The Scots Gory and the Sudanese Issue
Analysis: Abdalla Riziq
English Version: Salah Mohamed El Hassan
The statement of the Troika, published in coincidence with the beginning of the independence referendum in Scotland, where Scots were supposed to decide whether to stay within the UK or to be an independent nation, stressed on the “sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Sudan” as one of the principles that the Troika estimates a basic founding for the reform of rule and sustainable solution to Sudanese crisis. Meanwhile, European and American countries, including the three countries of the Troika, invited Scots to vote against separation from the UK.
The insisting on the unity of Sudan, in the declaration of the Troika, has many meanings for the position of the three countries on the referendum in Scotland as well as on the National Dialogue which will soon be engaged in Sudan to settle its long dating crises. That emphasizing on the unity and territorial integrity of Sudan illuminates equally the experience of the referendum in South Sudan which still has a great impact on the situation in the region.
The declaration of the Troika (Grand Britain, Norway and USA), insisting on the maintenance of the unity of Sudan and its sovereignty, coinciding with the referendum in Scotland, which might have been inspired of their Scots position, will block any probable tendencies to raise demands of self-determination for Darfur, Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and why not, the far Northern Nubians and the Beja in the East during the National Dialogue process, backed by the Troika’s statement.
The vote of Scots in favor of remaining part of the UK may enhance the tendency to the Unity after the rigorous fears that appeared in the eve of the referendum about the impact of any possible Scotland separation which should have strengthened division tendencies in many countries suffering from interior clashes and conflicts in the third world, including Sudan. Consequently, insisting of the unity of Sudan and its territorial integrity may limit the rush of local communities in the conflict areas to demand the right to self-determination.
As far as the position of the countries of the Troika on separation of South Sudan raises questions, the Scot glory raises, for Sudanese, many questions referring to the past. It raises questions, particularly on the separation of South Sudan and other concerns on the future and mainly about whether other parts of Sudan would go in the same road of South towards independence.
The referendum in Scotland recalls the South Sudan experience as a comparison case. Though the independence of South Sudan fulfills the demands of self-governing and the strengthening of identity of South Sudanese, it hasn’t accomplished any viable or sustainable solution to the roots of conflict between the South and the North of Sudan. It only divided Sudan into “two countries in conflict”, where war is still one of possible options of settling their differences in case of failure of negotiations.
While South Sudan is gradually becoming a “Failed State” torn by internal armed conflicts and threatened by famine, the mediation deployed by the IGAD needs that Sudan should carry a part of the burden in order to establish stability in the new neighboring country. Sudan also should facilitate the implementation of the agreements signed by Khartoum and Juba in Addis Ababa, under the auspices of the AU as part of the requirements and costs of the separation of South Sudan.
Such facts are enough to conclude the assumption that the independence of South Sudan didn’t take in consideration, at least, the inconvenient eventualities including the possibility of South Sudan transformed in an element of unrest in the region.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, economic Professor and Director of the Globe Institute of Colombia University, Special Councilor of SGUN for the Objectives of the Minimum, published an article entitled “The Price of Scottish Independence” in the site of the “Social Europe Journal”. In that essay, he details the political demands of the independence campaign in Scotland calling to strengthening democracy. He also mentioned the cultural demands heading to emphasize the particular identity of Scots as well as the economic goals seeking a bigger portion of oil and gas. He also discussed the ideological basis of the campaign aiming to attract Scotland towards the Scandinavian model of Social Democracy.
After analyzing all the aspects of the independence campaign in Scotland, he concluded that the benefits of such independence would be very meager He warned that any isolation of Scotland resulting from probable independence would create more serious economic crisis and might lead to its exclusion from the NATO and the EU. Even though, he affirmed his sympathy with the demand of a cultural and political independence, if Scotland would stay within the NATO and the EU.
Taking the result of the referendum in consideration, we can say that Scots have sacrificed their political, cultural and ideological demands for the sake of securing the economical interests and gains of their country in the framework of the UK, EU and the NATO.
Compared with the case of South Sudan and the situation of that country after its independence, we can conclude that the internal and external motivations for the separation of South Sudan were based on political and cultural elements as well as some interests of foreign and local forces rather than on the interests of the peoples of the two countries and the other countries of the region.
Practicing the right to self-determination, as a democratic basic right, and its backing by some superpowers has always been submitted to the principle of “Double Standards” and to being consistent with the interests of those superpowers. Europe has backed the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia while it fiercely opposed the independence of Turkish Cyprus.
