The Sudanese are split on the repercussions of next year's referendum even as the ICC steps up pressure on the government, writes Gamal Nkrumah Referendums are always a golden opportunity for a disgruntled public to give their government a good kicking. But when you have two governments, as the southern Sudanese do, it is difficult to determine which of the two governments needs a more stinging lashing. It is hard to foretell whether it is the autonomous southern Sudan government or the central government in the national Sudanese capital Khartoum that will discover the unpleasant truth about referendums. The bad news for both the regional government in the south and the central government in Khartoum is that the disgruntlement that goes with the referendum is highly unlikely to stop there. The regional government of southern Sudan dominated by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), the main coalition partner of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) in Khartoum, is sounding ever more despondent over the referendum. It is warning not only of the political consequences of a southern Sudanese secession but also of the repercussions of the secession on the Sudanese economy. The economies of the north and south of Sudan are inextricably intertwined. Not only is the oil of the south transported to Red Sea ports in northern Sudan, but also the traditional grazing patterns of Arab tribesmen involve both north and south. This entails the mass seasonal migration of Arab-owned cattle and other livestock from parched lands in the north during the dry season between December and June when they send their herds southwards to rich pastureland in southern Sudan. Southern Sudan is constantly reminding neighbours and Western powers that it is open for business. Northern Sudan, on the other hand, is adamant that even though it is open for business, it is not contemplating an open society. Southern Sudanese independence would not change the historic ties between northern and southern Sudan. Furthermore, there are dangerous "misconceptions" about the nature of the supposed rewards that will accrue to southerners after independence. "These are very dangerous perceptions that need to be corrected," warned the southern Sudanese writer Zechariah Manyok Biar in the Sudan Tribune recently. "Now is the time to put things right. Freedom means the replacement of war with the deliberation of issues in a very conducive atmosphere," he explained. To complicate matters further, the Darfur crisis has had a negative impact on the prospects for a united Sudan. On Tuesday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague pronounced Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir guilty of inciting genocide against the three main indigenous ethnic groups in Darfur -- the Fur, Zaghawa and Messalit. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo accused the Sudanese leader of egging on nomadic Arab tribesmen and their government-aligned militias better known as the Janjaweed to slaughter innocent villagers in the remote backwaters of Darfur. President Al-Bashir and senior officials of the ruling NCP dismissed the ICC's and Ocampo's accusations as "politicised", "malicious" and "false". Sudanese government officials claimed that the allegations were designed to destabilise Sudan and create a climate of chaos and mistrust among Sudanese in the run-up to the referendum scheduled in six months. "The ICC decision is of no concern to us," declared Sudanese Minister of Information Kamal Obeid. Sudanese opposition figures on the other hand have sympathised with the decision of the ICC to condemn Al-Bashir. "The Sudanese government has created a catastrophic situation in Darfur. It has to pay the price for its blunders in Darfur -- the Sudanese government must atone for its failures. The people of Darfur must not be made to pay for the mistakes of the ruling clique in Khartoum," Sheikh Hassan Al-Turabi, Sudan's foremost Islamist ideologue and leader of the opposition Popular Congress Party told Al-Ahram Weekly. In or out of prison, Turabi has been cast as the evil genius in Khartoum. His alignment with influential Darfur armed opposition groups such as the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) is regarded as particularly perilous in ruling circles. JEM spokesman Ahmed Hussein promptly announced that the ICC verdict is a "victory for the people of Darfur and all of humanity". Furthermore, he said that "it will give hope to people of Darfur that justice will be made," the JEM spokesman added. International human rights groups rallied to support the ICC decision. "President Al-Bashir's stonewalling on the initial ICC warrant against him appears only more outrageous now that he is being sought for genocide," a Human Rights Watch spokeswoman said soon after the ICC proclamation on 12 July was announced. The New York-based organisation applauded the ICC decision to issue an arrest warrant against the Sudanese president. "United Nations Security Council members and other concerned governments should actively press Sudan to stop its blatant obstruction of the ICC and to see to it that Al-Bashir appears in court," the official of Human Rights Watch urged the international community. Human Rights Watch called on African and Arab governments to assist in the enforcement of the ICC decision. Meanwhile, the southern Sudanese political forces are increasingly divided over the question of secession and the referendum. Infighting has intensified and ethnic tensions are on the rise. Certain tribal groups are increasingly fearful of the perceived ethnic Dinka hegemony of the political establishment in southern Sudan. The Shilluk people of Upper Nile province are up in arms and their leader, Lam Akol, split in 2009 from the SPLM to form the SPLM-Democratic Change (SPLM-DC). His supporters are engaged in fighting against SPLM forces. The violence threatens to spill over to other regions of southern Sudan. Lam Akol's admission that the southern Sudanese political spectrum is far from united should be treated with caution. The problem is that access to power is unequal. It is reasonable for organisations and political figures to try to affect government policy. It is even better when lobbying ensures decision-makers hear varied views and that outside expertise informs political debate. In the short run, the lesson of the referendum may be that the southern Sudanese can do what they want. Far from damaging its relations with Khartoum, these relations have improved. The secessionists' lobbying storm this week recalls the last days of the regime of the late Sudanese strongman Jaafar Al-Numeiri. He had introduced Islamic Sharia laws that were furiously rejected by southerners. The militant Islamist MPs turned out to be influential after all. Perhaps that is why Churches in Sudan are now calling for the secession of the south. That might be good for predominantly Muslim northern Sudan but it is not smart politics for the southern Sudanese who insist on secularism if Sudan is to remain united. This is the right choice because Sudan is a multi- ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation. So transparency, good governance, tolerance and open-mindedness are all vital ingredients for the survival of Sudan as a sovereign and united political entity.
