Imminent war in Sudan? Not exactly.

Despite their public rhetoric, the ruling party in the North and the ruling party in the South have never had a more synergistic relationship than they do today. Each party is benefiting from the status quo, sharing astounding oil wealth in the absence of war. A return to conflict would bring Sudan’s oil industry to a halt, crippling the economies of both regions and threatening each party’s dominant position in their respective regions (other opposition groups beckon).

The current peace agreement and interim constitution have also been benefiting both parties. The United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, and neighboring countries are providing unprecedented support for the referendum process, making any move by the United States to pick sides a threat to international efforts.

Don't spoil the peace agreement

If the US government took a side by issuing sanctions or arms embargoes, or supporting genocide charges against President Omar al-Bashir, these actions would then isolate the government of Sudan, undermine the impartial efforts of the other international participants, and significantly shift the balance of power between the North and the South that all previous agreements have been derived from. This could easily spoil the current peace agreement.

In southern Sudan, the consensus is that the citizenry will vote for secession, leaving many observers thinking that it will be impossible for the ruling parties to maintain their comfortable arrangements after secession occurs. But “secession” is merely a word, one that is loosely defined in both international law and Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which delineates the rules for the South’s potential independence.

Given the laxity of the term, the governments of the North and South can allow the secession to occur, but temporarily continue wealth and power-sharing arrangements similar to those delineated in the interim constitution.

This would allow them to slowly adjust the arrangements for as many years as is necessary to satisfy both parties and build new constitutions.

Conflict could certainly arise over many of the exceptionally contentious provisions included in the peace agreement that governs the secession, especially since both parties have a spotty record of staying committed to agreements. However, the many arrangements necessary for secession will be monitored and supported by a multiplicity of international partners, all of which are essential to the survival of both North and South Sudan.

Washington should support the referendum

The referendum can therefore be looked at as the beginning of a new phase of negotiating peace, rather than a casus belli for a divided nation.

If anything has been learned from the past decade of foreign policy, it is that doomsday predictions of inevitable destruction can easily grab headlines and persuade policymakers to make decisions based on fear rather than knowledge. In Sudan, the peace agreement, and by extension, the referendum, are products of many years of negotiation and involvement from local, regional, and international partners.

The best role for the American government is to continue using its financial and human resources to support the process of mediation, but not try to guide it.

Marc Gustafson is a Marshall Scholar and doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford. He is currently writing his dissertation on political trends in Sudan.

--

Related:

Africa's new threat: Sudan at flashpoint

Previous

1 | 2