Some Reflection on the Upcoming Division of Sudan

Would secession really be all that great for the southerners in Sudan? Sure, the prospect of an independent state centered on what appear to be common values held uniquely by your side of the fence does sound like a fanciful idea but will reality support idealistic hopes for self-determination? While the south has become more and more dependent on oil exports for its revenue stream, northern Sudan has greatly diversified. Though still hunting for oil up north (and possibly having found quite a bit) - northern Sudan, with the help of entrepreneurial international powers, has become heavily invested in agriculture as well. The reality is that the oilfields will run dry at some point (within a decade by some forecasts) and the North has been quietly preparing for the very same. To put things in perspective, the South derives around 90% of its revenue from oil exports while the North merely 40%.

USAID 2001.

 Another important fact is that thus far, oil has been shared equally in Sudan between the North and the South. Though we might imagine some corruption, even with transparency left to be desired, a handful of Northern elite can't really get away with siphoning off too much of the profits making that matter negligible in the long run. What will really matter is the fact that though the profits had been shared 50-50, the oil producing blocks had primarily been in the South and at the border in the North. This leaves the North with vast untapped licensed blocks (in comparison) and a revenue stream that it thus far relied upon having consisted primarily of oil fields that don't/won't belong to it in the near future (if the referendum goes in the direction it's expected to by Western analysts).

Picture this: Your relative dies, leaving you and your brother with $100,000 where each year, you both are allowed to draw $10,000 from the total sum. Though the $100,000 had originally belonged to your grandfather as a whole, it was split up into different accounts, one account containing $70,000 and another containing $30,000. By dumb luck, the $70,000 was in an account where you were listed as sole beneficiary and the $30,000 where your brother was. Your brother and you quarrel and he threatens to walk away with his $30,000. After beating that snot nosed brat to a pulp, you two agree that the money drawn should be shared equally: $5000 for you each month and $5000 for him. However, the catch being that $6000 of this would be drawn from the account in your brother’s name and only $4000 from the account in your name.

This works for a while. Four years pass and though you both hold $20,000, $24,000 has been drawn from his account while only $16,000 has been drawn from yours. Your account currently stands at $54,000 while he only has $3000 left in his account. And while that dumb bastard was blowing all his money on hookers and blow, you actually invested yours (ironically in hookers and blow?) so that one day, when your relative's account runs dry, you wouldn't have to rely on it any longer. Now your brother's fed up with living with you and he wants to go his own way. He's willing to take his own account and let you have yours - all in the name of good ol' self-determination. You could react badly. You could beat his face in again, but what would your mom and dad say. You say alright, let him go his way, and pat yourself on the back for the fact that he didn't even bother to question the fairness of providence in that you started with more than he did.

What's more though is that the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline runs through the North and to a tanker terminal (also in the North which is not landlocked like her Southern neighbor to be) before which, refineries (in the North) need to be accessed. So, at least initially, the South will be in some way dependent on the North even for her own exports. And we needn't even imagine how negotiations for that would go. "Yea, so we kinda broke up - I know, I know, I dumped you by ballot box, didn't even bother to call. Sorry? But I uh, sorta, kinda need to borrow your car now and then to get to work - you know, at least till I get on my own feet, right?"

So sure, things will be peachy with a reworked cooperation agreement (if that happens) for the South in the short term. But how long will the joy ride last? When it's over, there'll be somebody to the North to be jealous of, a state that won't even have touched their prospective oil fields for the most part and have all of the infrastructure already in place to refine and transport as soon as they begin to tap it.

Update: Well, looks like it's official now. Good luck.

Update 2: It's getting hot. Is this a prelude to war?

Musharraf Comes to Bellevue

I went to see former president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. I figured I could probably give a more detailed presentation of the actual discussion than the soundbites you might catch on the news, so without further ado, here's a summary of much of the things he talked about:

- Concerning the issue of missing person's, the former President suggested that these people weren't systematically killed or interred but that they had themselves disappeared to join the Mujahideen in Kashmir. He says that of a list of 100 missing persons, they verified (supposedly) that only 12 were unaccounted for and the rest were fighting for Kashmir. He even mentioned that some of his close friends had lost their own children due to this fight where the children would get "brainwashed" by the Mujahideen. This doesn't really address the issues raised by his opponents highlighting the holes in such over-generalizations of all the people that have disappeared.

- When he had barely begun to speak about secularization, many members of the crowd began to clap enthusiastically (and rather presumptively). But much to their dismay, he reiterated that Pakistan is an Islamic republic, that the values by which it ought to be governed are Muslim ones. He also highlighted though much of what he had done to benefit the minorities in Pakistan and highlighted that it was in accord with the ideas of Iqbal (rah) concerning the other religions.

