With the referendum on the secession of south Sudan due in January, one gets the same eerie feeling that presaged the US invasion of Iraq: a mix of déjà vu and impending doom. In the days and weeks preceding March 2003, everyone knew that US president George W Bush and UK prime minister Tony Blair were not joking, that they were building up troops in earnest, and that they intended to club Iraq to within an inch of its life. Everyone knew, too, what a terrible thing this will be for Iraq, the region, and the world. And yet no one did anything to stop the horror. The course of events that unfolded was seen mainly as unstoppable, regrettable to the utmost indeed, but some hoped that some good would come out of it, which we now know was not to be. The same sense of impending disaster has returned, like a sinister, definitely unwelcome déjà vu. Everyone, the Sudanese and the Arabs included, admits that secession is the only probable outcome of the 9 January referendum. No one is discussing other options -- not anymore. And yet experts warn of the grave consequences of Sudan's splitting in two, some say four, countries. The Americans are not displeased with this outcome, and the Israelis are thrilled at the prospect of Sudan breaking up, as it may give them a better foothold in Africa. The oddest thing is the pretext that the most blatant supporters of secession, led by the US, cite to justify this horrendous fate. Sudan is going to break up because of self-determination. And yet, one can name several US states where armed militia have sought secession for years -- Texas being one. The terrorist assault in Oklahoma, carried out in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh and causing the death of 168 people, was only one instance of rightwing militia pressing for secession from the federal government. If it is the right of such dissident groups to seek self- determination, one asks, would Washington agree to hold a referendum on the matter? The people of south Sudan have suffered from the neglect of the Sudanese central government for many years. That's a fact. But secession is not always a better option. It is the right of the south Sudanese to demand full equality with their brothers in the north. But they don't have to bring down the temple on everyone's heads, inside and outside Sudan. The worst thing about south Sudan's partitioning is that it is just a dress rehearsal for a show that many wish to see staged in other Arab countries: Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen included. Is there still hope for an 11th hour solution, or is secession a done deal? Are we, like the protagonists of Greek theatre, doomed to a tragic fate?
