Foreign designs to divide Sudan lie behind the South’s referendum
The referendum in Sudan which aims to separate the country will be the conclusion of a colonial project that dates back to the 19th century. The civil war and violence has come to symbolise that struggle and as a result many of the underlying facts have been lost, which has made it easy to internationalise the separation of another Muslim country. With this in mind the following should be understood with regards to the separation of Sudan:
1. The original problem in Sudan has been the colonial struggle over its riches. Britain, America and France have for over a century fought for control of Sudan. Prior to independence from British rule in 1965, Sudan was captured by a proxy Anglo-Egyptian force in 1899 following the defeat of the Mahdist forces, with Egypt itself being part of the British Empire at that time. Darfur was captured by the British in 1916, but after financial support from Khartoum for the outer regions such as Darfur ebbed away wealth inequalities led to tribal differences which the West has exploited to separate the region ever since.
2. Tribal differences led to civil wars in the 1970’s and in1983. America brokered the Naivasha peace accord in 2005, which culminated in the eventual termination of the civil war between the main rebel group, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Sudanese government. The terms of the agreement included a variety of measures that gave the South autonomy and the prospect of secession in 2011 when the deal expires. America actively aided and supported the minority Christian rebels in Southern Sudan by providing them with arms without which the rebels would not have had the success they enjoyed in forcing the Sudanese government to pursue a peace settlement.
3. To counter this both Britain and France provided arms to Chad, which supported and armed the rebels in Darfur, creating Darfur as an issue. Both nations successfully internationalised the issue of Darfur and complicated US plans to separate the South of Sudan and turn it into an independent nation. Hilary Clinton told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that it was “inevitable” that the south would vote to break away and form an independent state.
4. The West has successfully internationalised the Sudan issue which now means the solution to Sudan will be undertaken by the world’s competing powers. This is similar to East Timor where the USA itself forced Indonesia to relinquish control of the territory. Similarly the British high jacked Jewish calls for a homeland by creating the conditions for them in the Middle East which would have been impossible without them. Today the US continues to promise the Zionists permanent status and forces the Muslims in the region to cede territory to the Jewish state. Domestic disputes by various factions have historically been the corridor for Western interference.
5. Separating Sudan in no way deals with its domestic problems. It is simply running away from the real solution to the problems of neglect towards the people of the south. By following colonial powers, successive leaders from north and south have neglected the people of the Sudan. Just as the government neglected the people, the rebel movements neglected the people they were supposedly fighting for.
In contrast to today Sudan prospered under the rule of Islam. Islam was introduced into North Africa hundreds of years ago, with Islam entering much of the Darfur region as well as other parts of Sudan in the 14th century. Most of the Muslim rulers modelled their ruling on the Khilafah, although the Funj Sultanate of Sinnar was not directly under the control of the Uthmani Khilafah at the time until 1821. Yet this still brought together people irrespective of ethnicity and prosperity ensued. This is because the people put aside their petty rivalries and were united on the basis of Islam.
Therefore separation is not the solution for the people of Sudan but another attempt by foreign powers in dividing the Ummah further.