Some say divorce is painful and people who experienced divorce will admit it. Without beating about the bush, is there a chance for unity of Sudan at the end of the interim period of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of January 2005?
Realistically there is none. This is not music to wishful thinkers. It is not also music to people who want to hear the stories they want to hear. The North and the South in their own ways have done their level best to make unity of Sudan attractive. However, it is unfortunate that it seems the North and the South have agreed to disagree on unity of Sudan. The North wants a united Arab Islamic Sudan while in contrast the South wants a secular united Sudan that does not have a state religion or attached to any particular race. The North, nonetheless, is silent about a united Arab Islamic Sudan but its intentions are crystal clear in its rejection of a secular united Sudan.
One other important question is who is to blame for the imminent breakup of Sudan? With a culture of deception and stubbornness the North will always blame the South which in turn will point the finger at the North for the breakup of Sudan. The trading of accusation is endless.
However, looking at the turmoil Sudan is going through it will not be difficult to conclude where the finger of accusation should be pointed at. The indictment of President Omar El Bashir by the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague speaks volumes. President El Bashir is accused of crimes against humanity and genocide allegedly committed in the Darfur region of Sudan. The Darfuris are not separatists but are people simply struggling for a fair share of wealth and power, and a guarantee of security within a united Sudan. Instead what the Darfuris are getting is repression of high magnitude that has become a crime against humanity and genocide. Will anybody who is sane blame the Darfuris for the breakup of Sudan?
President Omar El Bashir is unfortunate that he is the only sitting Sudanese president being charged of crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur while no Sudanese leader had been charged of any crime against humanity and massacres committed in Southern Sudan. Southern Sudan lost an estimated 2 million people compared to only estimated 300,000 people in Darfur and already Sudanese leaders have been charged. Despite massacres of the people of the South no Sudanese leader has ever been charged of the atrocities committed there.
To add insult to injury the North wants unity with the South on its terms crowning this with the underdevelopment of the South for the last half a century since independence of Sudan in 1956. Only the daft may blame the South for choosing to break away from the North which on all counts could have been pronounced guilty of the crime of negligence.
The dominant ruling class in the North should have been very grateful to the South which has not claimed the whole Sudan. It is most probable that the dominant ruling class in the North is aware that Sudan belongs to the Land of the Blacks who include the people of the South. The dominant ruling class in the North is mostly composed of immigrants from the Arabian peninsular who seem to have refused to integrate in the Land of the Blacks. The ruling class still identifies itself with their ancestral origins in the Arabian Peninsula unlike the white race that had immigrated to the Americas and the Pacific but are now fully integrated in those regions.
The Brazilians will never think of themselves as Portuguese but Brazilians. The Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders will neither think of themselves as British even though they speak English as do the British and may share the same civilization. It is a pity that a sense of superiority or inferiority complex of the people of the North of being Negroid Arabs may be a factor in the breakup of Sudan.
The final verdict of the breakup of Sudan will come in January 2011 when the South goes to the polls in the referendum to decide its destiny. It is simplistic that people have already been categorized into separatists and unionists. What people may have failed to understand is that separatists could be unionists and vice versa depending on the different perceptions.
Dr John Garang de Mabior was a unionist but Sadiq El Mahdi perceived him as a separatist. This could have been because Dr John Garang had challenged the hegemony of the likes of El Mahdi. The South was a unionist until the insensitivity of the North drove it to separatism. The insensitive North made the unionist South so uncomfortable that there was no chance for unity left except separation.
One more question to ask is who has converted the unionist South into separatism? Well the insensitivity of the North to the South is to blame for the breakup of Sudan. There is no way the South is prepared to put up with the habitual deception of the North that has become too boring to say the least.
The North has been openly racist to the South. There is therefore no shame for the South to be also racist. Those people of the South with slave mentality have to wake up and confront their inferiority complex head on for a chance to be the masters of their destiny. It is time for the South to bid the North bye-bye. The people of the North and the South will next meet in the African Union conferences in Addis Ababa or in the United Nations in New York as people from two independent and hopefully peaceful neighbouring countries in Africa.
In conclusion it will be sickening for the referendum result to confirm the unity of Sudan which has been an utter liability to the South. It will be a collective suicide. Hopefully the result will confirm a clean breakup of Sudan for the South to settle down on serious business of nationhood. Even if the breakup will be rough that will be temporary. There shouldn’t be any fear for starting a nation from the ashes of northern marginalization. The South will not need to invent the wheel.