoming referendum on the 9th January 2011. Salva
Kiir also took the opportunity to respond to the advice of Hillary Clinton,
criticizing her call [to offer concessions to the North] as one "to buy our
freedom". He considered it unjust to demand that the South hand over the
majority of their oil reserves to the North.
On the same day, the Sudanese Embassy in Washington distributed the text of
a letter written by the Second Vice-President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, Chief
Supervisor of the Southern Issue, addressed to the U.S. Administration,
describing them as one of the driving forces who stood behind the Sudanese
peace agreement in 2005, on the basis that a future referendum would be
conducted. In his letter, Taha calls for the Obama Administration to move in
the coming period to instigate "a new beginning in U.S.-Sudanese relations",
by lifting sanctions and ceasing their pressures. He also suggested that the
U.S. Administration suspend the prosecution of President Omar al-Bashir,
especially as he is the individual "who controls the decision for war or
peace".
Yet these opinions come at a time when the U.S. Administration is stepping
up its action, regarding the issue of a referendum in Southern Sudan, after
realizing that time is running out. The proposed referendum date is only 109
days away, meanwhile problems are accumulating and indicators suggest that
failure to reach a satisfactory solution, and clarification on issues such
as borders, oil, water, and bilateral relations, may lead to either the
abandonment of the referendum, or a "tempestuous divorce" amidst outstanding
problems. The result in both cases would be a bloody war.
The reality is that American action has come after a period of hesitation,
fluctuation and differences within the Obama Administration, regarding the
Sudanese issue. This indecisive state was not resolved until after Vice
President Joe Biden's visit to Africa in June, where the topic of Sudan was
at the top of his agenda. During a stopover in Kenya, Biden met with Salva
Kiir, and discussed 'the future of the South' with him. He stressed the U.S.
Administration's support for the referendum to be held on time, and pledged
to offer support to the South, whilst also advising southern leaders to seek
to resolve their outstanding issues with the North, before the referendum
date.
That visit, and subsequent meetings within the Obama Administration,
resolved the differences and hesitancy. The Administration adopted a
strategy to put pressure on Khartoum, to organize the referendum on time,
and to put pressure on Juba to ensure that the referendum would be conducted
in a "free and fair atmosphere". More importantly, America decided to pursue
a policy of 'incentives or sanctions' with the Sudanese government, to
ensure their cooperation regarding the referendum, which seems to be
overtaking the issue of Darfur on the list of Washington's priorities. From
this perspective, the Administration has developed its plan to lift U.S.
sanctions on Sudan gradually, and in calculated steps, in accordance with
certain key dates in relation to the referendum. This will encourage
Khartoum to meet the 9th January deadline, and moreover will help to ensure
that the Khartoum government recognizes the outcome, especially if the
result is southern separation.
Under this strategy, Obama also decided to attend a specific meeting with
Sudan, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting last
Friday. In doing so, he aimed to convey the message that the U.S.
Administration, at its highest levels, is giving the subject of Sudan, and
the southern referendum, its utmost attention. Obama also wanted to protect
himself from the widespread criticism leveled against him in Washington,
which has argued that he has abandoned his election promise to give the
Sudanese issue his attention, after criticizing the Bush Administration for
not applying enough pressure or acting upon the issue.
There is another dimension to this resurgent American interest in the
Sudanese situation. It is also motivated by a great concern for the prospect
of a renewed war in Sudan, this time even bloodier, especially after the
South has stockpiled weapons over the past few years. There is also the fear
that the war could expand and draw in neighboring countries, leading to
turmoil in the region, especially with the presence of a rebel movement in
Uganda, the tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the collapsed state
of Somalia. Furthermore, what happens in Sudan after the referendum will
have far reaching implications, both regionally and internationally.
Secession will ignite a volatile issue in the region, where there are
numerous minorities, amid much ethnic, religious and tribal overlapping, and
'loose' border interpretations. The 'independent' South possesses in its
genes all the hallmarks of potential future problems, raising fears of a
'Sudanese Rwanda'. Therefore, the separation of the North and South does not
mean that the issue has come to an end. Instead, a lot needs to be done to
ensure stability, and prevent clashes which could easily result from oil,
water, or tribal and border tensions.
The Sudanese 'divorce' is inevitable, given current indicators. The witness
to proceedings will be American, as is the desire of both parties.
Meanwhile, the Arabs will be mere spectators, but that is another issue.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----