The Domino effect of the Secession of Southern Sudan
* Article
* Comments (0)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Dr. Fathi El-Shihibi
July 10, 2011 — Why is the July 9th, 2011 creation of a separate state
in Southern Sudan is giving jitters to sates in both Africa and the
Middle East and sending mixed signals depending on what side of the
secession people are? Could it be that the situation in the Sudan
would sooner or later have a domino effect throughout Africa and the
Middle East? The following survey is designed to find out whether what
has just happened is unique to the Sudan or that it would sooner or
later be replicated throughout the region.
To begin with it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that
most of these countries are homes to different groups some of whom
belong or subscribe to different cultures, religions, ethnicities,
languages not to mention political and economic ambitions. Do you know
that in Nigeria alone there are 521 languages? Even though English is
the official language there are other major languages spoken by
different segments of the population including Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba,
Fulfulde, Kanuri and Ibibio. Along with languages, Nigeria is the home
to about 250 ethnic groups with of course different customs and
traditions. Ethnic groups such as the Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo
make up 68% of the population while groups including the Kanuri, Ijaw,
Edo, Ibibio, Ebira, Tiv and Nupe make up about 27% of the population.
The other ethnic groups are smaller and make up about 7% of the
population. I bet this piece of information adds a new dimension to
the mix regarding the latest clashes between the Muslims in the
northern part of the country and the Christians in the southern part.
When it comes to Africa the situation involving cramming people of
different ethnicities and cultures in demarcated territories is the
product of the scramble for African colonies that began in earnest in
the year 1880, spearheaded by countries such England, France, Spain,
Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Since the main objectives
for colonizing Africa was to siphon the continent’s riches only scant
attention was paid to the diverse populations when the boarders were
drawn at the Berlin Conference (1884-1885). As a matter of fact almost
all of the boarders that nowadays separate countries in Africa and the
Middle East date back to the colonial period. Having colonized Egypt
and the Sudan England, whether intentionally or unintentionally, drew
the boarders of the latter regardless of the makeup of the population
particularly in terms of ethnicity, religion and cultural traditions
thus leaving behind a ticking time bomb that detonated first in 1955
in a civil war between the North and the South that lasted till 1972
and second in 1983 and that lasted till 2005. Both civil wars cost
thousands of lives not to mention widespread devastation and
displacement of people on both sides.
Along with the Sudan the effect of such demographic disparities was
mainly responsible for conflicts and devastations in a number of
African states. Let’s take Rwanda for example the British and before
them the Belgians not only established boarders encircling two groups
who harbor traditional hostilities towards each other namely the Hutus
and the Tutsis but also pursued a policy of “divide and conquer” by
favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus thus exasperating the situation
that eventually erupted in the bloody genocide of 1994 after the plane
carrying the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and his host
Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down while approaching
Kigali airport and which culminated in the death of about 800.000
Rwandans most of them Tutsis not mention widespread destruction and
displacements on a very large scale. Thus far the roots of many other
civil wars in Africa including in Sierra Leon, Ethiopia and Eretria
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) stretch all
the way back to the unbridled scramble for Africa’s riches and the
creation of fragile societies that were originally lacking in cohesion
and consequently could come unglued at the first serious threat to
life and lively hood. Along with sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa also
is not immune to the resurfacing of national or ethnic frictions not
to mention simmering disenchantments and animosities towards existing
social or political orders or the statuesque as a whole. Examples of
that are the agitations by the Berber (Amazigh or Shluh) in countries
such as Morocco and Algeria to secure autonomy if not separation and
independence.
So far the governments of Morocco and Algeria due to internal lobbying
and pressures and external prodding particularly by Western States
including the United States, France, England and Spain as well as the
collective pressures exerted by the EU (European Union) have been
making concessions to their Berber populations including acceding to
their demands to celebrate their unique cultural traditions and teach
their own language (Tamazight) along with Arabic. If the Berber
populations have so far secured concessions from their Arab-dominated
governments, other ethnic groups particularly of African descent such
as the Tawariq who inhabit southern parts of Morocco, Algeria and
Libya may not be that far behind .Who would have thought that Egypt
itself is nowadays dealing with a similar situation and I don’t mean
with the Coptic Christians. Lately particular groups of Nubians who
inhabit a southern part of Egypt have also been calling for autonomy
if not outright separation that would in their view lead to
independence.
Now let’s head east to the Middle East and see if there are identical
situations with the potential to escalate into the level of the
North/South divide in Sudan which is now nearing its conclusion with
the real potential of irreconcilable and outright separation following
the January 9th referendum. Along with the local populations who have
been anxious for the opportunities to mobilize and fulfill their long
cherished ambitions for autonomy or better yet independence, the other
major players who are working behind the scenes are the old colonial
states including Britain and France as well as the United States of
America. The US and Western Europe have been through their leaders or
high officials expressing willingness to countenance future
reshuffling of populations and boarders to create what they call a
“New Middle East” that is more amiable and docile. The former US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once described the destructive war
between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 as simply the prelude
or as she put it “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” (The New York
Times, August 10, 2006). Her comments simply reflected a strategy that
has been on the table at the Pentagon in Washington, DC and NATO
headquarters in Brussels for some time now. As a matter of fact the
plans to reshuffle the geopolitical map of the Middle East will
include almost all of the Arab countries and their populations whether
they are Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Maronite or Coptic Christians as well as
Shi’a and Sunna Muslims among others in accordance with their
distributions or their status hence being majorities or minorities.
The two attached maps of the Middle which were drawn by General Ralph
of the Pentagon shows the boarders that were drawn by England and
France following their occupation of the area at the end of World War
I (1914-1918) and the new map and boarders proposed by the general as
the new and improved Middle East. As in the case of Africa, countries
of the Middle East still include diverse populations some with
distinctly different cultures, ethnicities and even religious
traditions. Not that long ago the then US vice presidential candidate
and now Vice President Joseph Biden responding to the escalating
insurgency in Iraq suggested dividing the country into autonomous and
possibly federated regions controlled by the Shi’a in the south, the
Sunna in the Middle, the Kurds in the North as well as setting aside
areas at the center possibly in the Baghdad region for the other
minorities including Iraqi Christians be they Chaldeans, Assyrians or
Syriacs. According to these maps even Saudi Arabia that outwardly
looks entirely homogenous will not be spared having its present
territory divided in two.
Now you can clearly see that the fear of scenarios similar to that in
the Sudan unfolding in many African and Middle Eastern countries is
real and not imaginary. Even players, be they internal or external,
have obviously been mulling over such possible transitions for some
time now. Mark my word it won’t be long before the people of Darfur
and I don’t mean the Northerners who identify themselves as Arabs but
the Southern Darfurians, who regard themselves as Africans, would
demand independence akin to their brethrens in Southern Sudan. Here It
becomes clear that countries of Africa and the Middle East are now
facing two options, either remain passive and eventually find
themselves facing similar situations such as the one in the Sudan or
proactively engage their societies so as to mend any fissures between
their diverse social groups, actively seek solutions to their
grievances particularly concerning economic opportunities, and create
unified and democratic communities that transcend internal divisions
be they ethnic, national, religious or even linguistic.
Dr. Fathi El-Shihibi Department of Philosophy and Religion,
Northeastern University, Boston. Massachusetts 02115 USA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD
info" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
