Paul Moorcraft, author of Shooting the Messenger and Inside the Danger Zones, on the crisis in Sudan which can no longer be ignored...
Three times last week Al Jazeera summoned me to pontificate on the conflict between north and south Sudan. Regular commentaries are fine if you’re covering a running story as an eye-witness, frontline reporter. It’s harder to update strategic analyses regularly from the badlands of the Surrey Hills, where I live.
True, I hold something of a world record for being arrested in Sudan, which I have reported on for 20 years. More recently I headed a large observer mission for the 2010 election and then covered the 2011 independence referendum in the south.
With Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea battling for top media billing, the very dangerous looming major war in Sudan tends to be ignored.
Sudan used to be Africa’s biggest country and endured the continent’s longest war, effectively from 1955 – with breaks – until 2005 when the predominantly Arabic Muslim north made a ‘comprehensive’ peace with the largely ‘African’ Christian and animist south.
Relatively peaceful and arguably fair elections were held in 2010 – confirming the authority of the two big men in north and south: Omar al-Bashir and Salva Kiir respectively.
South Sudan became independent last year, Africa’s latest failed state. Nearly all its wealth comes from oil, but in January this year it closed its oil fields, over disputes with the north – which owns the pipelines and the oil refineries. Other disputes festered: not just over oil transit fees, but also the vaguely defined border, sharing national debt, and the rights of northerners in the south and southerners in the north.
In the long civil war, north and south had fought extra hard just before peace deals. Extreme brinkmanship was always the name of the diplomacy game. This time it may go too far. War could resume almost by accident.
Now it is not just border conflicts and militias. The arguments could lead to a state- versus-state war, dragging in neighbouring countries, perhaps in a replay of the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the late 1990s. This tragedy sucked in over nine states and as many as 30 guerrilla armies. Dubbed ‘Africa’s First World War’, this conflict killed perhaps as many as 5 million people. But it went largely unreported. For the couch potatoes in the West, compassion fatigue is rife.
Northern Sudan is in no mood to compromise. The Islamist state feels under siege like never before. Its president has been indicted for war crimes, the first sitting head of state to be summoned to the International Criminal Court. The former military man is pressed by his old army allies who say he has given up one-third of the country and 75 per cent of the oil. And for what? The US still enforces sanctions and Khartoum believes Washington is encouraging the various domestic insurgencies: in the west, especially in Darfur, and in the southern oil-rich regions where militias loyal to the south are fighting.
South Sudan, one of the poorest countries in the world, cannot afford war – it certainly cannot afford to do without its oil sales. The guerrillas-turned-politicians in Juba, the capital, think they can pressurise the north, not least by suggesting alternative oil pipelines to Kenyan ports. They are wrong – the quality oil is beginning to run out in the current developed fields and it will take billions and at least five years to create alternative oil routes. And the country’s roads – of which just 40 miles are tarred – cannot sustain fleets of oil tankers driving through swamps and rough terrain, especially in the rainy season.
The conflict between north and south is an economic suicide pact. They have to cooperate. In Africa, tribal, religious and nationalist emotions often trump economic sense.
Many outsiders simply shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Oh, just another round of African squabbling.’ It’s not. Full-scale war could cause mayhem not just in the region, but also in the world oil markets. Beijing is heavily involved in the Sudan oil game. China may be the only power who can talk to north and south and bang heads together – ever so diplomatically of course. No one listens to the African Union.
This week the south seized Heglig oil field in the north – the region provides perhaps 75 per cent of the remaining northern oil. This is a life-and-death matter for the increasingly rattled government in Khartoum. The military counter-offensive by the much more powerful north was stalled by the southern army, despite Khartoum’s air superiority.
Few military experts expected this. But Khartoum’s forces are demoralised and over-extended, fighting in Darfur, the east, and against rebellions in the Nuba mountains, as well as pro-south militias and now South Sudan’s regular forces.
The AU, the UN and even Western states have condemned Juba’s invasion of the north, and accepted that Heglig is part of north Sudan (although other areas such as Abyei are still disputed). Until a week ago, South Sudan was the darling of the liberal left, now it is a militaristic aggressor, and for once the pariah state of north Sudan has international support; at a much-needed time, when it is suffering military reversals on the ground.
If Juba reckons that its military thrusts will bring in more UN involvement which could mean it gets some of the disputed territory, especially Abyei, then it has miscalculated. Khartoum has its back to the wall and will not give up one more inch of soil.
In short, the muscular border brinkmanship could lead to all-out war between north and south and then the entire region. At the very same time as the whole of north Africa is in turmoil and the Sahel is awash with rebellions which favour al Qaeda franchises. From A-Z – Algeria to Zanzibar – an arc of Jihadist militancy could threaten the soft underbelly of Europe.
It may be hard for us to focus on more than one or two crisis zones at the same time, but Sudan could very easily soon become a big war that cannot be ignored.
Sometimes it pays to watch Al Jazeera English. Except for yours truly, commentary on the Islamic world is usually first rate. And, unlike its Arabic-speaking parent, it’s remarkably free of bias. Except maybe for Bahrain…but that’s another blog.