Fire of sedition in southern Sudan

Mehdi Shakibayi: Sudanese in south are called to vote in a plebiscite Sunday about a cessation from the north. Sedition however is brewing under the seemingly democratic face of the plebiscite.

The Republic of Sudan sitting over an area of 2,505,815 km² and a population of 37,204,000 is considered as the largest country in the Arab world and Africa. The country is bordered with 9 countries. It is home to rich mines, namely uranium as well as oil and gas reserves. The world’s longest river, the Nile, has its largest portion in the country.

As regards diplomatic developments, the country is said to be like Palestine in modeling such Islamic-popular revolutions as Iran’s, making it a spring board for the struggle against Zionism and the US.

The potentials stated above have provided the hegemonic system with a big motive to try to divide the country as it once divided Palestine 60 years ago. The motive has grown after Omar al-Bashir came to power and brought the country’s potential in the service of Islam. The US and Zionism seek to exploit the sectarian differences remaining from the WWII era to divide the country and secede the southern part from the northern part.

Many Sudanese however have failed to see the hegemonic sedition through the gloss of democracy and independence, a sedition which would spread over to other African countries and from there to Asia.

A cessation of southern Sudan would no doubt bring many dangers to the nation. The southern government would face a geographical siege, growing sectarian tension and destruction of infrastructure in case of an imminent south-south war likely to be broken out following a cessation. There are 70 parties and 200 tribes in the south who suffer harsh schisms against one another.

The government in north however would face stiff difficulties, including a surge in the conflicts in Darfur, notably after rebels in the area started to call for cessation. The government would also be accused by the US of complicity in case of a breakout of war in south.

Arab states too would not go safe from a divided Sudan, notably from the minorities as the case is north of Iraq at present where Kurds and Christians are calling for their own interests.

African countries on the other hand would gradually take the impact of a divided Sudan as groups within other countries would call for “independence.” Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Congo are among the countries who would suffer the immediate impact of a divided Sudan. Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania are next in the queue.

Finally, at an international level, the US would make a pretext out of a successful Sudan division to call for some modifications in the UN Charter as well as international regulations so as to find more laxity in applying the article seven of the charter which allows it to exert its influence wherever its interests demand, albeit under the slogan of support for human rights..

To sum up, the western trial to divide the country proves very consistent with the newly modified NATO strategy which has opted for assault on sources of threat instead of defense inside a member state. The dangerous precedence would some day befall any country which is branded by the west as a threat.