Al-Bashir’s first visit to Juba as the capital of an independent state to
hold talks with his South Sudanese counterpart could be seen as a mantra for
peaceful co-existence, or perhaps the two leaders are doomed to clash with
competing powers, postulates Gamal Nkrumah from Khartoum
Saturday, 20 April, 2013
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir will not be pilloried for the rest
of his life as a fugitive from justice. He arrived in South Sudan last
Friday for the first time since Africa’s once-largest country split in 2011,
raising cautious hopes the two adversaries may be edging towards
establishing peaceful co-existence.
Sudan and South Sudan have strutted together for so long, long before
British colonialism and the pairing has known bitter times — one of Africa’s
longest civil wars. Now Al-Bashir and his South Sudanese counterpart Salva
Kiir must tend the near-sacred conjugal relationship, a pillar of peace in
the conflict-ridden region.
Agonising love, the two countries are destined for a marriage of convenience
— a love-hate relationship that is ignited by conflicting economic
interests. The divorcees agreed in March to resume cross-border oil flows
and take steps to defuse the tension that has plagued them since South
Sudan’s independence in July 2011 following a treaty which ended decades of
civil war. All these amorous overtures reflect a deeper malaise. Sudan and
South Sudan have stopped dreaming of a joint destiny.
Perhaps this is because the ruling parties in Juba and Khartoum come from
rival ideological orientations. The National Congress Party in Sudan is
avowedly Islamist, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in
South Sudan is decidedly secularist. The ambiguity of the relationship
between Juba and Khartoum is under strain.
It is against this backdrop that Al-Bashir visited South Sudan. In some
ways, the South is the troubled child of the North, and not a partner of
Khartoum. But like many couples that have cohabited for decades, familiarity
breeds contempt at times. For all its problems, the relationship between
Juba and Khartoum remains remarkable, and not just because it overcame war
bitterness but also because it transcends deep political differences.
Tormented to the point of self-destruction, the ruling National Congress
Party of Sudanese President Al-Bashir decided that if its Islamist agenda is
to succeed, then the South must secede. Khartoum has tried to court the
oil-rich Gulf Arab countries, and Juba has at times linked arms with both
Western powers and its non-Arab African neighbours. But, in the end Juba and
Khartoum need each other. North and South Sudan are destined to stick
together.
When the two decide to reach a compromise despite starting from such
different world perspectives, they can iron out their differences. The
ruling SPLM in Juba seems committed to loosening ties with Khartoum,
however. The two states need each other, each choosing where to co-operate
and where to opt out.
A new treaty might codify this new relationship. The South Sudanese
authorities could have handed over Al-Bashir to the International Criminal
Court in The Hague, the Netherlands. However, Juba chose not to.
Neighbouring Kenya barred Al-Bashir from attending the official inauguration
of the country’s new President Uhuru Kenyatta. Nairobi made it clear that
the Sudanese leader was not welcome in Kenya. Even as Juba and Khartoum
agonise about their future, South Sudan gave Al-Bashir the red carpet
treatment in Juba over the weekend. Al-Bashir who arrived in Juba last
Friday prayed at the South Sudanese capital’s largest mosque.
Still, there was a bit of tit for tat. The ruling National Congress Party in
Khartoum is currently undergoing tremendous change. Political infighting and
factionalism threaten to split the party. All eyes are on Al-Bashir who is
rumoured to be ailing — throat cancer it is whispered in Khartoum. The rival
factions within his party and leading political personalities vie for the
position of leading Sudan if and when Al-Bashir steps down.
“If there are free and fair elections today the NCP will not garner more
than 20 per cent of the vote,” Sadig Al-Mahdi, leader of the opposition Umma
Party and a former Sudanese prime minister whose democratically-elected
government was toppled in a military coup d’état masterminded by none other
than Al-Bashir himself.
