As southern Sudanese flee southwards before January's referendum on the country's future, what further catastrophes await Sudan, asks Asmaa El-Husseini Large numbers of southern Sudanese in the country's capital Khartoum and other northern cities are gathering up their belongings and getting on trucks for the long and difficult ride to the south of the country in preparation for January's referendum on the possible partition of the country and its likely consequences. These now-departing southerners came to the north at different times after the eruption of civil war in southern Sudan in 1983, some of them arriving long before after the first round of battles took places in 1955. Many southern Sudanese were born and have always lived in Khartoum and other northern cities, and they now know no other home. Many of them have nurtured friendships and set up businesses in the north, and they have mixed sentiments towards their northern compatriots. Many do not want to leave their lives in the north and go south, which explains why they have not left over the past five years since the peace treaty between the two sides was signed. They often have nothing to go back to in the south and may experience difficulties in their regions of origin, in many cases devastated by war. These southern Sudanese will need to rebuild their lives from scratch in the south, and at least at first they are likely to be burdens on the southern government. Nevertheless, they have decided to make the journey south, both because Sudan's southern government wants voting in the referendum on self-rule to take place in the south itself, in order to prevent possible interference by the northern government, and because of the present atmosphere in the north Statements made by officials in the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) have indicated that if Sudan is indeed partitioned as a result of the referendum in January, southern Sudanese will have no rights in Khartoum. According to Sudanese minister of information Kamal Obeid, a leading figure in the NCP, southerners remaining in the north will lose the right to work, reside, trade or receive health care. Now leaving Khartoum before the referendum takes place, the southern Sudanese appear stunned as they venture into the unknown, a fate that awaits Sudan itself. In less than two months' time, the largest Arab and African country may not remain intact if the referendum favours partition. However, even partition is not the worst option facing Sudan, and there are signs that any partition that does occur may not be peaceful and that complexities on the ground could result in an explosive situation, reviving the war between north and south. If this comes to pass, then the fighting will not be the same as in the past, when it took place between state security forces and an armed rebellion. Instead, the fighting is likely to be between two independent armies, each of which is currently stockpiling arms. Observers also warn that a further war in Sudan would not be limited to the southern border, but would also expand to the north, which is still reeling from the conflict in Darfur and deteriorating conditions in three regions between the north and the south. No solution has been found for the contested areas of Abyei, the Southern Blue Nile or the Nubia Mountains, which remain contested by the NCP and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM). Tensions continue to run high as the date of the referendum approaches, with everything pointing to a majority vote for partition in the south in the wake of heavy campaigning by the southern government and SPLM leaders. Prominent southern politicians, such as southern Sudanese president Salva Kiir Mayardit and SPLM secretary-general Pagan Amum, support a vote for partition. The southern government has united behind holding the referendum on schedule, holding a conference on the matter in the southern city of Juba recently to which all parties in southern Sudan were invited. All present agreed on the importance of holding the referendum as scheduled and on forming an interim government once the results were known. Nevertheless, despite this show of unity some in the south have campaigned for a vote against partition, despite the social, political and economic challenges this could bring. In the North, most parties blame the ruling NCP for the possible dissolution of Sudan, and blame the government and the international community for letting slip any final opportunity to keep Sudan united. With only weeks to go before the referendum on Sudanese unity, stipulated in the peace agreement signed between northern and southern forces five years ago, people now seem to be paying attention to the disturbing reality of the possible partition of the country, as if before they had not been aware of it. Opinion in the north appears particularly confused, with the NCP saying both that unity will be maintained and that partition is certain. Some in the NCP have demanded that the referendum be postponed, while others have demanded that it be held on schedule. Some say the north should prepare for war, while others insist that partition will be peaceful. Foreign pressure on the NCP to hold the referendum on schedule has also been immense, with foreign and regional delegations visiting Sudan either to put pressure on the government or to try to bring the two sides together. The administration of US president Barack Obama has warned that millions could suffer in Sudan if the referendum is not held on schedule, and Washington is dangling a carrot in front of Khartoum to encourage it to hold the referendum as scheduled, while at the same time threatening it with a big stick if it obstructs or delays voting. The south is also supported by foreign players who have their own agendas. Southern separatists are fuelled by anger at decades of war, as well as by irresponsible declarations made by politicians and a media that is not afraid to spout hatred of the north. The future of Sudan could swing in either direction, as the country presently stands between peace and war. While many are arguing for peace, others do not see peace as serving their interests. Some in the northern government believe that peaceful partition of the country would not serve their interests, since this, they argue, would allow the international community to demand that Khartoum comply with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and hand over Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir to face charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The ICC warrant against Al-Bashir remains a major obstacle to reaching a peaceful settlement in Sudan, because the ruling NCP is vulnerable to the fact that its leader Al-Bashir, together with minister Ahmed Haroon, are on a list of wanted persons. For their part, leaders in the south have accused the NCP and the national Sudanese army of mobilising on the border between the north and the south in preparation for war. The UN has declared its intention to create a buffer zone between the two regions. However, this intention might need to be reviewed not only because the border between the north and the south has not yet been demarcated, but also because it is very long at about 1,000 kilometres, making it difficult to patrol without a preliminary peace agreement. There are already some 40,000 international peacekeepers in Sudan, the largest number in any country. Of these, about 10,600 are deployed between the north and the south as peacekeepers, and about 26,000 are in the western province of Darfur, often as part of joint UN and African Union (AU) forces. Other peacekeepers are in the Nubia Mountains and other locations. Yet, even this very large number of foreign peacekeepers has been unable to do much to assist in Darfur, and when Abyei was set ablaze two years ago the peacekeepers did little to help. International forces are attacked sporadically, and peacekeepers are not authorised to participate in combat. If the UN decides to increase the number of its troops on the ground and expand their mandate, this must be done according to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. However, any such move would be rejected by the Sudanese government, which would view it as infringing on its sovereignty. Parties prefering war to peace do not only come from the ranks of hardliners inside the Sudanese government, as some have claimed. Instead, there are also those in the opposition who are against the status quo, feeling that it will tear Sudan apart. War is imminent, such people believe, if not today then tomorrow and in the wake of a hostile partition of the country into antagonistic regimes in the north and the south. They would rather see war take place today, before the South secedes, creating new facts on the ground. Something like this point of view is held by the London-based Sudanese opposition, led by Ali Mahmoud Hassanein, deputy chairman of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), and several other opposition figures and groups, whose aim is to topple the regime led by Al-Bashir. These opposition figures are supported by elements in the south who do not want to see their interests threatened by changes in the south. Whatever the results of January's vote, it seems that the unity of Sudan is not an option, though this might be thought to be the best system for all Sudanese ethnicities. The possibility of unity has now been lost, since agreement was not reached between the two sides within the this framework, making partition likely. The war drums are sounding once again in Sudan, and they will require swift action to quiet them if the repercussions of a possible war are not to be devastating for Sudan, the Arab world and the African continent as a whole. Efforts should be made to resolve issues in dispute and various differences, these also making it difficult to see how the referendum can be held on schedule. According to Khalil Ibrahim Issa, head of the referendum commission, the January referendum will require a "miracle" to perform, since none of the preparatory work, which should have been done over a period of 40 months, has been done. It will now have to be done in two.
