Egypt at last suggested something that can contribute wonderfully to Sudan theoretically and practically speaking but unfortunately it is too late as usual. Egypt has suggested a confederation between North and South and according to Egyptian sources the Sudanese brothers said that they would study this proposal. Unfortunately the Sudanese brother Al-Bashir said that the Egyptian proposal is not under consideration currently !! Sudanese opposition figure al-Turbi slammed the suggestion.
May be Al-Bashir knows that he may not be the head of that Sudanese confederation. Official Egypt proposed a kind of confederation that allows two separate states.
A confederation can be a solution not to Sudan’s North Vs. South conflict but to all Sudan’s problems considering the unique religious and tribal nature of the country and this move could be part of the healing process towards a real democratic federation not a fake one like the one currently in Sudan but you do not suggest this just two months before the referendum for God !! Where have we been all those years !!?
The problem in Sudan just like in any other Arab country : The lake of democracy. The democracy would assure that there is a just distribution of wealth on all Sudanese , the democracy would assure that there will be a respect to the unique nature of Sudan.
Theoretically this proposal will not take place easily as long as the Sudanese people do not consider it as an alternative to their misery and as long as the Sudanese leaders do not want to keep Sudan as one nation for real.
At least we proposed something even it is late as usual, I know we should play greater role not because the historical relations only but because it is our national security and it is a natural thing that we care for Sudan because simply Israel is not messing in the South and it is not there because it is just cause I am afraid. Some Sudanese do not like that but they have to understand that this is our national security , it is a natural thing and you can see how the United States interferes in Mexico or in Cuba. We can’t leave Sudan alone because simply it is our national security and by the way our current regime is doing a bad job in protecting it.
"and you can see how the United States interferes in Mexico or in Cuba"
ReplyDeletegood grief Z, this is a terrible example to make your argument. Do you really think we should try to manipulate governemtns and install puppet regimes-not that we could- and when things go against our ways then we should launch attacks on nations and remove the democratically elected leaders(Remember Chile, Venezuela)
The confederation thing was previously suggested by matto a luna in libya.. it wasn't accepted then and I don't think it will work with a nutter like Bashir in power, besides as you said in the titleit is too late, way too late, now the shithead thinks an independent South could have drastic effects in the region? Egypt's foreign policy is a failure and that's only norrmal in a totalitarian regime when one shithead holds all the strings and makes all the decisions. The problem with us is we still don't think of Sudanese and especially those in the south as equals..why would an independent South cause national security problems if we have proper relations with them as equals? this already feeds in their belief that we try to control their fate for our own benefit. not all of it is true but they have the right to be suspicious, I'm not denying that the shmucks in the east are constantly infiltrating east Africa, more in Ethiopia than in Sudan actually but we are certainly not doing our part to eliminate their fears..if anything we make it worse especially with a US/mexico comparison :D
The sotuh Sudanese have already made their minds, the last minute proposals won't change anything but as you say the confederation can be a good solution for Sudan in general-doesn't necessarily have to include the south. but any kind of federal union cannot survive without democracy.. the south will almost certainly vote for independence, they will have their say, it's their fate and the north can go for a confederation..if it works, southerners then may find it better to join it but the north has to set a good example and practise true democracy to lure back the south in a union..I don't see this happening wth Bahir in power.
The South Sudanese want independence. They aren't Arab, they don't consider themselves Arabs, and I'm sure they don't appreciate being referred to in that way. Egypt should do what it can for its national security, but acknowledge that the South Sudanese have legitimate reasons for independence.
ReplyDelete"The democracy would assure that there is a just distribution of wealth on all Sudanese"
ReplyDeleteThen why are there many poor people in America? and why is the average Chinese better off than the average Indian while the later is a democracy and the first is not? Democracy is a good, but it's not the answer to all our problems
Zeinobia - seriously???????!
ReplyDeleteYou think successive generations of Sudanese politicians and activists since 1955 have been waiting for Minister Abul Gheit's bombastic statement to the Egyptian parliament that Egypt proposes a 'confederation' as a solution to Sudan's long-standing problem?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Your post betrays stark ignorance of the chronology and progress of the conflict and successive negotiations.
The Southerners ditched any talk of a confederation in the peace talks in Abuja in 1992.
Fulfilling the promise of independence and emancipation is a long known aspiration of the peoples of South Sudan.
