by Ahmed Yaqoub
The current era in the lives of the two countries, North and South, arguably represents one of the worst periods they have faced within the frameworks governing their relationship since South Sudan’s independence on July 9, 2011.
Sudan is undergoing its most severe political and intellectual crisis. It could be said that the current war found all the enabling tools for its eruption, rooted in a long history of perpetual civil wars, even before Sudan’s own independence. This was compounded by imbalances in governance, the dominance of elites, the monopolization of national decision-making, the deliberate marginalization of a national project, and the forced imposition of ideological agendas. All this occurred alongside the failure of every political transition following the revolutions of 1964, 1985, and 2018.
On the other hand, the newly independent South Sudan inherited some of Sudan’s most impactful and profound problems concerning state-building and the national project. It failed to benefit from its long experiences with Sudanese elites, instead replicating the political sentiments and psyche of the wounded Sudan. This is a crisis both countries will suffer from for a long time unless the cognitive structures that frame political action and discourse change, and unless there is a concerted effort to escape the tunnel of tribal and ethnic structures controlling the forms of authority in both states. This has naturally led both countries into what could be termed the trap of “falling captive to pre-state / tribal organizations.”
The dialectical relationship between Sudan and South Sudan was established by the colonizer, and the ruling elites in Sudan exacerbated this dialectic over a long history of oppression, violations, and the practice of guardianship over Sudan in general and South Sudan in particular. These forms of guardianship began to peak immediately after the colonizer’s departure in 1956.
Because both countries are currently overwhelmed, the dilemmas and problems of the elites have descended upon the societies in the north and south.
The relationship between Khartoum and Juba after South Sudan’s independence in 2011 was formed solely around oil pipelines. This is despite the two countries sharing numerous characteristics and being deeply intertwined, complex social interests. Neither Sudan nor South Sudan can disentangle themselves from their shared interests, which are far greater than oil pipelines. They share the longest international border, seasonal migrations, intertwined interests of border tribes, and generations raised within a unified culture through Sudan’s educational frameworks and a shared consciousness that contributed significantly to the overall fabric of the country (north and south). So why do we now see escalating inflammatory social rhetoric between the two sides, resembling a war of all against all?
The war that began on April 15th represents the beginning of the disintegration of the old structures that shaped the relationship, which was and remains distorted north and south. While we acknowledge that Sudan’s war is not on South Sudanese territory, it affects the entire structure of political discourse and thought in both countries. It also affects the nature of relations between the societies in the two states, not to mention the economic impacts and tangible shared interests. The influence extends to the very linguistic structures used in producing discourse.
It cannot be denied, under any circumstances, that the war in Sudan has inflicted severe damage on collective psyches, be it through violations or behaviours that demean human dignity. The people of both countries have been subjected to these violations, particularly those who remain in Sudan or have been deported to South Sudan.
The practices resulting from the war and applied to the peoples of both countries, especially forced deportations and violations documented by relevant international human rights institutions, have put the relationship to the test. The people of the two countries have exchanged pointed fingers, threatening at times and hurling insults at others. The shared history of the two peoples has been a fundamental cornerstone and a decisive element in the debate dominating their relationship today. Of course, that distorted, custodial, and racist history has left its residues in people’s souls and has been transmitted to new generations not just through stories; these generations have personally experienced those practices and the stings of history through harassment and discourse directed at the people of South Sudan and some Sudanese, discourse that harbors a sense of superiority and carries within it racism that harms not only the relationship but the very concept of humanity.
Today’s generations carry a heavy legacy named History. Through whose lens the relationship is viewed. This generalized perspective can be described as unjust and biased. There are voices in both countries, not permitted full expression, that believe ancient history should not define the relationship between the peoples of the two countries—while not forgetting what happened and learning the future’s lesson from the past so it does not happen again.
Political and intellectual currents, along with purveyors of poison in the media north and south, feed the vein carrying the malady that toxifies the relationship between the peoples of the two countries. Because these currents derive their strength and the flourishing of their ideology solely from their populist discourse, which has its audience in both countries, they maintain their position above all else through this poisoning, which destroys the prosperity of the peoples and hinders reaching standard formulas for coexistence and benefiting from history’s lessons for a better future for both.
The time has come for the peoples of the two countries to re-examine the shape of their relationship through other lenses, and not to let the distorted lens of history remain the sole reference for defining the status and form of their relationship. The future remains open for the two peoples to strengthen their ties, mutually benefit from their human and natural resources, and lead the region politically and commercially. The two countries can work towards integration and assert their sovereignty over East Africa, parts of North Africa, and segments of West Africa, dominating this region entirely.
What binds the peoples of Sudan and South Sudan cannot be reduced to a single pattern or a single trait. What unites them can be described as inextricable; if it were to end, they would both end. The current war demonstrates this pattern. We see today a profound and constant engagement with the war in Sudan within South Sudan, more than in some Sudanese regions themselves. This engagement in South Sudan has been expressed through internal divisions over allegiance to one side at the expense of the other, and vice versa—precisely the situation uniting Sudanese in Sudan today. This can only be explained by the impossibility of dissolving the partnership between the two peoples, whether in peace or war.
One cannot rely on regimes to forge the future at all, because regimes do not carry the future in its grand framework; they carry what can be described as elements that help them maintain power. Today, the future is planned by the peoples, who compel their regimes to implement it. The two people have a greater interest in strengthening their relationship and reconsidering what future they aspire to.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
