Weblog nr 7
December 31, 2005
Half a century ago, on 31 December 1955, Sudan became independent. It was the first African country getting its independence after decolonization. In Africa only South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia and Liberia had stayed more or less independent during the colonial era. That is why the Sudanese Independence Day is not only important for Sudan itself, but also for Africa as a whole. It heralds the beginning of a process that took about twenty years, ending with the independence of the former Portugese colonies in the mid seventies of the last century. Next month the African Union will have its Summit meeting in Khartoum. The venue of the conference was chosen in particular to commemorate the event, fifty years ago, which was so significant for the continent as a whole. It will be a unique opportunity to look both backward and forward.
Today I attended the Sudanese Independence Day commemoration ceremony. In his speech, delivered in the garden of his palace, President Bashir did indeed look both backward and forward. He praised the leaders of the movements which had fought for independence from the Anglo-Egyptian colonial regime. He took pride in the history of Sudan, long before the colonial oppression, and in the Sudanese culture.
The Sudanese can be proud indeed. There is hardly any country in the world which can point towards such a long history as Sudan. The first time I visited the National Museum in Khartoum, about thirty years ago, I was surprised to see beautiful pottery, older than what I had seen before in Egyptian musea. As a European, coming from a country with a history hardly longer than two millennia, I became quite modest when confronted with artifacts which had been crafted six to seven millennia ago. Sudan, and in particular North Sudan, has seen the rise and fall of empires and civilizations, wars and climatic changes, invasions from abroad. It has survived all that. This may explain the Sudanese attitude towards present conflicts and threats. Sudanese leaders, whatever region or tribe they belong to, display confidence in their own strength and do never haste. They seem to believe: 'history shows: time is on our side'.
Photo's: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
In his speech President Bashir, however, was wise enough to draw some other lessons from history. The long term trend may be positive, but it is characterized by sharp fluctuations, often due to internal strife, and resulting in mass suffering and death. That has been the case during the age old history of Sudan, and again after decolonization. Why has Sudan been less successful than other countries, which got their independence later and were less gifted by nature? In his speech Bashir asked that question and he gave the answer himself: 'because we fought wars, right from the beginning, directly after having become an independent nation'.
The war between North and South Sudan is behind us. It lasted about four decades. Nearly one year before the fiftieth anniversary of Sudan as an independent state a Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in Nairobi, on 9 January 2005. Since then the implementation of that agreement has proceeded well. Of course there were delays and misunderstandings, but one year later we can be optimistic: peace is here to stay.
But peace is indivisible. Peace between North and South will not hold if the war in Darfur continues. Bashir admitted this in his speech and committed himself again towards a policy which should result in peace throughout the country. He went further than this and committed himself also to a battle against poverty, to the Millennium Development Goals, to sustainable development, to a policy which would not trade renewable resources such as land and water against oil. He also committed himself towards human rights and freedoms, to respect for cultural diversity and to a parliamentary democracy within which the opposition would have full constitutional rights, provided that the opposition would be 'responsible'. That last condition was the only questionable remark in a speech in which all the right things were said.
Was it a speech for the outside world, politically correct, in order to regain a place for Sudan in the international community, in the second half of the first century after independence? Perhaps. Bashir alluded to this himself: Sudan should do everything to avoid further marginalization in this period of globalization. However, that is not a bad thing. If leaders realize that the future of their nation requires a full commitment towards peace and sustainable development, if only because when they don't they will be punished by the global market, there is room for policies based on notions of enlightened self-interest. History has proven that this can be a strong basis.
In the year behind us I have listened to quite a few speeches of Bashir. In most of them he made similar commitments. His speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Presidency in July gave all of us hope that we would now indeed see the beginning of the New Sudan. His speech one month later, at the funeral of John Garang, his former adversary who had become the First Vice President of that New Sudan, was a historic pledge to continue on the road towards full and indivisible peace, together with the Garangs successor, Salve Kiir. Bashir is a good speaker, able to inspire by finding the right words as well as the right tone. But in 2006 these words will have to be translated into reality. In Sudan the gap between promises and facts has been tremendous. Abel Alier, one of Garangs predecessors, characterized the history of Sudan since its independence as “too many agreements dishonoured”. To reverse that tendency is one of the most important challenges ahead.
Today I attended the Sudanese Independence Day commemoration ceremony. In his speech, delivered in the garden of his palace, President Bashir did indeed look both backward and forward. He praised the leaders of the movements which had fought for independence from the Anglo-Egyptian colonial regime. He took pride in the history of Sudan, long before the colonial oppression, and in the Sudanese culture.
The Sudanese can be proud indeed. There is hardly any country in the world which can point towards such a long history as Sudan. The first time I visited the National Museum in Khartoum, about thirty years ago, I was surprised to see beautiful pottery, older than what I had seen before in Egyptian musea. As a European, coming from a country with a history hardly longer than two millennia, I became quite modest when confronted with artifacts which had been crafted six to seven millennia ago. Sudan, and in particular North Sudan, has seen the rise and fall of empires and civilizations, wars and climatic changes, invasions from abroad. It has survived all that. This may explain the Sudanese attitude towards present conflicts and threats. Sudanese leaders, whatever region or tribe they belong to, display confidence in their own strength and do never haste. They seem to believe: 'history shows: time is on our side'.
In Meroe, 3 hours North of Khartoum, ancient buildings are testimony of past civilizations
Photo's: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
In his speech President Bashir, however, was wise enough to draw some other lessons from history. The long term trend may be positive, but it is characterized by sharp fluctuations, often due to internal strife, and resulting in mass suffering and death. That has been the case during the age old history of Sudan, and again after decolonization. Why has Sudan been less successful than other countries, which got their independence later and were less gifted by nature? In his speech Bashir asked that question and he gave the answer himself: 'because we fought wars, right from the beginning, directly after having become an independent nation'.
The war between North and South Sudan is behind us. It lasted about four decades. Nearly one year before the fiftieth anniversary of Sudan as an independent state a Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in Nairobi, on 9 January 2005. Since then the implementation of that agreement has proceeded well. Of course there were delays and misunderstandings, but one year later we can be optimistic: peace is here to stay.
But peace is indivisible. Peace between North and South will not hold if the war in Darfur continues. Bashir admitted this in his speech and committed himself again towards a policy which should result in peace throughout the country. He went further than this and committed himself also to a battle against poverty, to the Millennium Development Goals, to sustainable development, to a policy which would not trade renewable resources such as land and water against oil. He also committed himself towards human rights and freedoms, to respect for cultural diversity and to a parliamentary democracy within which the opposition would have full constitutional rights, provided that the opposition would be 'responsible'. That last condition was the only questionable remark in a speech in which all the right things were said.
Was it a speech for the outside world, politically correct, in order to regain a place for Sudan in the international community, in the second half of the first century after independence? Perhaps. Bashir alluded to this himself: Sudan should do everything to avoid further marginalization in this period of globalization. However, that is not a bad thing. If leaders realize that the future of their nation requires a full commitment towards peace and sustainable development, if only because when they don't they will be punished by the global market, there is room for policies based on notions of enlightened self-interest. History has proven that this can be a strong basis.
In the year behind us I have listened to quite a few speeches of Bashir. In most of them he made similar commitments. His speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Presidency in July gave all of us hope that we would now indeed see the beginning of the New Sudan. His speech one month later, at the funeral of John Garang, his former adversary who had become the First Vice President of that New Sudan, was a historic pledge to continue on the road towards full and indivisible peace, together with the Garangs successor, Salve Kiir. Bashir is a good speaker, able to inspire by finding the right words as well as the right tone. But in 2006 these words will have to be translated into reality. In Sudan the gap between promises and facts has been tremendous. Abel Alier, one of Garangs predecessors, characterized the history of Sudan since its independence as “too many agreements dishonoured”. To reverse that tendency is one of the most important challenges ahead.