Referendum in Sudan: A Time for Change?

By Matt Turnbull and Lindsay Kline

The referendum in Sudan could prove to be a time of hope and conciliation for Sudanese people as well as a finger-biting initiative carefully being observed by the international community. Sudan is listed as one of three nations of interest by the Canadian Department of Foreign Policy, next to Haiti and Afghanistan. The recent referendum to separate the north and south into separate nations could either be a tremendous leap forward or lead to further violence and extend conflict within the country for another 40 years. How did Sudan reach this point? How will the separation of the South change the political environment? Is this the crucial step needed to halt years of atrocities? And what can each of us do to ensure a peaceful transition and brighter future for Sudan?
Like many other African countries, the conflict in Sudan has its roots in imperialism. A 1954 agreement between Britain and Egypt to grant the country independence in 1956 combined the north and south regions (which had previously been separately administered). Due to the ignorance of outside actors, this led to a civil war between the north and south from 1955-1972, resulting in an estimated 500,000 deaths. A peace agreement only delayed the conflict until 1983, when the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and John Garang rejected the implementation of Shariah law, leading to another eleven years of warfare and causing more than two million deaths. At this point, the conflict in Sudan was continually worsening, partly due to the international community’s attempts to alleviate a problem that proved to be over their heads.
A 1994 ceasefire led to agreements between 2002 and 2004, including the Machakos Protocol, which recognized South Sudan’s independence and right to autonomy and self-governance. These agreements culminated in the 2005 Naivaisha agreement between the government and SPLA, which officially ended the war that was started in 1983, split oil revenues, and guaranteed six years of relative autonomy leading up to the 2011 referendum.
The referendum took place from January 9th-15th of this year and asked whether the country should stay unified or be divided. An overwhelming 98.83% of southern Sudan voters chose secession, as did 97% of the southern Sudan expats in Canada who voted. The clear support for separation came as positive news to most Sudanese people and many international actors. The separation will officially come into effect on July 9th, the same day the peace agreement expires. While such a clear victory indicates that the people of southern Sudan are heavily in favour of separation, it should be noted that only 58% of northern Sudan voters were in favour of secession. What could it mean for the future of relations between these states if 42% of north Sudan voters are in favour of unity?  The hostility between the north and south has proven to be long standing – will the separation of these areas and populations dispel Sudan’s bloody history, or simply lead to conflict between the two new nations?
There are also extensive disparities between north and south Sudan that could greatly affect relations. For example, 48% of citizens in the north identify as Arab, while the south contains a more diverse mix of traditional beliefs. The south is also less developed according to many different indices, including water security, education completion, dependence on food aid, and employment in agriculture. What makes this tough situation even tougher is that the south contains rich oil fields and provides 80% of the country’s oil, an enormous source of revenue for Sudan. However, the north contains most of the pipelines and refineries; under the Naivaisha agreement, oil revenues are split 50/50. Many of the oil fields straddle the borderline between north and south Sudan including the disputed Abeyi region, which will have its own referendum to decide which new country it joins. Despite an even split of oil profits, tensions are still expected to increase.
Given the geographic nature of this issue, there have been some threats to the security of these burgeoning nations. There have been several recent attacks involving rebels led by George Athor, who alleged fraud in the state elections last year but agreed to a ceasefire in January. SPLA spokesman Philip Aguer accused the North of backing rebel groups with the aim of destabilizing the south in order to maintain control of oil, though the north denies these claims. This demonstrates a larger issue in Sudanese conflict: groups at this point have become so splintered and divided, many struggling for control and committing violent acts, that the idea of two “sides” facing one another has become completely invalid. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a simple case of north against south, but rather a complex mosaic of groups and interests colliding, resulting in volatile situations that are difficult to facilitate and could become explosively violent.
The complex situation in Sudan is reflective of the ongoing effects of imperialism, western dominance and intra-state disparity. Citizens of Sudan and the world face the reality that Sudan’s rich resources and culturally diverse population have the potential to spark further conflict. However, what should not be a reality is the continuation of genocide and violence that has practically identified the region in recent years. For this reason, the Sudanese referendum will be a positive step forward for the region and will hopefully provide further conciliation of the issue. While the potential for continued conflict is undermining the official separation, it is plausible to suggest that by dividing the north and south regions it is possible to provide a degree of distance, and hopefully this will give citizens an opportunity to move past their shared, violent history.
If you would like to know more about Sudan and the referendum, including how you can get involved, get in touch with Students Taking Action Now on Darfur (STAND). This youth-based anti-genocide organization was founded 2005 and boasts more than 850 chapters in 25 countries. STAND’s mandate is to create awareness on current conflicts, provide aid fundraising, empower youth, and urge governments to take strong steps in preventing and stopping genocide. Connecting is simple: call the 1-800-GENOCIDE hotline, e-mail queensstand@gmail.com, or visit www.standcanada.org to learn far more about the issues and how you, personally, can engage with these issues and push for change.
References:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3702242.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8501526.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/the-view/2011/01/04/south-sudanwill-it-be-born-a-failed-state/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/01/07/f-sudan-timeline.html
http://standcanada.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12465366
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011387303520174.html