Washington and its allies are betting on the disinfection integrates ion ac Sudan, which is voted in a referendum since last Sunday. In the referendum, the South decided separation or to maintain integrated into pa ís
The "time bomb" as he called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sudanese referendum process is about to explode , and shockwaves will be felt not only in the largest African state, which could be split, but that will come many other countries of that continent, which could be found in that fact the spark needed to catapult your old internal disputes, sponsored proxy the great powers.
is likely that the Government of the United States off the hook: the disintegration of one of the richest African states, especially oil and gas. It is a project that Washington has spent many of his forces, and above all, much of their money. And this will continue to run through a pipe fat enough to pay for infrastructure development and the Government of Southern Sudan would be independent if it casts the vote.
Supposedly, the referendum would end up sweeping all the frictions and differences between north and south, until 2005, when the rubric of the agreement reached by the interventionist diplomacy of George W. Bush took about 20 years mired in civil war, also fed dollars U.S. and Israel venom.
According to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA, for its acronym in English), signed in Naivasha, Kenya, southern decided at the consultation, which began Sunday in September until January 15, if he will share power and wealth with the rest of the country as part of a single state which has been doing for five years in accordance with the CPA-, or vote to become an independent state.
In keeping with the imperialist verbiage, it seems that the intentions of Washington and its allies are kind and only care about ending the tensions between North Arab and Muslim and Christian and animist south. But behind the scenes are the true wishes of the U.S. to divide a huge country and engulf the southern region, one of the richest in natural resources with Darfur, in western Colombia, where also the Uncle Sam, supported Zionist Israeli government, promotes instability.
Following these purposes, Washington has spent many millions in the implementation of the CPA and the transformation of the Army of People's Liberation Army (SPLA)-separatist movement operating in the South-in a military force with the ability to confront Government of Omar Hassan al Bashir, one of the real concerns of the United States.
Sudan was one of the obsessions of George W. Bush and his predecessor, William Clinton, who went so far as to authorize the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in this country 12 years ago, referring falsely manufactured chemical weapons there. And what neither of the two presidents could achieve oust Al-Bashir and to ensure U.S. dominance of one of the largest oil-producing states of North Africa, became one of the main tasks in the foreign policy agenda aggressive management of the current White House that has not tired of pressing and carrots if Al Bashir promised paved the way for the referendum, which can be very lucrative for American power ...
There have been many important figures in American politics whose statements regarding referendum have been carriers of threats that made it clear that Omar Hassan al-Bashir must peacefully accept the decision of the South if it finally opts for the separation, and that the holding of a free referendum will pave the way for a strong bond between Khartoum and Washington.
However, while the U.S. State Department has released a warning that this does not mean the lifting of economic sanctions against Sudan over the Darfur issue, the venue of a similar conflict over natural resources with malicious interference by Washington and its partners, who fund and support anti-government groups operating in the region, as it did in the war between north and south.
Another bone of contention
The dispute over Abyei, an oil basin that lies between the north and south, is a key that unlocks the true nature of the conflict between the two regions Sudan, more than ethnic clashes.
As agreed in 2005, the population of Abyei should also hold its own plebiscite to decide if you prefer to be on one side or another. But the lack of understanding of the internal boundaries of this region and residence rights have delayed the convening of that vote, initially scheduled to take place concurrently with the consultation that opened on Sunday.
Today is latent tension in the area, which was the scene of heavy fighting between armed elements north and south. The leader of the Misseriya, one of the two dominant ethnic groups in Abyei, "Bishtina Mohammed El Salam, said his people will not accept to join a possible Sudan South, whatever the outcome of the referendum.
Pastoralists Misseriya share with the Dinka Abyei, black farmers that if they wanted to. "If they decide to annex the Dinka Abyei to the south, there will be war immediately and without excuses," said Salam Al Jazeera. Even
Misseriya
warned they would take up arms if they are prevented from voting in a possible consultation in Abyei, which would decide the fate of the central region, which produces oil. These groups fear that an unfavorable outcome for Khartoum to end its rights to continue using the Abyei pastures for their livestock.
In response to the announcement of the Dinka to be organized by themselves the referendum if there was an agreement to this, the Misseriya also formed an alternative government to the current local government in the region.
The main differences over the formation of the census found that another plebiscite on the desire of northern Misseriya that participate in the vote, as opposed to the refusal of the South, which claims to have rights to that region because there came many of its main leaders, one of whom Salva Kiir, head of the semi-autonomous southern government, if at first did not take sides in the referendum, a few weeks ago has called openly for the independence of that part of the country.
New cut Africa
All the predictions and analysis indicate that the southern Sudanese will vote for the query entered by the separation, despite the exhortations of Al Bashir to maintain unity as a fundamental premise for strength and development throughout Sudan, while southern leaders have publicly called for the division.
However, the signals sent from both parties are of peace and cooperation. Even though Khartoum has said it is aware that the best way is the national integrity, willing to accept the decision of the South. But there remains the question of the reactions that can generate the results, especially when we are talking about a country which has repeatedly disrespected the peace accords.
Although revenue from the oil fields go straight to the coffers of the government in the southern capital Juba-Southern Sudan will have to continue depending on good weather in Khartoum, as the infrastructure there is very weak, and the port close to make the oil is in the north and have to use it at least until you can build other trade routes through neighboring countries.
A survey by the Sudan Tribune newspaper said that 97 percent of respondents want to secede.
Consultation, with the participation of some 3.9 million people, including 60 000 foreign residents, will be held throughout the country and in eight nations which inhabit many southern Sudanese populations in Australia, Canada, Egypt, United States Ethiopia, Great Britain, Kenya and Uganda.
This could also be the formula that is tipping the rebel movements operating in Darfur and accused the Cabinet of al-Bashir to marginalize the western Sudanese region of a fair distribution of natural resources, many of which are in that area, where conflicts remain despite the peace negotiations that take place in Doha, Qatar. Then Sudan be faced with the danger of losing another valuable piece of its territory.
But this referendum has other readings, because it can be dangerous for stability throughout Africa, it questions the borders inherited from colonization, accepted by the African Union, which have also been a source of conflict in other African countries.
Many other claims could be reborn and some movements and rebel groups in other regions of the continent might want to use the same formula, among them for example, the Angolan oil enclave of Cabinda, Biafra (Nigeria), Casamance (Senegal), Barotse ( Zambia), Somaliland (Somalia) and ethnicity Tuareg in Niger.
would be attending a stage of balkanization on the continent with the push of the great powers which, paradoxically, have never put the same effort in holding a referendum in which the Saharawi people to vote for independence from its territory illegally occupied by Morocco since 1975, when Spain abandoned the colony.
* Photos: Getty Images
0 comments:
Post a Comment