Anyhow, the Scottish word might not be the final say in this field. “Double Standards” might reappear in the future, particularly when the fate of the Iraqi Kurdistan and the Spanish Catalonia would be on steak.
source https://www.facebook.com/abdalla.rizig
Analysis: Abdalla Riziq
English Version: Salah Mohamed El Hassan
The statement of the Troika, published in coincidence with the beginning of the independence referendum in Scotland, where Scots were supposed to decide whether to stay within the UK or to be an independent nation, stressed on the “sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Sudan” as one of the principles that the Troika estimates a basic founding for the reform of rule and sustainable solution to Sudanese crisis. Meanwhile, European and American countries, including the three countries of the Troika, invited Scots to vote against separation from the UK.
The insisting on the unity of Sudan, in the declaration of the Troika, has many meanings for the position of the three countries on the referendum in Scotland as well as on the National Dialogue which will soon be engaged in Sudan to settle its long dating crises. That emphasizing on the unity and territorial integrity of Sudan illuminates equally the experience of the referendum in South Sudan which still has a great impact on the situation in the region.
The declaration of the Troika (Grand Britain, Norway and USA), insisting on the maintenance of the unity of Sudan and its sovereignty, coinciding with the referendum in Scotland, which might have been inspired of their Scots position, will block any probable tendencies to raise demands of self-determination for Darfur, Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and why not, the far Northern Nubians and the Beja in the East during the National Dialogue process, backed by the Troika’s statement.
The vote of Scots in favor of remaining part of the UK may enhance the tendency to the Unity after the rigorous fears that appeared in the eve of the referendum about the impact of any possible Scotland separation which should have strengthened division tendencies in many countries suffering from interior clashes and conflicts in the third world, including Sudan. Consequently, insisting of the unity of Sudan and its territorial integrity may limit the rush of local communities in the conflict areas to demand the right to self-determination.
As far as the position of the countries of the Troika on separation of South Sudan raises questions, the Scot glory raises, for Sudanese, many questions referring to the past. It raises questions, particularly on the separation of South Sudan and other concerns on the future and mainly about whether other parts of Sudan would go in the same road of South towards independence.
The referendum in Scotland recalls the South Sudan experience as a comparison case. Though the independence of South Sudan fulfills the demands of self-governing and the strengthening of identity of South Sudanese, it hasn’t accomplished any viable or sustainable solution to the roots of conflict between the South and the North of Sudan. It only divided Sudan into “two countries in conflict”, where war is still one of possible options of settling their differences in case of failure of negotiations.
While South Sudan is gradually becoming a “Failed State” torn by internal armed conflicts and threatened by famine, the mediation deployed by the IGAD needs that Sudan should carry a part of the burden in order to establish stability in the new neighboring country. Sudan also should facilitate the implementation of the agreements signed by Khartoum and Juba in Addis Ababa, under the auspices of the AU as part of the requirements and costs of the separation of South Sudan.
Such facts are enough to conclude the assumption that the independence of South Sudan didn’t take in consideration, at least, the inconvenient eventualities including the possibility of South Sudan transformed in an element of unrest in the region.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, economic Professor and Director of the Globe Institute of Colombia University, Special Councilor of SGUN for the Objectives of the Minimum, published an article entitled “The Price of Scottish Independence” in the site of the “Social Europe Journal”. In that essay, he details the political demands of the independence campaign in Scotland calling to strengthening democracy. He also mentioned the cultural demands heading to emphasize the particular identity of Scots as well as the economic goals seeking a bigger portion of oil and gas. He also discussed the ideological basis of the campaign aiming to attract Scotland towards the Scandinavian model of Social Democracy.
After analyzing all the aspects of the independence campaign in Scotland, he concluded that the benefits of such independence would be very meager He warned that any isolation of Scotland resulting from probable independence would create more serious economic crisis and might lead to its exclusion from the NATO and the EU. Even though, he affirmed his sympathy with the demand of a cultural and political independence, if Scotland would stay within the NATO and the EU.
Taking the result of the referendum in consideration, we can say that Scots have sacrificed their political, cultural and ideological demands for the sake of securing the economical interests and gains of their country in the framework of the UK, EU and the NATO.
Compared with the case of South Sudan and the situation of that country after its independence, we can conclude that the internal and external motivations for the separation of South Sudan were based on political and cultural elements as well as some interests of foreign and local forces rather than on the interests of the peoples of the two countries and the other countries of the region.
Practicing the right to self-determination, as a democratic basic right, and its backing by some superpowers has always been submitted to the principle of “Double Standards” and to being consistent with the interests of those superpowers. Europe has backed the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia while it fiercely opposed the independence of Turkish Cyprus.
Anyhow, the Scottish word might not be the final say in this field. “Double Standards” might reappear in the future, particularly when the fate of the Iraqi Kurdistan and the Spanish Catalonia would be on steak.
source https://www.facebook.com/abdalla.rizig
No comments: