Threats to unity in Sudan
International Desk
November 08, 2009
Five important challenges threaten the future of Sudan. For the country to retain its cultural, political and strategic unity, it is now more important than ever that Sudan's different forces unite behind a national strategy.
Such is the interest of the Arab media in the Arab- Israeli conflict as it unfolds in occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Syria that journalists are often accused of giving scant interest to the conflict in Somalia as well as the ongoing insurgencies in Sudan's south, west and east. Yet, Sudan is drifting along an uncertain and dangerous course. A host of domestic, regional and international influences, some threatening, seem to have taken hold of that country.
Most recently, reports coming out of south Sudan last weekend indicated that the South Sudanese President Salva Kiir, leader of the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), had called on southerners to vote to secede from Sudan during a speech intended to launch his party's election campaign for the 2010 elections and 2011 national referendum.
This is despite the fact that both the SPLM and the northern National Congress Party (NCP), the ruling party in the national capital Khartoum, had agreed to make national unity a priority when they signed the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or Naivasha Agreement, that established a federal system in the country and ended the civil war.
The Naivasha Agreement casts a long shadow over the political, economic, social and security conditions in the country. Along with other factors, such as the Darfur crisis, the deteriorating conditions in three regions, the economic and diplomatic blockade, and the worsening living and social conditions in the country, the agreement is shaping the future of Sudan. Foreign pressures, and outright blackmail, have also contributed to the current scene in Sudan.
The Naivasha Agreement enabled the south to have 34 per cent representation in all executive, legislative and judiciary departments of government at the central level, as well as a say in various civil and military agencies. The agreement thus piled up gains for the south at the expense of the north. It also denied the president of the republic any authority in south Sudan, and made his authority in the north subject to approval by his Southern vice-president. Without the approval of the latter, the president cannot impose a state of emergency, declare war, or appoint and dismiss ministers and top-level officials.
The agreement also gave the south the right to create a government with executive, legislative and judicial powers that are completely independent of the central government. The southern government can also have an independent army, and this was deployed in the south after the withdrawal of the forces of the central government. Meanwhile, six military units from the south continue to be deployed in the north, even in Khartoum.
Recent years have seen major efforts being made, with the assistance of US companies, to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of the southern government's army. An air force has been created in the south, complete with dozens of fighter planes and trained pilots. An armoured corps and an artillery corps have also been formed, and new military vehicles, as well as stockpiles of weapons, have been bought into the south. Currently, the southern government has diplomatic representation in 20 countries in Africa, Europe and the Western hemisphere.
The independence of the southern government and its full and undiminished sovereignty over the south rests on the unambiguous provisions of the Naivasha Agreement. Moreover, the new Sudanese constitution, written after the signing of the said agreement in 2005, provides for the independence and sovereignty of the south. Articles 2, 25, 26, 51 and 58/2 of the constitution acknowledge the full independence and sovereignty of the southern government and allow it to exercise various powers. As mentioned earlier, the decisions of the president are now subject to the approval of his southern vice-president.
The current situation in Sudan, assessed from an objective examination of its political, economic, social and security aspects, calls for the urgent adoption of a new course based on national solidarity, and the country should place unity over division and the collective over individual. Only this will prepare Sudan for a national revival and start a tangible drive for development.
The first challenge facing today's Sudan is ideological. The so-called "New Sudan" scheme, dividing the country into various parts, is closely linked to the global plans of messianic US politicians and champions of the Project for the New American Century, drawn up under former US president George W Bush. The scheme aims to change the identity of Sudan, erasing its history and sapping the power of its people.
The implementation of this scheme in Sudan would promote goals that transcend Sudanese geographical borders and national territories. Eliminating Arab and Islamic culture in Sudan is only one of the declared goals of this scheme. The aim of the New Sudan project is to reshape conditions in Sudan in a way that benefits only pro-Africa, pro- Christianity and pro-American groups. Once Sudan is severed from its Arab fabric, Egypt's southern flank would be exposed, Red Sea security would be compromised and Sudan would become a thorn in the side of the Arab world.
The New Sudan scheme aims to undermine the essence of Arab national security through four main points, which include weakening the national security of Egypt and Libya by depriving them of the strategic depth Sudan now offers; threatening the security of Red Sea littoral countries; eliminating the function of Sudan as a strategic source for Arab food security; ending the role of Sudan as a bridge between Arab and African areas, and terminating cultural exchange between the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa.
The second challenge facing Sudan is external. This external challenge has grown with the rise of the US as the world's sole superpower, a development that has given a boost to a global project spearheaded by the forces of Zionism and evangelical Christianity and their allies in Africa. The nature of the external challenge has changed over the past 20 years or so. At times, foreign threats have taken the shape of an economic, military and diplomatic blockade. At other times, foreign powers have interfered in favour of local players on the political scene, and neighbouring countries have been used as instruments of pressure and blackmail.
