| A Solution for Africans by Africans | | Print | |
| Written by Hdri Dec 06 |
| Friday, 25 September 2009 09:55 |
|
Hdri Dec 2006 Ahmed Mohammed Omer “If not through their irrigation farming experts, Egyptians barely know Sudan,” once said Mohammed Hassen Haikel, the famous Egyptian journalist, speaking about Sudan. Haikel says that when, in the 1950s, he visited Sudan, Sheikh Abdulrahman Almahdi, the Ansar leader, told him that Egyptians knew about Sudan only through the Nile River. Haikel had then answered that he (the Ansar leader) was right. But he also told him that Sudan was so vast that even the Sudanese themselves barely knew one another. “Even the Ansars don’t know anything about the other parts of the country except the Northern part,” Haikel told Sheikh Abdelrahman. Haikel’s testimonial is in fact correct. With an area of one million square kilometers, Sudan is home to more than 34 million people of Arab and African origins. This makes it far heavy to know its geographical, social and cultural details at one time. Southern Sudan, for instance, has such a diversity of African cultures that in contemporary standards it could be a state in itself. Similarly, western Sudan has so many different social structures that make it impossible to master its from a distance. The same can be said about the eastern, northern, central Sudan as well as the Nuba mountains, the Blue Nile and so on. This diversity of ethnic groups has been one of the factors that brought political turmoil in past years. Except with the Red Sea, Sudan has common international borders with nine African countries, namely: Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, Chad, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. And because these borders allows the country to relate and intermarry with tribes and ethnic groups in those countries, it is most of the times impossible to determine the nationality of the people living in the borders. This makes the central government’s task difficult, particularly in the remote areas. As a result, there were flurry of oppositions against the government. Certain neighboring countries took advantage of the situation, and in an effort to seize Sudanese land, countries like Ethiopia negatively exploited the inter-ethnic relations and origins of the people. Taking Haikel’s assertion for granted, we can’t generalize that Egyptians don’t know Sudan at all. On the contrary, they know it very well through the historical relations of both countries. Likewise, Eritreans know Sudan very well and this is not because they have the Nile river in between but because both people share a common historical experience. To ascertain this fact, one doesn’t need to refer to the Funji civilization that had influence on Eritrean western lowlands; or the Turkish and Egyptian colonizations which had both Eritrea and Sudan in their grip; or the Mahdist revolution that had deep influence in Eritrea. Nor it is necessary to remember the times when Eritrean and Sudanese soldiers were conscripted by the British army to fight the Italians. Just mentioning the 30-years-long struggle for liberation is enough. During these years, Eritrean refugees have lived in peace and harmony among the Sudanese people and because the Eritrean revolution had its bases in areas bordering with Sudan, strong bonding has developed between Eritreans and Sudanese in Eastern Sudan. Even with the advent of the Sudanese Revolution, a number of Sudanese opposition parties and political movements had come and lived among Eritreans. And Eritrea had given refuge to all those who came seeking, even those who had negative stances in the Eritrean struggle for liberation. Unlike the interpretation of certain sides, Eritrea gave refuge to opposition parties not because it opposes the Sudanese Government but solely because it has a consistent belief emanating from the historical relations that bind the two peoples. The government of Eritrea has under any circumstance never attempted to use the opposition forces for its own benefit because such a policy is against the Eritrean government’s principles and also because it knows that such a policy leaves a black mark in the history of relations between the two peoples. In an answer given to repeated questions about Eritrean support for Sudanese opposition parties, President Isaias Afwerki said that Eritrea’s policy is not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Sudanese people. This can be confirmed by the Sudanese who have been residing in Eritrea in the past ten years. When Mr. Sadik Al Mahdi, chairman of the Uma Party and former Sudanese prime minister, fled Sudan and came to Eritrea, he was accorded a colorful welcome, which he would never find anywhere else except in Sudan. And when he changed his mind and decided to return to Sudan and reconcile with the Sudanese government, he was given an equally colorful farewell. These examples reflect the Eritrean principle of not interfering in Sudanese affairs. While the international community addressed the individual issues of Southern Sudan, or the problems in the west or those in the east, Eritrea opted to broker a dialogue that aimed to bring a general political solution. Stressing that those initiatives taken to solve a particular zone’s problem provide only a partial solution to the general Sudanese problem, Eritrea has been advocating for dialogues that involve all opposition forces and thereby bring a comprehensive peaceful resolution. And this was the Eritrean stance in the Nifasha and Abuja Agreements. But if the Sudanese decide to solve their problems part by part, and as long that partial approach eventually brings a comprehensive solution and takes into account the interests of the Sudanese people as a whole, then Eritrea will also support that decision. Consequently, Eritrea gladly accepted the offer to mediate between the Sudanese Government and the Eastern Front. The peace talks conducted in Asmara for four months were different than previous ones because the latest had distinct advantages that facilitated the comprehensive peace agreement. Some of the advantages were: • Mediation was not done by countries or organizations which take sides or have double standards. Instead there was only one mediator: Eritrea. • The talks were conducted in seclusion from the press. • The fact that the mediator knew about the two sides in detail was an additional advantage. In other words it was an historical event which assured that African problems can be solved by Africa itself. • The mediator has no vested interest in the prolonged conflict between the two sides. • Both sides have no interest in the conflict as well. • Both sides’ wish to reach for an agreement. Owing to these factors, both sides were able to sign a comprehensive peace agreement on the 14th of October 2006 in Asmara. (Translation: Meron Abraha, Hidri Vol. N° 27, November 2006) © Copyright 2001-2005 Shaebia.org |