Stakes high in Sudan secession referendum

With borders disputed and tensions high, Sudan is hurtling toward a high-stakes referendum that could break up Africa’s largest country and create the world’s newest nation.

Preparations for the January referendum are far behind schedule, sparking fears that Khartoum is sabotaging the vote on the independence of Southern Sudan. The armies of both sides are moving into key positions in disputed border regions and some analysts worry that any low-level clashes could quickly spiral out of control.

The referendum would be the culmination of a five-year-old peace agreement after decades of civil war that killed more than two million people. But with negotiations going down to the wire, it is still unclear whether Khartoum will co-operate with the referendum and respect its results – which are widely expected to give victory to the secessionists.

Neither side has any desire for a return to full-scale civil war, which would jeopardize the flow of oil revenues to both the north and the south. But the risks of conflict cannot be discounted as both sides use their military manoeuvring to escalate the pressure.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the situation in Sudan “a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence.”

Her president, Barack Obama, has warned that the referendum negotiations could determine whether the Sudanese people “move forward toward peace or slip backward into bloodshed.”

The United States has launched its own “surge” in Southern Sudan, boosting its diplomatic presence in the south and sending a wave of envoys to Khartoum. The envoys have dangled incentives to the north, offering to remove Sudan from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism if the referendum is conducted fairly and without delays.

“We like to call this a pay-for-performance operation,” one U.S. official reportedly said in explaining the offer.

The creation of a new nation in Southern Sudan, which is largely Christian and animist and has always resented the domination of the largely Muslim north, would be a major coup for the United States. The south has enjoyed enormous support from U.S. church groups and congressional leaders. It would also provide a strategic military ally for Washington in the Horn of Africa, where extremist Muslim groups are a growing threat.

The United States has poured more than $300-million annually into Southern Sudan, including $100-million over the past few years to train and support the southern military.

In the south, there is strong support for independence. Its government is already busily drafting its own national anthem, to be called Land of Cush – a reference to the ancient Kingdom of Cush in the Bible.

Yet both the south and the north are warning of the danger of war as they ratchet up their high-pressure campaigns to extract concessions from the other side.

The biggest hot spot is the oil-producing region of Abyei, on the border between south and north. Southern and northern troops have already taken up key positions in Abyei – some only a few kilometres apart, creating a risk of accidental flare-ups that could trigger a larger conflict.

A separate referendum is supposed to be held in Abyei to determine whether it will join the south or the north, yet there is no agreement on its borders, its eligible voters or its referendum commission. It seems increasingly unlikely that the referendum will be held as scheduled on Jan. 9 in Abyei, leaving its fate in the hands of backroom negotiators.

If there is any attempt to push ahead with the referendum in Abyei without an agreement between the south and north, it will mean “only a return to war,” a Sudanese diplomat warned last month.

A southern official, meanwhile, accused the north of behaving like hostage-taking Somali pirates. “They have boarded the ship of Abyei and they are asking for ransom,” he said.

E. J. Hogendoorn, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, said the two sides have put so many issues onto the referendum negotiating table that the talks could fall apart. “They’re both practising brinksmanship,” he said.

“By increasing the risks, they increase their leverage. They’re waiting to see who blinks first. And they’re trying to put pressure on the other side by manoeuvring their military forces. The classic Sudanese bargaining culture is to wait until the last minute.”

Geoff Hamilton, former co-ordinator of the United Nations Ceasefire Joint Military Commission in Sudan and now a director of a group called Friends of Sudan, predicts that there could be “some limited border clashes and tribal unrest in the boundary regions” after the referendum. But a full return to war is unlikely, he said. “Both sides simply have too much invested in the continued flow of oil revenue.”

One concern, he said, is that Khartoum seems to be trying to jeopardize the referendum by inflating the number of eligible southern voters who have migrated to the north. Since the referendum is invalid if fewer than 60 per cent of registered voters participate, an inflated list of eligible voters would make it harder for the south to reach this threshold.

GEOFFREY YORK

JOHANNESBURG— From Saturday\'s Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Nov. 12, 2010 4:53PM EST

Last updated Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010 8:07AM EST