Such is the interest of the Arab media in the Arab- Israeli conflict as it unfolds in occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Syria that journalists are often accused of giving scant interest to the conflict in Somalia as well as the ongoing insurgencies in Sudan's south, west and east. Yet, Sudan is drifting along an uncertain and dangerous course. A host of domestic, regional and international influences, some threatening, seem to have taken hold of that country.
Most recently, reports coming out of south Sudan last weekend indicated that the South Sudanese President Salva Kiir, leader of the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), had called on southerners to vote to secede from Sudan during a speech intended to launch his party's election campaign for the 2010 elections and 2011 national referendum.
This is despite the fact that both the SPLM and the northern National Congress Party (NCP), the ruling party in the national capital Khartoum, had agreed to make national unity a priority when they signed the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or Naivasha Agreement, that established a federal system in the country and ended the civil war.
The Naivasha Agreement casts a long shadow over the political, economic, social and security conditions in the country. Along with other factors, such as the Darfur crisis, the deteriorating conditions in three regions, the economic and diplomatic blockade, and the worsening living and social conditions in the country, the agreement is shaping the future of Sudan. Foreign pressures, and outright blackmail, have also contributed to the current scene in Sudan.
The Naivasha Agreement enabled the south to have 34 per cent representation in all executive, legislative and judiciary departments of government at the central level, as well as a say in various civil and military agencies. The agreement thus piled up gains for the south at the expense of the north. It also denied the president of the republic any authority in south Sudan, and made his authority in the north subject to approval by his Southern vice-president. Without the approval of the latter, the president cannot impose a state of emergency, declare war, or appoint and dismiss ministers and top-level officials.
The agreement also gave the south the right to create a government with executive, legislative and judicial powers that are completely independent of the central government. The southern government can also have an independent army, and this was deployed in the south after the withdrawal of the forces of the central government. Meanwhile, six military units from the south continue to be deployed in the north, even in Khartoum.
Recent years have seen major efforts being made, with the assistance of US companies, to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of the southern government's army. An air force has been created in the south, complete with dozens of fighter planes and trained pilots. An armoured corps and an artillery corps have also been formed, and new military vehicles, as well as stockpiles of weapons, have been bought into the south. Currently, the southern government has diplomatic representation in 20 countries in Africa, Europe and the Western hemisphere.
The independence of the southern government and its full and undiminished sovereignty over the south rests on the unambiguous provisions of the Naivasha Agreement. Moreover, the new Sudanese constitution, written after the signing of the said agreement in 2005, provides for the independence and sovereignty of the south. Articles 2, 25, 26, 51 and 58/2 of the constitution acknowledge the full independence and sovereignty of the southern government and allow it to exercise various powers. As mentioned earlier, the decisions of the president are now subject to the approval of his southern vice-president.
The current situation in Sudan, assessed from an objective examination of its political, economic, social and security aspects, calls for the urgent adoption of a new course based on national solidarity, and the country should place unity over division and the collective over individual. Only this will prepare Sudan for a national revival and start a tangible drive for development.
The first challenge facing today's Sudan is ideological. The so-called "New Sudan" scheme, dividing the country into various parts, is closely linked to the global plans of messianic US politicians and champions of the Project for the New American Century, drawn up under former US president George W Bush. The scheme aims to change the identity of Sudan, erasing its history and sapping the power of its people.
The implementation of this scheme in Sudan would promote goals that transcend Sudanese geographical borders and national territories. Eliminating Arab and Islamic culture in Sudan is only one of the declared goals of this scheme. The aim of the New Sudan project is to reshape conditions in Sudan in a way that benefits only pro-Africa, pro- Christianity and pro-American groups. Once Sudan is severed from its Arab fabric, Egypt's southern flank would be exposed, Red Sea security would be compromised and Sudan would become a thorn in the side of the Arab world.
The New Sudan scheme aims to undermine the essence of Arab national security through four main points, which include weakening the national security of Egypt and Libya by depriving them of the strategic depth Sudan now offers; threatening the security of Red Sea littoral countries; eliminating the function of Sudan as a strategic source for Arab food security; ending the role of Sudan as a bridge between Arab and African areas, and terminating cultural exchange between the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa.
The second challenge facing Sudan is external. This external challenge has grown with the rise of the US as the world's sole superpower, a development that has given a boost to a global project spearheaded by the forces of Zionism and evangelical Christianity and their allies in Africa. The nature of the external challenge has changed over the past 20 years or so. At times, foreign threats have taken the shape of an economic, military and diplomatic blockade. At other times, foreign powers have interfered in favour of local players on the political scene, and neighbouring countries have been used as instruments of pressure and blackmail.
Print
Email
