July 02 , 2010

Sudan : Perils of Provincialism

In 1971, it was Pakistan’s eastern wing that was on the verge of being vivisected. 40 years later, in January 2011, it may be Sudan’s turn. Through a referendum, the largely Christian and black oil-rich southern Sudan will be given the choice of whether or not to remain part of Sudan, and is likely to opt to secede from the Arab and largely Muslim northern Sudan.

The largest country on the African continent, Sudan has drawn erratic attention from the international community. In 1966, a major movie, “Khartoum”, was released in which the legendary Sir Laurence Olivier memorably portrayed the late 19 th century figure, Muhammad Ahmed, known as the Mahdi, who inspired an upheaval against British forces in Sudan, and led a successful assault against British-held Khartoum, defended by British military hero, General Gordon (portrayed by Charlton Heston). In August 1998, there was a botched missile-firing ordered by President Clinton into Sudan, which destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, Sudan’s primary source of pharmaceuticals, in response to unsubstantiated allegations that the factory was producing chemical weapons. It had been preceded in May 1996 by the expulsion from Sudan of Osama, who then relocated to Afghanistan with profound implications for Pakistan.

But now, Sudan has engaged the attention of Washington, and groups centering around the nomenclature, “Save Darfur”, have created momentum and kept up the pressure on Khartoum’s government. Like Pakistan in 1971, the government of Omar Bashir has exacerbated the situation by its crass misrule and brutal handling of its Muslim-majority western region of Darfur, giving an opening to vested interests who seek to divide Sudan.

In Darfur, it has been Muslim-on-Muslim atrocity poisoned by the venom of ethno-nationalism. In Pakistan, the national elections of December 1970 were a precursor to the subsequent division of the nation. The April 2010 Sudan presidential and parliamentary elections may portend the same outcome. When ethnic tensions and issues of autonomy are unresolved, elections can accelerate polarization. To further complicate the diplomatic environment, the President of Sudan has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for his actions in Darfur. In one embarrassing episode, the President of Brazil refused to have his photo taken with Bashir. Another complication is Dr. Hassan Turabi – once the ideological godfather of the Omar Bashir regime when it took over in June1989 – and now out of favor and in detention.

The inept handling by Khartoum has inflamed long-simmering issues of identity politics in Darfur as well as in southern Sudan. According to the Los Angeles Times report of May 27 by Jeffrey Fleischman, “ analysts predict that President Bashir … will not allow southern oil wells to slip further from his grasp” and “that war is inevitable."

Then, too, there is the matter of unintended consequences flowing into the larger Middle East region. An attempt to separate the non-Arab south from the Arab north may have its own ramifications in the already volatile Arab world.

Among Western circles, there is also a subtext that Sudan is too big; therefore, let’s divide it. There is a perception in some Washington circles that there may be a tilt in the US State Department favoring separation of Sudan. If so, it sets a dangerous course and precedent in Africa.

There is also the issue of Egypt, which is concerned that the turbulence in Sudan may affect its access to the waters of the Nile, which flows through Sudan into Egypt. Egypt prefers the status quo in Sudan.

The Western media and intelligentsia, which are relatively mute on the sufferings inflicted on Muslim people in their own lands by outside intruders, is vocal in highlighting sufferings in Sudan. The key question now is where does the upcoming referendum leave Sudan? And what next? If Sudan’s south is peeled off, Sudan’s west ( Darfur) may be the next.

Back in Pakistan, the perils of provincialism need to be heeded.