About Sudan and its South

Apart from the official celebration of the latest Addis Ababa agreement between Sudan and South Sudan, the public in both countries received the news with boredom and much doubt about whether the “war of the enemy brothers” has really ended. At least this is what the media said. There are many reasons to remain pessimistic. The most important of them is that agreement over major issues, like the demarcation of borders and the Abyei issue, have not yet been decided. There are painful and difficult stages that the two countries must go through before starting to celebrate a newly-established peace. The agreement, planned to be ratified by the parliaments of the two countries within forty days, focuses primarily on oil. There’s much progress in this area thanks to African mediation. Each side, after making a share of concessions, was able to reap a reasonable share of profit. Sudan has agreed to only charge $21 for each barrel that crosses its border, compared to $36 before the agreement. Sudan gave up their claim on exported oil from South Sudan from the beginning of the year, up until Juba paused oil exports. South Sudan gave up claims that Khartoum stole its oil and relinquished demands in this concern. Each side gave up the financial rights that they previously demanded. Here, we can say that a page was turned when it came to bilateral relations, always under influence of the economic plight pressuring both sides. This was made worse by the abandonment of regional and international allies and their backtracking on their commitments and promises. The South thought that it would always be the spoilt child of the West, the American right, the Zionist lobby, and the Zionised church. The South Sudanese forgot that the honeymoon was over when Sudan’s unity was over and the Juba would be nothing more than “another African capital” after completing its job in fragmenting Sudan. Khartoum thought that by initially accepting the separation from the south, and adopting an approach not aligned with Assad, the treasuries of the Gulf would open for them. But this happened neither with Khartoum nor with any other capital of the region. Hence, the two sides reached a common conclusion: the problems of Sudanese people will only be solved by the Sudanese themselves. Other important agreements were discussed and signed or their main principles reactivated like the security agreements, and the “Four Freedoms Agreement” involving the freedom of movement, residence, ownership and work. The latter is an agreement that, if implemented with good will, would contribute to solving problems that eight million citizens suffer on both sides of the 200 kilometre-long borders. Sudan is concerned about the South turning into a source of threat for its security and unity. It accuses the south of raising tensions and supporting separatist movements in Darfur, south of Bahr Al-Gazal and Korodfan. They describe South Sudan as a “second Israel” on their southern borders, and they have reasons for to be concerned in this regard. The two sides agreed on establishing an isolating region of 20 km divided on the two sides of the borders. I have no idea how the measurement is going to be made or where it would start as long as the borderline was not decided yet. I assume this, too, would be one of the bombs that would explode in the face of the border markers on the two sides as well as African Union experts and observers. Within a few days, the two sides will enter a new negotiation battle to demark the borders. The most apparent issue would be the oil-rich Abyei city, a city referred to as Sudan’s Kerkuk in a reference to the oil-rich Iraqi city of Kerkuk which was disputed between Arabs, Kurds, and Iraqi Turkmen, in addition to many less important regions whose borders will have to be demarked. Abyei will be the most complex issue, this is agreed among observers. It may be a crowning and solidification for the agreement or the last nail in the coffin. Each side seems to insist on their own version of the city’s history, geography and identity. There are financial incentives feeding each side’s insistence on their viewpoint. So I think it’s time to think outside the box. Abyei must enjoy a legally unique status and be turned into a free economic zone with the two sides sharing its riches and resources. This should be the point the two countries can unify, not the point where that sparks disputes. Nonetheless, what seethes inside souls remain much more important than what texts state. Sudan particularly is still a point of ambitions and conspiracies that target the country itself, and through it, Egypt’s security and waters, and the whole African continent. The South, that preserved good relations with Israel, the lobby, the neoconservatives, and the Zionist Church, has not sent enough reassuring messages to the north. It has not yet given up its role in fragmenting Sudan to be the largest and strongest country in the region. They are following the footsteps of the Israeli ideology that aims at dividing the Arab world into small sectarian and racial countries, for Israel to be the largest country in the region, as well as being the most powerful one. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.