Sudan: The No-Win Situation

A vote for independence could lead Sudan back to war. But if there's no result it might be even worse.

By Ros Wynne-Jones

This comment was published in the Guardian on 18/11/2010 

As millions of Sudanese people begin registering to vote this week, their hopes will be tinged with deep anxiety. The laminated voter cards represent the final steps towards self-determination, bringing independence for the south of the country within touching distance.

There have long been fears that a majority vote for secession from Sudan could reignite the civil war that has so far claimed over two million lives. But a new possibility is emerging that could set back the fight for independence by decades.

Charities working in the region are beginning to predict that the most dangerous outcome may be no result at all. The voting process is already behind schedule and may well not meet the legal criteria laid out in advance, meaning there will be no credible outcome.

In this scenario, southern leaders will be tempted to make a unilateral declaration of independence. But to do so would risk everything, and cut the new state off from IMF and World Bank loans. Not only would this be a gift to south Sudan's enemies, it could also plunge the region back into war.

Sudan has lived with a fragile peace now for nearly six years – just tantalisingly long enough to understand what the absence of war means. War in Sudan has been particularly brutal, a conflict of child soldiers and rape, slavery and man-made famine. The country's president, Omar al-Bashir, has faced arrest warrants for war crimes and genocide.

Sudan also continues to suffer deeply due to the conflicts of its neighbours. Even as the Sudanese nation grapples with its own destiny, the advance of the sectarian Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda also threatens lives and stability.

In 1999, I interviewed the survivors of a human bonfire where almost 100 men, women and children had been covered in petrol by LRA soldiers and set on fire. A decade later and that army is still a murderous wildcard within Sudan's borders.

Britain's coalition government has shown it is taking the referendum seriously by prioritising Sudan during the UK's presidency of the UN security council this month; but it should now show it has a plan for the "no result" scenario.

Britain – once the colonial power in Sudan and one of the key architects of the 2005 peace deal – must reassure southern leaders that a second referendum can deliver a result. Meanwhile, the United Nations Mission in Sudan must be prepared to defend civilian lives to ensure a genocide does not take place on its watch.

Humanitarian planning should begin immediately to take in the possibility of a refugee exodus, as well as millions of potential internally displaced Sudanese. In the past, NGO and emergency relief access inside Sudan has been restricted, with catastrophic results; now both sides must make clear, public statements that they will honour human rights. This should go not just for official armies, but also proxy forces such as the Janjaweed who have caused so much bloodshed in Darfur.

War in Sudan is not inevitable, and optimism is wired into Sudanese DNA. Deep in the southern rainforest, I was once shown the ruins of a former palace where the British Major-General Charles Gordon – Gordon of Khartoum – was said to have been laid up with malaria for many months when he took on the south Sudanese in the late 19th-century. One of our guides took pleasure in showing us the remains of Gordon's toilet. "Our enemies come and our enemies go," he said, urinating into the hole overgrown with weeds. "But still we remain."