Yet that analysis follows two rather breathless and seemingly admiringly
qualities of the Sudanese opposition: the three most influential opposition
parties are Islamist to some degree. Al-Mahdi’s Umma Party is moderately
Islamist and is buttressed by the Sufi religious order of Al-Ansar. In 2002,
37 political office members split from the Umma National Party and formed
the Umma Party (Reform and Renewal) led by Mubarak Al-Fadil Al-Mahdi, a
first cousin of Sadig Al-Mahdi, whose own son Abdel-Rahman Al-Mahdi is a
high-profile presidential adviser to Al-Bashir.
Another particularly influential political movement is the Popular Congress
Party whose leader Sheikh Hassan Al-Turabi, Sudan’s chief Islamist
ideologue, intellectual and academician who was awarded two doctoral degrees
from Oxford and the Sorbonne. Fluent in English and French, Al-Turabi was a
close political ally of Al-Bashir as leader of the now defunct National
Islamic Front. However, Al-Turabi fell out with Al-Bashir and was
incarcerated in Kober (Cooper) Prison in March 2004 on the orders of
Al-Bashir, he was released in June 2005 only to be arrested or detained many
times since.
Al-Turabi’s brand of Islamism is different from Al-Bashir’s NCP. He espouses
women’s rights and is a dedicated democrat who believes that there is no
contradiction between Islam and democracy. It is his championing of women’s
rights that has earned him many accolades in Sudan, though. “The prophet
himself used to visit women, not men, for counselling and advice. They could
lead prayer. Even in his battles, they are there. In the election between
Othman and Ali to determine who will be the successor to the prophet, they
voted,” Al-Turabi extrapolates.
The difference matters. Al-Bashir is widely seen as authoritarian, a
military man who has not completely embraced democracy. Al-Turabi, in sharp
contrast, is an avowed democrat. Al-Turabi’s political narrative has gone
down well with huge swathes of the Sudanese public and has given his
adversaries in the ruling party a headache.
However, many Sudanese regard his present utterances with deep suspicion.
Al-Turabi, after all, was the man responsible for instituting Islamic Sharia
law in Sudan, alienating the Southern Sudanese and his detractors believe
that when in power his regime was characterised by gross human rights
violations.
The third Islamist opposition force is the Democratic Unionist Party under
the leadership of Al-Sayed Mohamed Othman Al-Mirghani the leader of the
Khatimiya Sufi order with followers in Sudan, particularly the eastern part
of the country and in neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Eritrea,
Ethiopia and Somalia. Something of a mystic and a recluse, Al-Mirghani
rarely issues political statements, preferring instead to work behind the
scenes.
I take another stab at the question of the Sudanese North-South split. All
three opposition Islamist parties oppose South Sudanese independence. They
call for a united Sudan. Only Al-Bashir and the ruling party wanted the
South to secede.
Perhaps recalling his years behind bars, Al-Mahdi adds, “A multi-party
pluralism is essential for democracy to thrive in Sudan. The North and the
South are bound to work together for the economic development of Sudan and
the entire region. Al-Turabi is married to Al-Mahdi’s sister, Wisal, a clear
example of the closely knit Sudanese political establishment.
Juba and Khartoum purport not to interfere in the domestic political affairs
of each other, and agreements were signed in Juba during Al-Bashir’s visit.
But they still have not agreed who owns Abyei and other regions along their
disputed 2,000km border. When the South gained independence in 2011 after a
referendum in which the overwhelming majority of the South Sudanese
electorate opted out of Sudan, it retained more than 75 per cent of the
country’s oil wealth.
South Sudan’s Petroleum and Mining Minister Stephen Dhiew Dau declared that
the first oil shipment, destined for international markets, reached the
Sudanese territory last Saturday, but it is not clear whether the two
countries fixed the transit fees. South Sudan halted its oil production
early last year after a dispute arose between it and neighbouring Sudan over
transit fees.
The resumption of oil flows through Sudanese territory and on to the Red Sea
ports is considered as an important diplomatic breakthrough — a watershed in
the relations between North and South Sudan.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Sat Apr 20 2013 - 18:03:10 EDT
