LAST FEBRUARY, peace came to South Sudan by way of a ballot after 22 years of civil war. Though it gained its independence by splitting the country into two parts, recent events suggested that the scars from that era have not disappeared.
It was an act of political convenience by a divided country that spawns two relatively weak nations that require a highly developed sense of maturity by its leaders. History, however, teaches a grim lesson as all too often in the past the carving out a nation has led to greater bloodshed.
The recent difficulties with the sharing of oil revenues had the potential to become a flashpoint for war. Happily, good sense seems to have prevailed and it is quite promising that both flanks of Sudan are in a dialogue.
The non-aggression peace pact signed over the weekend under the aegis of former South African president Thabo Mbeki in Addis Ababa is welcome and has many advantages for both sides. Last June he also brokered a troop withdrawal in Sudan’s Abyei oil-producing region.
This agreement has managed to address the pressing issues of sovereignty and stability of the world’s youngest republic with a population of nine million. It provides both North and South Sudan with enough leverage to ensure that its decades-old ethnic and civil strife doesn’t explode in the guise of real-politick.
The desire on the part of both sides to strike a chord of consensus on their lifeline issues, including oil supply and border security, is bound to go a long way in restoring normalcy and averting the possibility of war.
The fact that politics and diplomacy have suppressed militaristic tendencies is a good sign, particularly in a region that is volatile and unpredictable to the core. The key issue that reportedly secured this deal was that Khartoum couldn’t be stable if its southern neighbour, an infant geopolitical entity, is in crisis.
It makes sense, but myriad challenges still remain for both sides. Poverty and civil strife have perforated the social fabric of each nation and, according to United Nations, an overwhelming number of people there are without basic civic amenities of life and live below the poverty line.
Presidents Omar al Bashir in the North and Salva Kiir in the South have a mandate and liability to dispense by not only granting prosperity and peace to their respective countries, but also addressing the root causes of poverty and displacement.
The African Union-proposed plan for reconciliation addresses the irritants of their “velvet divorce”. The North gave its assurance to keep the oil flowing to the outside world and to stop the unilateral diversion of southern oil.
There is also provision for an across-the-board disarmament and rewriting of a new social contract among the divided tribes and clans as a result of the partition. Even if it is a blessing in disguise, hopefully both Sudan(s) will learn the art of co-existence.
