Last month, I along with other Sudanese-Americans watched with disgust as the results from Sudan's first multi-party election in 24 years were released. Despite widespread fraud, irregularities and boycotting by main opposition parties, the United States and the international community have still chosen to recognize the election of president Bashir, a man wanted for war crimes, including genocide by the International Criminal Courts.
Shortly after the results were released, Scott Gration, US special envoy to Sudan met with the Southern Sudanese community in Washington, D.C. Conspicuously absent were northern Sudanese, or any of the main opposition parties. Throughout the meeting Gration reiterated the administration’s support for an independent South. He admitted that the elections were neither fair nor free, arguing that this would not be the case in January 2011 when Southern Sudanese in Sudan and the Diaspora will cast their vote for autonomy or independence. The lack of concern for the violation of the civil rights of millions of Sudanese during this election was readily apparent. For it seems that in return for US recognition of a flawed process, and an illegitimate leader, is the promise of a free, independent Southern Sudanese nation under the rule of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). The sacrifice, millions of Sudanese, who it seems were born on the wrong side of the border, or perhaps just don’t practice the right religion.
Sudan, like most African nations, was an artificial creation, carved up by European colonial interests. The majority of ethnic groups had unequal and limited access to state resources. Perhaps this inequality in Southern Sudan was made even more stark by the absence of a shared language, religion or ethnicity with the largely Arab, Muslim elites of Khartoum.
Ask anyone who has been to Sudan, and they will tell you that the labels of Arab vs. African and Muslim vs. Christian can be deceiving. More importantly, these labels are not helpful in understanding the conflicts that have checkered Sudanese history. Once you peel them away it becomes apparent that it all comes down to economics.
Southern Sudan represented potential for oil, water, and land, which were increasingly scarce and important to the commercial interests of the state. Northern regimes in the past including Bashir’s National Congress Party (NCP) sought to exploit the resources of the region paying little attention to improving the lives of the people and the communities of the South. Instead they waged a bloody war, killing whole communities and displacing others to ensure control and access to these resources.
The South’s promise of oil was finally realized by the state, and in the last 10 years Sudan’s economy has grown fivefold from $10 billion to $53 billion. Oil represents over 80% of that economy largely replacing agriculture as the main vehicle of economic growth.
In looking back at the agreement that paved the way for these historic elections is the realization that the so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was confined only to the military parties involved in the conflict: Bashir’s NCP in the north, and the SPLM, the main rebel movement in the south. Most conflict-resolution experts argue that although these types of agreements offer a speedy end to usually prolonged civil wars, excluding opposition parties, more often than not, ends up creating very unpleasant realities on the ground; one word, Darfur.
The question now is should the United States and the international community take president Bashir at his word when he says he will accept the results of a referendum to decide the future of Southern Sudan? He has proven himself to be a disingenuous, corrupt partner at best and a war criminal at worst. Why should this recent promise have any merit? Does the international community truly believe Bashir’s regime would consciously give up their main economic resource in the name of goodwill? After all, it is an open secret that most of Sudan’s oil rich property resides in the South.
Not challenging the NCP and Bashir in hopes that it will buy Southern independence is trading on the despair of one population for the future of another. Alienating a population of Arab Muslims that this administration wants to reach out to and engage.
To further complicate matters, it’s not a sure bet. If we take the NCP and Bashir out of the equation, a happy ending for Southern Sudan is not a natural conclusion. It still leaves the embattled SPLM, a political party accused of widespread intimidation and possible fraud in the South. An organization perceived to be dictatorial, corrupt, and dominated by one ethnic group. This perception has manifested violently and conflict between Southern ethnic groups has been on the rise claiming the lives of thousands. That leaves us with a newly independent, landlocked Southern Sudanese nation with violent competing factions. If history is to be believed, the United States and the international community would have helped create another failed state.
No comments:
Post a Comment