The Pros and Cons of a Divided Sudan

BY: Dominic Woja Maku, PhD. Student, Univ. of British Columbia, CANADA

AUG 1/2009, SSN; First of, we should constantly refer to the Berlin Conference of 1884 in order to understand the consequences of divisionism. In that Conference the then German Chancellor Bismarck summoned all the colonial powers to Berlin, Germany to examine the map of Africa. They sat down around a table and took part in exploring the map of Africa (what became commonly know as 'the scramble for and the partition of Africa'). They asked themselves as to who'd take which part of Africa and why. West Africa and some parts of central Africa were taken by the French (including Madagascar on the utmost tip of the continent), South Africa, East Africa and the River Nile Basin up to North Africa were taken by the British. Mazambique and Angola were given to Spain and Tanzania almost fell into the hands of the Germans, and so forth and so forth.

 

Like any other African countries the Sudan had been through protracted civil wars ever since colonial times up to date. The causes of those civil wars could definitely be traced to colonialism. It (Sudan) fought wars with the British for its independence and in 1956 it attained that independence from the British. However, seeds of colonialism still remained which will pit the South against the North. Indeed the Anya-nya I war broke out between the North and the South in 1955 before the actual independence was given to the Sudan. That war was concluded by the Addis-Ababa Agreement of 1972 named after the capital city of Ethiopia.

 

The aftermath of Addis-Ababa Agreement

 

The duration after the Addis-Ababa Agreement was marred by uncertainty and political distrust and economic disparities. The North developed quickly at the expense of the South which remained underdeveloped (only pockets of trading posts here and there). In 1983 the Sudan Poeple's Liberation Army/Movement was launched as a result of the socio-economic and political oppression and marginalization. The Southerners felt deprived of almost everything and they lost hope in a government that kept pushing them to the periphery since independence. Many people have been lost and many more are still languishing in refuge the world over. Millions of Southerners are surviving on petty handouts from sympathizers and Good Samaritans. No proper health care in the South, no modern infrastructures (roads, electricity, schools, etc). Bridges have been demolished and cultivable lands infested with landmines.

 

The list of things Southerners grapple with goes on and on and on. Then came 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (aka. CPA) was brokered by the International Community (the U.S., Britain, Canada, EU, etc), and it was inked. However, before the ink could dry on the paper it was placed on, in two weeks Dr. Garang de Mabior the leader of the SPLA/M died in a plane crash. His death was a huge blow to the demise of the CPA which was and is still being implemented. Many argue the CPA would have been implemented differently if the Late were alive.

 

Today the South is not even better off despite of the CPA. Within the last four years of the CPA many complaints have arose (tribalism, corruption, marginalization, underdevelopment, etc.). Many people all over the world are questioning the validity of the civil wars fought in Sudan. Why would millions of lives be lost in vain in the name of liberation? Why would people pick up arms in defense of the common people and end up doing similar things they have fought against? These questions and many of their kinds can only be answered by historic facts. History has always been harsh on the colonized people world wide (North America, Asia, Africa, etc.). The colonized people have been stratified from day one of encountering with the colonizers. Ever since there has never been a trickle down of colonial effect onto the colonized. 

 

The pros and Cons of a divided Sudan

 

Going back to history one would find out that a divided people cannot withstand an external force. The best example is the continent of Africa which is rich (both in human and natural resources). But the Western media portrays it (the African continent) as a backward, poor, underdeveloped, uncivilized, and so forth, and it still remains divided along tribal lines and its resources exploited. One wonders where do all the resources (both human and natural) go and for what purpose?

 

There are lots of consequences if Sudan is divided. A divided country is a weak country. Look at other major world powers you can see that they control almost everything (from the skies to the waters of the globe). What about the divided ones? (Poverty, diseases, underdevelopment, and above all refugee production). A divided Sudan will definitely become more vulnerable to external forces than a united one. But the question still remains, why is unity a problem in Sudan?

 

If North and South Sudan can make unity attractive and the country remains one, there are many advantages than disadvantages. The only thing is how to forge that "Unity", but getting rid of the things that divide the country (poverty, marginalization, corruption, tribalism, racism, etc.), that unity can easily become a reality. However, if the country succumbs to external forces, things can even get worse and out of control (and it will be advantegious for the external forces).

 

Pragmatically, Sudan has got plenty of natural resources if utilized properly every citizen can have enough. But many would argue that the natural resources are not being utilized in good faith. Take the example of South Sudan (it lacks almost everything) that is why they (Southerners) are angry and would like to break away and form their own country. What if a genuine wealth sharing mechanism is instituted and the people of the south are given what they want, will they still secede? Probably not. But wealth sharing alone is also problematic (Northerners have to change their attitudes towards Southerners and begin to look at them (Southerners) as equal citizens.

 

Many could at the same time argue that a separate South Sudan could also be at a disadvantage as can be seen now. There seems to be a huge gap growing that Sudanese will have to grapple with and find a solution before it is too late. The colonialists are watching closely for that rift so that they can easily manipulate and exploit the South at ease because they know that a united Sudan is much more difficult to manipulate.

 

Still others are of the view that the Sudanese people ought to take their own destiny into their own hands. But if they listen to other individuals that secession is the best option they may not make the best decision for the best choice after all. Nowadays many colonially bent individuals are pushing Southerners to unilaterally declare separation if unity fails.

Well, some may buy that argument, but many may not given the consequences of being re-colonized. Neo-colonialism is alive and once it fixes roots into the heart of Junub it will be even more difficult to fight than the previously fought civil wars. There are too many interferences into the affairs of smaller countries who are weak and easy to manipulate. It is time Southerners and Northerners think hard and find a lasting solution to their problems than succumb to external force.

 

Dominic Woja Maku is PhD student of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of British Columbia Canada. He is the author of Okumu's Journey: A Sudanese Refugee Boy's Narrative and Dark Feathers Along the River Nile. Reach him through dwm598@yahoo.co.uk