U. S. Policy may be coming into Focus [In South Sudan]

This is an article that was posted on April 29, 2010 on the Social Science Research Council's blog: "Making Sense of Sudan." Since that time, South Sudan has voted to become independent of the North of the country. The clock is ticking and we will wait and see how long it takes for the United States to justify a need for a U.S. military presence in South Sudan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo: UNMIS/Paul Banks

A narrative in the U.S. media seems to be coming into focus. A narrative which I believe is intended to justify an “American Intervention” into the oil rich Southern Sudan in not too many years distant.

The U.S. unflinchingly urged that the elections take place in April despite a multitude of signals that the process would contain numerous discrepancies. And just as surely as there would be discrepancies in the election process, it was a certainty that President Bashir would win handedly.

It seemed curious that in the weeks prior to the election mainstream media in the U.S. began to concede Bashir’s probable win and to publicly state that the win would be legitimate “de-facto” if not “de-jure.” The prevalent argument was: “Bashir will most certainly cheat in the election, but he would probably win without cheating.” This argument establishes Bashir as a “bad leader” while at the same time acknowledging that he is the people’s choice and nothing should be done in order to try to improve the fairness of the elections.

Now that Bashir has won, the New York Times and other leaders among the Western media are announcing that his win has paved the way for a North / South split in Sudan. The argument has been spun in such a way as to declare: “Who can blame the Southern Sudanese for wanting their own country, the April elections were not fair.” A simple Google of the words “Bashir” and “split” will bring up several articles written in this tone.

It is nothing new that U.S. foreign policy favors an independent South Sudan, despite its objections to the contrary. South Sudan will vote to separate from the North while the issue of resource (oil revenue) sharing remains unresolved.

The Northern remnant of Sudan will articulate its right to a share of the oil revenues derived from the resources in the South; and that will be characterized as a “hostile act” by the North and even as a threat of aggression. The stage will be set for the United States to step in to “protect” the newly independent nation of South Sudan and its oil riches.

But there is another whisper of a breeze rustling through the leaves of the American news papers. Very quietly it is being said while President Bashir made sure that the national elections were not fair, Salva Kiir did the same in the South to win 93% of the vote there.

The New York Times is saying: “Analysts are already sketching the outlines of the two post-referendum Sudans, where democracy will probably be the loser and uncompetitive, predictable election results the norm. The net result, they argue, could essentially be two one-party states with even less democratic space than under the flawed coalition government that rules today.”

It is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from the North. And it is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will then step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from Mr. Kiir and the leaders of South Sudan.