The Uncertain Fate of South Sudan

With a key referendum aimed at determining the fate of south Sudan looming on the horizon, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has warned the nation that the vote could have dangerous consequences.

The referendum is set to take place in January 2011 and the United Nations and other international bodies will monitor the process.

The vote was proposed by the US, the European Union and the UN Security Council, and should south Sudan vote for independence, the world will witness the formation of a new government at the heart of the Muslim country.

And yet, will this north-south division mark the end of three-decade tribal conflict tearing through Africa's largest country?

No. It is highly likely that the formation of a new government, with a contrasting social and religious makeup, would trigger a new conflict that could spread beyond Sudan to East Africa.

Border disputes between the north and south, the former's religious diversity and the latter's large oil reserves are the main threats to Sudan's security. Ones which the referendum fails to solve.

More than 80 percent of Sudan's oil reserves are enclosed in a 700-km southern region of the country. This could explain why the border demarcation committee has failed to come up with a comprehensive agreement on the borders after four years.

Sudanese experts estimated the country's oil reserves to be at 6 billion barrels. Khartoum produced 500,000 barrels per day.

And while the oil-rich region's residents are plagued by ever-growing poverty and infrastructural inadequacies, the government claims tribal conflicts are hampering development.

Another major problem facing an independent south Sudan is its geographical limitations. The region does not have a shoreline and would not be able to ship its oil to outside buyers.

Sudan's north-south war broke out in 1955, just one year before the country gained independence from Britain. The conflict led to the death of some 2 million Sudanese and displaced another 4 million.

In 2005, a peace pact brokered by the African Union and the UN ended the civil strife with the condition that a referendum on south Sudan independence be held on 2011.

The pact also granted the south semi-autonomy and demanded that Khartoum must equally divide key posts between officials from both regions.

In the past five years, the US peacekeeping forces tasked with monitoring the truce have been training autonomous forces in the south.

Former US president George W. Bush sent an envoy to the country to resolve disputes between the leaderships of the two regions.

Political analysts assert that there are hidden strategic and political motives behind the developments in southern Sudan.

Since the US, Europe and the UN have done little to hide their enthusiasm for seeing Sudan disintegrate into two countries, if the referendum is held in January, the south is almost certain to vote for independence.

The reason behind this ill-concealed attempt to split Sudan into two halves is that the new US world strategy demands that Muslim nations with great potential and vast geographical expanse -- like Sudan -- must be weakened.

Washington's security policy also relies on encouraging the formation of new states with different religious and social structures next to Muslim nations -- a move bound to spark regional conflicts.

If Sudan is susceptible to this US strategy, other African and Muslim nations must brace themselves as its next victims.

Meanwhile, Israel is desperately trying to gain a solid footing in Africa. It seeks to realize some of the dreams of its former leaders -- who envisaged the establishment of a "Great Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates" -- with the help of a physical presence in the region.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League have a direct responsibility toward the situation in Sudan, since the county's disintegration would be a threat to other Arab and African states.

Should south Sudan vote for independence and break away from the central government in Khartoum, the country will have to face a new set of challenges and problems.

These problems will in turn start a domino effect that could undermine the fragile stability of the continent, paving the way for the return of former colonial powers. This fate would again see Africa's resources plundered and monopolized.

ZHD/HGH