SUDAN-STYLE ARBITRATION

Ten southern provinces of Sudan have held a referendum on secession from the united state. Although it is too early to talk about the final outcome (vote counting is expected to be complete by mid-February), there is no doubt that most people voted for independence. So, in the near future we may expect a 193rd state recognized by the UN to appear on the world's political map.

"The referendum is not the end of the road"

The Republic of Sudan, with its capital in Khartoum, is the largest state in Africa. Some 55 per cent of its population are Arabs, 30 per cent Negroid tribes in southern and western Sudan and about 15 per cent are Nubians and Beja (Eastern Sudan). Sudan emerged in its present form in the nineteenth century as a colony of Egypt, which, in turn, was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. In 1899, an Anglo-Egyptian condominium was established there.

Sudan declared independence on 1 January 1956. However, from the first days of its existence, conflict emerged between the Muslim north and the predominantly Christian south.

One of the main reasons for the fierce armed conflict is that Sudan is one of the largest oil-producing countries on the African continent. The main oil-bearing areas are located in Southern Sudan. Eventually, oil revenues became the main source of foreign exchange for Khartoum and accounted for 98 per cent of Southern Sudan's budget.

The civil war which lasted from 1955 to 1972 was the result of the refusal by the central government, in which Muslims occupied key positions, to establish a federal state. The war ended after the signing of the Addis Ababa agreement, under which the south was granted autonomy in matters of internal government. However, the internal conflict resumed 10 years later, following the partition of the southern province of Equatoria into three separate provinces and the introduction of some Shari'ah penalties to the country's criminal law (such as stoning, flogging and hand amputation).

The second civil war in Sudan lasted more than 20 years and ended in 2005. According to expert sources, government forces killed nearly two million civilians during this time. Over four million southerners were forced to flee their homes and move to the neighbouring countries of Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Egypt.

The bloody war resulted in the conflicting parties signing a Comprehensive Peace Agreement developed by the EU and the US. Khartoum and the southern rebels agreed that Southern Sudan would enjoy autonomy for six years, after which the issue of independence would be put to a referendum. In addition, under the terms of the agreement, a national unity government was formed in which a majority of ministerial seats belong to the ruling National Congress Party, and also an autonomous government of Southern Sudan, in which the main positions are occupied by representatives of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). The SPLM leader Salva Kiir became Sudan's first vice-president and head of the government of Southern Sudan.

General elections were held in Sudan on 11 April 2010. As a result, the leader of the National Congress, Omar al-Bashir, retained the presidency. Salva Kiir was elected president of Southern Sudan. The next act, leading to the reconciliation of the North and the South, was the referendum on self-determination for Southern Sudan. Meanwhile, it is clear that the southerners' plebiscite is a chance for al-Bashir to improve relations with the West. In 2009, the International Criminal

Court issued an arrest warrant for al-Bashir for war crimes committed by the Sudanese army in the country's west - in the Darfur region, where military conflict between government forces and rebels has continued since 2003. The chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who arrived in Sudan on the eve of the referendum, said that Khartoum's respect for the will of the Southern Sudanese might prompt Washington to "soften" its policy on Khartoum. This implies, in particular, the possible lifting of economic sanctions against Sudan and removing it from the list of countries sponsoring international terrorism.

However, it is naive to assume that a final peace between Northern and Southern Sudan will be established so quickly. The parties have yet to agree on such important issues as border demarcation, oil revenues and ownership of the disputed Abyei region. International mediators hope that all disputes will be settled before July, when the transition period stipulated in the agreement of 2005 ends. Salva Kiir said that "the referendum is not the end of the road yet, but is the first attempt in the history of Africa to change the order imposed by colonial authorities". 

"Precedent" hunters

As you can see, African leaders, including the main fighter for the independence of Southern Sudan, see the partition of one of the largest states in the continent's north-east as yet another opportunity to overcome the effects of the colonial past. Meanwhile, the Sudan referendum caused those who wish to violate the principle of territorial integrity to remind us of themselves. This is especially true of Armenia and the leaders of the regime it has established in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Armenian experts of all shades are trumpeting to the world that the example of Southern Sudan shows the practicality of the right to self-determination (as though it was denied by anyone) and that the Armenian side will have a new "bargaining chip" in the Karabakh settlement talks. The latter statement is based on a very primitive inference: since the Southern Sudanese can achieve independence through a referendum, a similar outcome may be expected for the Karabakh Armenians. However, the hopes of the Armenian "thinkers" are fated to collapse just as happened after the so-called "Kosovo precedent", which Yerevan also perceived as a "trump card" in its ongoing "struggle" for international recognition of the consequences of its aggression against Azerbaijan.

The first thing that distinguishes the internal Sudanese settlement from the Karabakh conflict is the consent of the centre, i.e. Khartoum, to secession by the South. In this sense, it is notable that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir promised the southerners that he would recognize any outcome of the referendum and help them create a "safe and stable country" in the future. Visiting Juba, the administrative centre of Southern Sudan, ahead of the referendum, Bashir said: "We tell our brothers in the south: the ball is in your court and the solution lies in your hands, if you say we choose unity, you are welcome; if you prefer separation, you are also welcome."

The second point to be noted is the specificity of international mediation. The internal Sudanese settlement is based on measures proposed by interested foreign powers. In the case of the Karabakh conflict, international mediators have drawn up basic principles for a settlement accepted by Azerbaijan and rejected by Armenia. This is not surprising, because it is linked to the third factor that distinguishes the Sudanese conflict from Nagornyy Karabakh. Its essence is the aggression by one state - Armenia - against another - Azerbaijan. As a result of this aggression, Armenia occupied one-fifth of Azerbaijani territory and carried out ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, resorting to acts of genocide (it is sufficient to mention the extermination of civilians in the Azerbaijani town of Xocali). In the case of Sudan, the international community is dealing with an internal conflict, in which it was mainly the population advocating secession that was subjected to repression and punitive actions.

And finally, the fourth and perhaps most important point. The Karabakh conflict can be resolved only by ending the occupation of ancient Azerbaijani lands by the Armenian armed forces, the restoration of territorial integrity and the return of over a million displaced Azerbaijani people to their homes. Only then can we talk about a lasting peace in the interest of both the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples.