Sudan is writing a new chapter in the modern history of secession, with the birth of a new capital and a new border for a Northern and Southern Sudan, i.e. for an Islamic Sudan and a Christian Sudan. The fertile and green area of Sudan will become smaller following secession, as it will relinquish its position as the largest Arab country to Algeria, while the number of African states will reach 54. There is no doubt that the secession of Sudan is reviving the cases of secession around the world. Indeed, many provinces have seceded, namely Timor-Leste (from Indonesia), Singapore (from Malaysia) and Pakistan (from India), while the Kashmir predicament remained unsolved. On the other hand, some secession attempts have failed, i.e. the Spanish ETA organization, the Irish and the Albanians have all tried, while others have succeeded as was the case of some Soviet Union republics following the Union's collapse. This was followed by other secessions, such as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia amid bloodshed, and that of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which proceeded very easily. In the meantime, Eastern and Western Germany unified in 1990, Northern and Southern Yemen unified in 1990 and Egypt and Syria tried to unite under the slogan of Pan-Arabism before separation soon followed. Consequently, one cannot say that the twentieth century was one of secession since it witnessed divisions and unions. This means that the twenty first century will be similar, considering that the states know the consequences of division and secession and the extent of their need for political alliances, economic mergers, and security coordination in light of the current international circumstances. On the Sudanese level, some know that the issue of secession only came up due to the continuation of a “demagogic” policy which achieved the goal of division, after the country was besieged by sectarianism, racism, tribal wars, oppression and persecution, while Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir continued to issue threats from Khartoum, claim to have accomplished “fictive” victories, and raise slogans from the past as it was done by Arab leaders who – for a long time – gave their people the impression that they had secured victories that did not exist on the ground. I am surprised to see President Al-Bashir continuing to provoke his rivals even two days before the referendum, as he threatened with open hostility those who do not support his vision with beatings and whippings, at a time when he previously described his detractors as being donkeys. By doing so, he is almost announcing the wish to divide Sudan, refusing to open the doors of tolerance and diplomacy. Consequently, there is a need to see the UN peacekeeping forces maintained in the South, in order to help uphold security and monitor the disputed border between the Northerners and the Southerners, thus preventing the eruption of tribal conflicts or new sectarian conflicts. This is due to the fact that there are Southerners who are heavily armed, while the tribal clashes erupting from time to time reveal that any future clash will be highly costly for both sides and that the suffering will go on for years. The Arabs were the most preoccupied with the conspiracy theory in regard to Sudan's secession, as they expressed fear toward the self-determination right through analytical narrations and random concerns. However, these concerns were not seen in the ranks of Sudan's African neighbors, although the event is purely African. Maybe this is due to the fact that the majority of the countries in the continent are suffering from failure, poverty and illiteracy, as well as from widespread tribal and ethnical conflicts and coups that are easily staged. This renders the detractors in the provinces more prone to replace their governments, rather than gain their independence from them, while the West worked on the support of people's attainment of their rights and helped them determine their own fate. It is certain that the South Sudan population has the right to secede and become independent as long as the president of the country is insisting on “demagogy” and political provocation. However, the following question remains: Can the South establish an independent and viable state? Or will it become a failed state like Somalia? Will Sudan's division enhance the role of regional states to ensure the continuation of the conflict over power in the region? Will South Sudan's secession open the door before the Kurds to propose the establishment of a Kurdish state and activate the minorities' files in some countries in the region – such as the Baloch and the Ahwazi-Arabs in Iran - and prompt them to demand self-determination? Is the Arab League not afraid of seeing weak Arab countries being divided, such as Iraq for example? I believe that all the above questions are likely scenarios, but it must be said that the people have the right to determine their own fate and decide to become independent if they are oppressed, persecuted, prevented from attaining their rights and from upholding their dignity.
