Time is a healer, but in history and diplomacy it is more subjective. In 2011 it is likely that Africa will have another country: South Sudan. Up until 2005, the country had suffered almost six continuous decades of civil war and now with the prospect of secession in the South, the future is blurred. Could it lead to more bloodshed within Africa’s biggest country.
Historically, the conflict existed between the mainly black African Christians in the south, who felt subjugated by the Arab Muslim in the north. Since the beginning of the civil wars, over two million people have died and over four million people have become displaced.
The peace process began in 1993, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This officially ended the conflict and gave the South a future referendum on independence. In January 2011, the people of South Sudan will determine their future.
Over the past ten years, the west of the country has made all the international headlines. Violent ambushes in the Darfur region has created another humanitarian crisis, spilling across the region. The US has labelled these crimes as genocide .
Many of today’s problems could have been resolved by Britain in two earlier historical incidents. In 1898, the Fashoda incident nearly led to a war between Britain and France. It could have separated Muslim North from Christian African immediately, rather than retain the lines on the colonial map drawing.
When independence came in the early 1950s, the British who handed over the administration to the northerners in Khartoum. The British Empire favoured indirect rule from London and left power with local chiefs. The experience of British India saw power fall into the hands local Muslim Emirs.The self-interest of the northerners and neglect of the south became the tinder for war that destroyed the lives of millions for decades to come.
Hope is a wonderful thing, but it can also be short-sighted. When the Baltic and Balkan states broke up in the 1990s, there was a degree of stability and an infrastructure of support to ensure their institutions flourished.
Perhaps the problem for a newly formed South Sudan is that it creates more questions that are unanticipated. What about the oil wealth? What role will the diaspora play? Many countries including the US and Britain back statehood, but is this a ploy to punish the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir is accused of arming the genocide in Darfur and wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. He is also alleged to have supported the Lord’s Resistance Army, a mercenary organisation in Central Africa that has displaced and murdered thousands in the last twenty years.
South Sudan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the land. Yet oil could be the biggest problem if independence goes ahead. The oil fields are in the south, but the pipelines run through the north. As one of the Chinese biggest clients, how is this to be resolved.
Questions must also be asked of the leadership. It seems certain that the whole administration will be full of former rebels from the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA). Sudan has an Arab majority in the north and black Christians in the south, but it also has the hundreds of tribes embroiled in the fighting. Many questions are being asked of what will happen to those on the border and the migrant population in the north. After so many years of hardship, it is not a question of whether they are ready to govern – because clearly they are – it is more whether they have the experience to do so. For so long these people have been fighting, but are there plans to ensure everything is taken into perspective.
The countries surrounding Sudan endured their own struggles: Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia and Uganda’s bloody dictatorships and the Rwandan genocide. These states are not flagships of good governance, but perhaps the lessons of Africa’s recent past has shown that to develop the economies and increase trade, then it is essential to have stability. Maybe Africa is waking up to the fact that continuous war doesn’t gain anything.
Historically, the conflict existed between the mainly black African Christians in the south, who felt subjugated by the Arab Muslim in the north. Since the beginning of the civil wars, over two million people have died and over four million people have become displaced.
The peace process began in 1993, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This officially ended the conflict and gave the South a future referendum on independence. In January 2011, the people of South Sudan will determine their future.
Over the past ten years, the west of the country has made all the international headlines. Violent ambushes in the Darfur region has created another humanitarian crisis, spilling across the region. The US has labelled these crimes as genocide .
Many of today’s problems could have been resolved by Britain in two earlier historical incidents. In 1898, the Fashoda incident nearly led to a war between Britain and France. It could have separated Muslim North from Christian African immediately, rather than retain the lines on the colonial map drawing.
When independence came in the early 1950s, the British who handed over the administration to the northerners in Khartoum. The British Empire favoured indirect rule from London and left power with local chiefs. The experience of British India saw power fall into the hands local Muslim Emirs.The self-interest of the northerners and neglect of the south became the tinder for war that destroyed the lives of millions for decades to come.
Hope is a wonderful thing, but it can also be short-sighted. When the Baltic and Balkan states broke up in the 1990s, there was a degree of stability and an infrastructure of support to ensure their institutions flourished.
Perhaps the problem for a newly formed South Sudan is that it creates more questions that are unanticipated. What about the oil wealth? What role will the diaspora play? Many countries including the US and Britain back statehood, but is this a ploy to punish the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir is accused of arming the genocide in Darfur and wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. He is also alleged to have supported the Lord’s Resistance Army, a mercenary organisation in Central Africa that has displaced and murdered thousands in the last twenty years.
South Sudan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the land. Yet oil could be the biggest problem if independence goes ahead. The oil fields are in the south, but the pipelines run through the north. As one of the Chinese biggest clients, how is this to be resolved.
Questions must also be asked of the leadership. It seems certain that the whole administration will be full of former rebels from the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA). Sudan has an Arab majority in the north and black Christians in the south, but it also has the hundreds of tribes embroiled in the fighting. Many questions are being asked of what will happen to those on the border and the migrant population in the north. After so many years of hardship, it is not a question of whether they are ready to govern – because clearly they are – it is more whether they have the experience to do so. For so long these people have been fighting, but are there plans to ensure everything is taken into perspective.
The countries surrounding Sudan endured their own struggles: Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia and Uganda’s bloody dictatorships and the Rwandan genocide. These states are not flagships of good governance, but perhaps the lessons of Africa’s recent past has shown that to develop the economies and increase trade, then it is essential to have stability. Maybe Africa is waking up to the fact that continuous war doesn’t gain anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment