A united Sudan is better for Africa

As the date for the referendum on the self-determination for Southern Sudan, scheduled to be held on January 9, 2011, comes closer, many voices are increasingly becoming louder in their support for the secession of Southern Sudan.

Some foreign circles have become more Catholic than the Pope in their support for the partitioning of Sudan. There are different categories of foreign secessionists. There are those who think that the South was oppressed by the North and that the best way to end that oppression is for the Southerners to choose separation.

There are also those who support secession on religious ground because the South is predominantly Christian or has traditional African beliefs while the North is predominantly Muslim.

There are those who pursue economic and trade interests in their quest for separation in Sudan. They think that the huge business and investment opportunities they are benefiting from the South cannot be guaranteed if the people of Southern Sudan choose to remain in a united country.

A closer scrutiny of these views finds that they have several shortcomings. Most of the African countries are dented with secessionist movements on religions, racial or ethnic grounds. This is the main reason behind the decision of the founding fathers of the Organisation or African Unity in 1963 to preserve the borders inherited from the European colonial powers on the eve of independence.

The principle of border sanctity is one of the main factors behind the relative peace and stability in Africa. If the founding fathers questioned the colonial borders they could have unleashed conflicts that could not have been solved to date.

Therefore the secession by Southern Sudan may open a Pandora box that cannot be easily closed regionally and may be globally.

Latent or active secessionist movements throughout the continent will be encouraged by the secession by Southern Sudan to demand the same destiny for their regions.

A precedent will be set that will endanger the fragile stability in Africa. No secessionist movement will accept less than self-determination in any future peace talks. Balkanisation of Africa will be rule of the day. This is why the CPA gave the option of unity the priority.

Some may argue that an independent state was created in the Horn of Africa in the 1990s without encouraging secessionist movements in other parts of the continent. This can be refuted on the ground that this country was an independent entity before the colonial rule. It was unilaterally annexed by the government of a neighbouring country. But Southern Sudan is part and parcel of the Sudan.

It never used to be an independent country. The genesis of internal conflicts in the Sudan is regional disparities, difficulties in the process of nation building, and strains in the relation between the central government and the regional entities.

The writer is a diplomat at Sudan Embassy in Nairobi.