Also when you mention the lack of democracy - we have had more democracy since 1956 than Egypt has since 1922.
At independence we had a civilian democratic system of governance - however this did nothing to address the concerns of the Southerners as, in the words of their ideologue Dr Garang 'the Southern people could not see themselves in the leaders of Sudan'.
Democracy which was dominated by the leaders of Islamic Sufi sects who had each been co-opted by one of the co-colonisers was quite simply not good enough.
It is interesting to note that the only peace in the South came during military regimes...
So please don't fall for Minister Abul Gheit's delusions of grandeur.
Egypt has been detached from the problem in the South, since the assassination of Sadat who knew Sudan and the Sudanese more than the current leadership - although he 'always' took President Mubarak with him on his many official visits to Sudan.
Egypt had dismal relations with Sudan's democratically elected government, at the instigation of the democratically elected government in 1986...and Egypt has since been marginalised - by the 'Sudanese' from the peace-talks in South Sudan - partly due to some of the reasons the first Anonymous posted.
Due to Egypt's refusal of self-determination for the South point-blank (in its initiative which it created with the Libyans) the Sudanese government and opposition by-passed Egypt and signed agreements in Khartoum and Asmara 'recognising' the right of the peoples of South Sudan to their self-determination.
It is extremely naive and insulting to the Southern Sudanese people and quite frankly mind-baffling for the Confederation solution to be touted by Egypt as a magical solution that the Sudanese do not want to accept!
Egypt's leadership would like to make the statement for posterity that it tried to do its part - it didn't.
It didn't because the current leadership in Egypt has been far too enamoured with the fruits of the Levant to pay attention to its African roots.
Egypt continues to try and balance out relations between Khartoum and Juba but there is mutual distrust between Cairo and Juba.
Egypt should 'stop' talking in terms of Arabism to any and all of the Sudanese.
Egypt used to be able to greatly influence Sudan - the first military takeover in November 1958 was supported by Nasser - but as time has progressed Egypt's influence has weakened...
ReplyDeleteUnder President Mubarak Egypt never managed to have positive and 'sustainable' relations with Sudan.
Egypt is now a virtual bystander - the North-South peace was conducted under the auspices of IGADD of which Egypt is 'not' a member in Kenya...
And although Egypt tried in a very unsubtle way to create new Darfur negotiations in Cairo instead of Doha - the Sudanese rejected this outright.
This statement about the Confederation is mere propaganda for national Egyptian consumption.
There is 'no way' one can rationally compare the US superpower's relations with any other country - to Egypt's relations with any other country.
Delusions of grandeur personified.
I don't think it's delusions of grandeur, shithead and his arrogant apostle 'abou el ghaba' know very well their size and their influence-or rather lack of in Sudan. They already know that a confederation isn't a new proposal and was rejected.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason they 'came up' with it is for local consumption ["hey, we tried..they didn't listen"] and they seem to anticipate loggerheads over Abeiye(oil etc) after the south independence..so it can possibly be directed towards the nutter in Khartoum as well ["hey, we tried..you didn't listen"] :D, sometimes you need to be an Egyptian to understand how Mubarak and his cabinet work..it's always about saving face, nothing more or less
..and it can also make good article in alahram filling up 2-4 useless pages about Mubarak's confederation epiphany and a complete bollocks pseudo-political analysis of how shithead's visison is the solution to all problems in the world... accomopanied by a couple of bogus expressionism photos, so it's also good for egghead Osama Sarayeh
ReplyDeleteIt seems that each of Sudan's regions, the West, US, China and Egypt want a piece of it's wealth to themselves.
ReplyDeleteYes there are outstanding issues that are being worked out - *without* the presence or participation of Egypt - in Addis Abeba, under the auspices of the former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki...
ReplyDeleteOil wealth is one but it looks like the wealth-sharing agreement is going to continue, but the rights of the Misseriya Arabs in Abyei is a stumbling block and with no disrespect to anyone Egypt does not understand these extremely complex problems in order to offer a solution for them.
This, in reference to your statement that the confederation proposal is a signal to the President of Sudan.
And I agree 100% that it's all for show, for national consumption and is completely worthless.
@ Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYes countries do have interests in Sudan and want things - the difference between the countries you mentioned and Egypt is that the others are actually getting something - China is the biggest investor and gets 12% of its oil from Sudan, the US is the South's best friend - as for Egypt?
It's not getting what it wants, nor does it look likely that it will.