By
Khaled Hanafi, IOL Bureau
CAIRO,
July 21 (IslamOnline) - Libya's President Moamer Kadhafi arrived in
Cairo Sunday for talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, focusing
on the Sudan peace deal signed between the central government in
Khartoum and southern rebels led by John Garang.
Under
the new peace deal, signed the Kenyan capital Nairobi Saturday,
southern Sudan will get a chance to vote on independence from Khartoum
after six years of autonomy.
The
deal offers the south six years of self-rule, after which it can vote
to secede, and also frees it during that time from the Islamic law
applied in the north.
However,
there was no immediate agreement on a ceasefire, which will be
discussed when the talks resume in Kenya next month, according to
officials on both sides.
Sudanese
President Omar al-Beshir hailed the deal that could finally end two
decades of civil war that have claimed 1.5 million lives and displaced
an estimated four million people.
Kenyan
President Daniel Arap Moi called on both parties to build on the
breakthrough, urging them to consider the human suffering, and
destruction of resources and loss of life that would result from a
continuation of the conflict. However, the deal may be unsatisfactory
to several Arab and regional parties.
The
deal, which tackled the two top issues of religion and self-rule for
the south, is sure to go against the security and political interests
of Arab, regional and African parties.
Observers
believe Egypt will be on top of the list of countries hurt by that
deal, once it is carried out. Egypt has great interests in the area of
the south, wherefrom the Nile, Egypt’s almost only source of water,
starts running. Therefore, the Egyptians have strategic and security
concerns about how to keep it running.
Once
there is a separate state in the south, Egypt’s share of water will
sure be effected, due to development requirements of such state. In
addition, separation of the south means reduction of Egypt’s
political backyard, which expands, in terms of strategic importance,
till the Great Lakes Region.
Uganda
is another party likely to be disturbed, as the deal will encourage
its own ethnic minorities to follow suite, a thing vehemently rejected
by the Ugandan regime. Congo is also striving to preserve its unity.
Separation
of the south, if it becomes a reality, will constitute a dangerous
precedent at an area dominated by separatist ethnic groups. This is
likely to pose a risky challenge before the newly born African Union
(AU). The AU knows that several other African regions are seeking
separation, and civil wars are already pain in the neck of the
world’s poorest continents. In Ethiopia, Aromo Islamic movement is
seeking separation. In Northern Mali, al-Tawariq ethnic group has been
demanding independence since 1995. The same goes for the Comoros
Island, Cameroon, Senegal and other African states.
On
the other hand, the application of the deal seems highly doubtful, in
light of several other agreements of the past that never found their
way to implementation. Moreover, details of Saturday’s deal are yet
to be discussed and agreed upon. This brings to mind the agreement of
January, 2002, that could not stand up to daily breaches by both
parties.
The
other argumentative point, as observers see it, is the matter of
Islamic law (Sharia). They say that the matter has witnessed great
mispresentation and misleading. On the ground, Christians represent
only 17% of the south population, according to the last American
statistic in 1985. Therefore, when the U.S. and the West present the
ongoing war as a religious one, this is used to cover up for real
purposes.
It
is also a historical mix up to associate the civil war that erupted in
the south in 1983 with the declaration of Sharia by the government of
Ga’far Noumairy. Truth is Sharia was declared months after the
eruption of rebellion in the south. Moreover, the south was exempted
from the application of Sharia.
The
role of the U.S. leads to a major question, where do the U.S.
interests really lie? With separation or a united Sudan?
Egyptian
researcher Badr Shaf’y believes the U.S. is against the separation
for several reasons, on top of which the absence of stability
guarantees in the south.
“Due
to the dominant ethnic, religious and tribal elements of the south, no
one can guarantee a stable separate government there. Also, Garang’s
movement represents only 10% of the population of the south. Another
factor is that the north state, in case of separation, will be purely
Arabic and Islamic. It may move in the direction of integration with
Egypt, leading to a new political map for the Middle East region,
something the U.S. rejects for sure,” Shaf’y said.
Anyway,
the deal is seen by many observers as a success for the Khartoum
government. At first, Garang thought he could enter Khartoum
victoriously and establish a secular regime in the Sudan. He failed to
do so. Until recently, he was in a position to pressure the Sudanese
government, due to many reasons. He was supported by African states
neighboring Sudan. He headed a strong coalition of Sudanese parties,
and he enjoyed support of many big countries.
Now,
things have changed. The government managed to break his coalition
through its reconciliatory policies. So, he lost Sadiq al-Mahdy’s
Umma Party and al-Mirghany’s Assembly for Democracy. Also, the
government’s tense relations with most, if not all, of its neighbors
have been improved.
