Sudan has never had a crisis as explosive as that in Israel or Kashmir. But thanks to the vested interest of certain countries and groups, it has time and again been blown out of proportion to make it look like a horrendous one that needed immediate solution.
And solution did apparently come in by way of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 at the behest of then US President George Bush, and which among others proposed for a virtual split of the country into North Sudan and South Sudan, via 2011 referendum, of course.
Only five years later, another US leader, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, described the situation as “ticking time bomb.” Indeed, a cursory look at the background of the crisis leading to the CPA would reveal that the proposed solution to the crisis is pregnant with many more crises, and which have started raising heads even before the CPA is put to execution.
The trouble with the southern region is not new and had been brewing up since before independence in 1956. Rather, the north and south Sudan have since independence fought two full scale civil wars too.
But the haste with which the solution was sought by applying all kinds of pressure tactics on President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan betrays a sensible understanding of the whole problem.
It was not just the north and south tension as it has been made out to be one. Sudan problem is about the herdsmen and the farmers, and about the land and the water as also it is about its new found oil fields that have made the country the third largest producer of oil in Africa. This socio-economic crisis has been relegated to the backseat and an attempt with all the international backing was made to split the country so that the southern region, which has most of the resources come under the influence of the Western countries.
Even no one talks about the genesis of the racial resentment, which is traced back to the colonial era. The British, to divert the nationalist upsurge then, used its time-tested formula of ‘divide and rule’ between north and south, as it did the same in many other countries like India, giving birth to a crisis which has its worst ramifications today.
Even if the country is split, which seems imminent as the January 2011 referendum is approaching, Sudan faces possibility of a looming war with the new state of South Sudan on issues – from control of the vast resources of oil to border disputes, for instance. The conflict in the Darfur region is yet another issue that Sudan will be grappling with for some time to come.
The faultline of Bashir government, and even those who preceded him, is the failure to keep the strife at check, which in turn made the Africans doubt about the intention of the Arab-dominated dispensation at Khartoum. Even if Bashir did not exacerbate the tension, he certainly failed to gauge the direction in which the wind was blowing.
THE GREAT GAME
Every catastrophe has a context. Sudan is no exception. Dr. William Bowles, an expert on oil and international relations, widens that “context” when, in one of his write-ups on Sudan, he says: “To say that oil is the principal cause of the current situation in Sudan is to state the obvious, although of course, the media would have us believe that this is yet another fantasy from the ‘conspiracy posse’.”
To say that oil is a major item in the West menu while looking at the solution to the conflict in Sudan, is to state the obvious.
In fact, the reason behind China’s stumping its foot down against any UN resolution imposing sanctions on Sudan, is because it sees through the great oil game, in which the United States is the usual main player. Besides, China with 40 per cent stake, along with other three developing countries namely Malaysia’s Petronas (30 per cent), India’s ONGC (25 per cent) and Sudan’s Sudapet (5 per cent) have a lot of stake in the oil sector to be concerned about.
Therefore, it did not come as a surprise when China blocked resolutions that imposed sanctions, as opposed to merely threatening them. China is one of five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, and was one of four countries to abstain from the vote (along with Russia, Pakistan and Algeria). Chinese oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan.
And this is one reason why President Bashir looked not so ready for the referendum. Egypt, as is disclosed in a leaked report, is said to have remarked that the referendum will have “fatal implications”, and hence lobbied hard for delaying the vote for four to six years.
Indeed the separation will destabilise the Horn of Africa, spur an influx of migrants to Egypt and will hurt Suez Canal revenues, Egypt felt.
“The result would be the creation of a ‘non-viable’ state that could threaten Egypt’s access to the Nile waters,” the October 2009 leaked diplomatic cable quoted officials as saying.
According to a Council for Foreign Relations report, observers felt that many other African wars had been relegated from Division One crises to something less. They were never put in the same geostrategic bracket as say the potential for conflict over Iran, or North Korea, Israel-Palestine, and the on-going mess in Iraq. Why then this haste on Sudan?
A solution that begets yet another crisis is not a solution. The world leaders may bask in a self-satisfied plan to bring about a solution to the conflicts in Sudan, but the fact is that it has moved from one crisis to precipitate so many others.
What the CPA is leaving behind is indeed a “ticking time bomb.” The chances of a peaceful transition appear pessimistic. Both sides of Sudan seem bracing for a looming war. Darfur region is yet another area that is readying for flare-up. Border disputes, particularly those of Abyei region, are in any case going to play its own devastating role once South is separated. And, more than that the North Sudan will be in a real crisis as it will be deprived of its oil resources.
Hence, President Bashir appears reluctant to let go of oil fields. According to figures published by the Sudanese government, oil revenue accounted for about $2.8 billion of its budget last year and an estimated 60 per cent of this year’s budget. Without oil, Sudan will face imminent domestic crisis.