As the break-up of Sudan looms, visions of postpartum depression are taking hold, says Asmaa El-Husseini If things go according to plan, 9 January will be the day South Sudan will decide to go it alone. Once the largest Arab and African country, Sudan will be split in half. Who's to blame? Basically everyone, not least the autocratic National Congress which has held on to power for the past 20 years without doing much to heal the divided nation. Some may blame Arab indifference, international stratagems, and greedy insurgents. Some may blame the regimes that preceded that of Omar Al-Bashir. But the truth is that in the ethnically diverse Sudan, little has been done to ensure that the entire nation feels included and works together. Since Sudan won its independence in 1956, little has been made to create a comprehensive national project that would keep Sudan -- with its many ethnic, religious, and cultural strands -- united. The oversight is going to be costly, not only for the northerners, but for everyone in the country. The country's leaders have failed to make the southerners feel welcome. They've failed to make anyone living in the peripheries of the country feel welcome. And now there will be hell to pay. The fault is not only that of the National Congress. Even after the main southern militant group, the Sudan People's Liberation Front, became a partner in government in 2005, things failed to improve. The current regime came to power in a military coup in 1989 with a promise of "national salvation". Twenty years later, the country is falling apart. Some government officials have even mentioned the possibility that the country may eventually be divided into four states. The SPLM used to speak about keeping Sudan united while tweaking the system to ensure justice and equality for all. But since the death of John Garang, the SPLM seems to have lost its interest in a united country. Perhaps it is a good idea for Sudan to break up after, or at least this is what some in the North have started to say. Columnists in Khartoum, people who have for long sown mistrust between north and south, now say that secession would be a good thing for everyone. They claim that secession would be a form of salvation for the northerners who had suffered because of the south for too long. But let's not forget that the south is not as united as it seems. Even within the south, there are rival factions and disgruntled groups. And, in the north problems are not going to end. Darfur is still a problem, but it is not the only one. There is a lot of discontent in the southern parts of Kordofan and the Blue Nile which may surface at any moment now. The border strip between the north and the south is also quite volatile. Unless the fabric of government, management, and economy in northern Sudan is reconsidered, the north will keep running into trouble -- the south too. The perils of secession are going to be on both sides of the fence. The secession of the south will not end the troubles in the north as some claim. If anything, the troubles will get worse. Simply stated, Sudan is too diverse for the secession to end its problems. Even after the country splits into two, which is the most likely outcome right now, the north will remain an extremely diverse place in ethnic and religious terms. And it will need to do something to address the contradictions within its boundaries. In other words, it will need to do the very job it has so far failed to accomplish. Sharia remains a thorny issues, with non-Muslims and many Muslims taking issue with its methods and purposes. Since the Machakos protocol was signed in 2002, the north has insisted in implementing Sharia. It was the price it extracted for allowing self-determination in the south. But the recent uproar over a videotape showing security officials flogging a girl shows how divisive the whole issue of Sharia remains to this day. Even northern Muslim scholars have spoken against it on occasion. South Sudan is likely to split away. But the north is going to have to deal with other problems from Nubia to the Blue Nile. And without the benefit of oil revenues from the south, things may get tough. The borders between south and north have not yet been defined, and there is every possibility that other parts of the north may decide that it is in their advantage to join the oil- rich south rather than remain with the internationally- isolated North. To recap, the north needs to do something to maintain its stability. First of all, it needs a genuine, comprehensive and just solution in Darfur. The prospects are far from encouraging. Previous experiences in Darfur prove that partial and incomplete solutions are useless and a waste of time. Every time a solution fails, things get worse, and foreigners are tempted to interfere. Among the northern parties, it is crucial to achieve political reconciliation. Without reconciliation, the country will not be able to move forward. For twenty years, the National Congress hold on power has proved ruinous to the country, as well as to the ruling party itself. The recent elections in April couldn't bring about the much-needed reconciliation. Some parties boycotted it and others withdrew before the election results were announced, citing widespread irregularities. Without reconciliation, divisions will worsen and lead to further divisions and conflicts. It doesn't seem, however, that reconciliation is high on the list of National Congress (NC) priorities. Assuming it really cares, the NC is too distracted with the pressures the international community is putting on it to do anything about reconciliation. NC officials have so far ignored appeals by opposition leaders, the likes of Sadeg Al-Mahdi of Al-Ummah and Mohamed Othman Al-Mirghani of the Democratic Unionist Party, for reconciliation. Things are somewhat better in the South, where Salva Kiir Mayardit, who's running the semi-autonomous government, brought together southern leaders to agree on post- referendum arrangements. The leaders agreed that a broad- based transitional government should take over in preparation for free elections in two years. In the north, no such meeting has taken place, a bad sign perhaps. The feeling among the northern parties is that secession would turn back the clock in the north, with the NC ruling with an iron fist and dominating all aspects of power, just as was the case before the peace deal of 2005, the deal that allowed the SPLM to become a partner in government. Things will get harder for the North in the economic sense. For the past 10 years, Sudan has depended heavily on oil, which is produced mainly in the South. Oil revenues constitute 92 per cent of the country's exports. Agricultural exports are also likely to dwindle after the secession of the South. The future of the north will depend on two things. One is how friendly would its relations with the south be. And the other is what kind of pressure the international community, in particular the International Criminal Court, would maintain on the northern government. The north will have to do a lot of thinking. The referendum in the south is not only going to determine the fate of the southerners, but of the northerners as well.
