On Saturday, 9th of July, a brand new African nation came to life as South Sudan, with its capital in Juba. By any standards, the splitting of Africa’s largest country, the Sudan into two after more than 31 years of armed conflict between the North and South is a momentous event. The war which pitched the largely Arab and Muslim North against the largely black and Christian and animist South had taken more than two million lives, and had created the largest pocket of poverty in the African continent in South Sudan. The new African nation of South Sudan took its place proudly as Africa’s newest nation, and its people are justifiably celebrating the positive outcome of a long struggle with profound sense of faith in their future, and understandable concern over whether their independence from the North will translate into genuine changes in the quality of their lives.
From the moment Sudan became independent of British rule in 1956, its history has been characterised by a conflict between races, religions, tribes and affluence and poverty. The country of Sudan had the sad history living with constant battles to contain separatist tendencies, and some of mankind’s worst atrocities have been committed by both sides in the vicious struggles to achieve limited military and political objectives. In the 1960s, the Nya Nya movement in the South took up armed rebellion against the Government in Khartoum, and succeeded in drawing world attention to the fact that Sudan was a country of many races, religion and of uneven development whose future as a united political entity was going to be preserved only through military domination of the South.
A Peace Agreement signed by the Nya Nya rebels and the Khartoum government in 1972 collapsed in 1983 when southern military officers in the Sudanese army broke away to form the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (S.P.L.A). This marked the beginning of another civil war, which reportedly cost well over one million lives, most of them from the people of Southern Sudan. The Civil war created two Sudans, and it was clear even then that only a political solution will resolve the conflict. The Khartoum government signed a Comprehensive Peace Plan with the SPLA, which provided, among others, for a referendum by the people of Southern Sudan on whether they want separation from Sudan. In January 2011, the referendum was held, and within one month, the result showed that 99% of the people of southern Sudan had voted for separation from Sudan. On the 9th of July, 2011, the people of South Sudan achieved their independence, and now they have to build their nation in the midst of many challenges, but with hope and a solid vindication that their long and bitter armed struggle was not in vain.
While the rest of Africa and the world will rejoice with the people of South Sudan, the future for the new nation is by no means going to be without many problems. The new administration, known as the Government of Southern Sudan, Goss, will have to translate the profound sense of history and optimism into popular commitment to create a nation of many tribes, races and religions into a united country. The new government and the people will have to work hard to address the absence of any economic and social infrastructure outside Juba, the capital of the new country. The new country will have to share oil revenues with its neighbour in the North, but this will be inadequate to provide even the most basic necessities to match the extremely high expectations of the people. The new country has many unresolved issues with its neighbour, and former adversary, the Sudan, some of which include the territory of Abyei; the existence of tribal militias which receive support and inspiration from Khartoum; the presence of powerful political groups represented by the NCP, the political party which also rules Sudan; and the prospects of continuing economic dependence on Sudan through revenue sharing and absence of its own independent export infrastructure.
But South Sudan will start life as a new nation with tremendous goodwill and support from the international community. How it resolves its problems will also largely depend on the degree to which the international community stands with it through its difficult first steps as a new but very poor nation.
For Nigeria, the independence of South Sudan has a unique significance, and it is important that Nigerians read and understand the history of the struggle in the Sudan properly. Nigeria shares with the Sudan large and mixed populations, distinguished by ethnic and religious differences. Nigeria, Sudan and the Congo were three countries long viewed in some circles of the western world as prime candidates for break up, either as a result of conflict, or out of the desire to achieve smaller, more manageable units giving their large sizes, volatile ethnic mix and tendency towards conflicts. Nigeria and Sudan in particular have had pronounced and prolonged crises centred around religion and ethnicity, and Nigerians have followed Sudan’s history with more than casual interest, given some of the underlying similarities between the two countries.
Not unexpectedly, after the April 2011 post election violence, the nature and future of the Nigerian State became a matter of some considerable debate. Much of this debate could be dismissed as childish and merely irritating for a nation whose structural weaknesses are continuously being exposed by its particular brand of political process. The more serious comments focussed on the widening economic gulf between the North and South; the fragmentation of a hitherto cohesive national political elite; the resurgence and spread of primordial sentiments and values; and the rising evidence of linkages between religions and politics.
The Nigerian social, demographic and economic situation is of course a lot more complex than Sudan’s. There are substantial mixtures of Muslims and Christians in large numbers in most parts of Nigeria, such that a clear demarcation on the basis of faith or tribe, as was evident in Sudan, does not exist. Nigeria had to fight its own civil war and many Nigerians will support the argument that all parts of Nigeria will be worse off if some sections cease to be part of the nation. The nature of the Nigerian economy has also created multiple levels of inter-dependence in the country, such that a Sudan option will be difficult to contemplate.
All these are not to say, however, that Nigerians should take their own continued survival as one country for granted. Many Nigerians will be tempted to prefer separation to dying under bombs, or living under laws or value systems which they reject. These types of sentiments are becoming popular, and they need to be noted and acted upon by governments and other Nigerians who believe that the unity of Nigerian is worth preserving. The current spate of violence with political undertones; and the lessons to be drawn from the Niger Delta militancy need to be fully understood. The independence of South Sudan is a welcome development for its people; and for justice and freedom. It needs to be understood in all its ramifications, so that Nigerians do not read the wrong lessons from a different historical experience and context.
No comments:
Post a Comment