- In justifying his alliance with the West and assuaging claims of his being a poodle for the Western governments, he argued that he had in fact not bent over backwards for all their claims. Soon after 9/11, it was demanded of him to allow the use of all of Pakistan's airspace, the air bases and the naval bases [albeit this being a rather common political tactic in dialogue actually]. That he had only relented by giving a very narrow corridor of airspace and two isolated air-bases, and that he felt he had no other option. He said that had he the chance to do this once again, he would go right ahead and repeat it. The negotiations before he finally gave in last for five days, he suggests.

- He spoke against the various groups in Afghanistan (and even Pakistan) as being un-Islamic. He argued that they can't consider their deeds as jihad because (a) suicide is haram in Islaam and (b) in order for their fight to be considered a jihad - they require the mandate of a ruler over some land which they don't possess. In effect, he stressed that these groups are un-Islamic.

- He spoke extensively of Pakistan's opposition to the Taliban and the "Taliban culture" in spite of the cordial relations between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan during the Soviet era war. During this part of his talk, he mentioned that there are some who are concerned over the Muslims, the Pakistanis, killed during his tenure. In response to their question he poses another question. Do you support Taliban culture in Pakistan? If not, than there is no choice but to have firm resolve and keep killing them. If you do, well than, what more can be said?

- He suggests, also in justifying his alliance, that during the war with the Soviets, than too Pakistan was on the same side as the West. Nobody back than accused Pakistan of merely being the puppet of the West. Rather, what the leadership did was in the benefit of Pakistan and it merely happened to be mutually beneficial to the West - the intention of Pakistan though was to preserve her own national integrity. This shouldn't be seen any other light, he argues. He said that Pakistan called it a jihad to drive Mujahideen to the country to come fight for it (he specificlly said "called it a Jihad so that..." as if to imply that it actually wasn't and that these people were merely being used as pawns for Pakistan's sake). He mentioned to this effect a gift given to the head of ISI, a piece of the Berlin wall with words etched on it yet preserved in the former President's memory, "to the ones who struck the first blow".

- He highlighted the incompetence of Nawaz Sharif, who he referred to as "closet Taliban", and suggested that the man was incapable of working with anybody. He also highlighted how Benazzir Bhutto had reneged on their agreement when she returned by entering the public lime light, and that she was unfortunately killed.

- He suggested that to-date, nothing has been done to make the Pakhtuns of Afghanistan feel accommodated. As they are the vast majority ethnic group of their country, they can't be alienated. But Musharraf strongly disagrees with those in the West who've called for dialogue with so-called "moderate Taliban". The former President suggests that there is no such thing as "moderate Taliban" but that there is a such thing as Talibanized Pakthun and non-Taliban Pakhtun, and that the non-Taliban Pakhtun should be reached out to.

- He suggests that there is no corruption in the (upper levels of) the military and that corruption is not actually the biggest problem facing Pakistan.

- Concerning the issue of bijlee (electricity), he argued that during his tenure, much was done to ensure the increase in Pakistan's energy output but that even than it wasn't matching the budding economy which he claims a result of his own policies. He mentioned the gas pipeline with Iran that seems to have never gone through. He suggests that the alternatives to Pakistan will naturally be coal, and nuclear as usual but that Pakistan should also look towards energy from the sun and wind, two things Pakistan has a lot of (chuckle).

- Some woman suggested that if we really want peace, that Pakistan should secularize more and just give up Kashmir to India. Musharraf retorted that India should just give back Kashmir to Pakistan if our problems were really that simple. Rather, it seems that Pakistan will always be a thorn in the side of India and that India's issue isn't merely over Kashmir, but over the existence of Pakistan as a whole.

- Highlighting his peace efforts and building of bridges with the Indians, Musharraf mentioned how he had first approached the Indian prime minister. He initially tried to go in from the rear but than he thought about it, "what if he turns the other way" and so on. So after much strategic deliberation, to be expected of an army man and a general at that, he came at the Indian prime minister from the front leaving him no chance to escape and this demonstrates where the initiative for the rebuilding of bridges between the two countries drew it's impetus from.

- He mentioned the military might of Pakistan, that the conventional military might is enough to keep the Indians at bay (considering how the Indians did eventually back down after the post 9/11 standoff and that it wasn't Pakistan who blinked) and the unconventional ability (being one of 7 nuclear nation-states).

- He would not go "into detail" about the NRO and it's contradiction to his own stated opinions, but it was the only thing about which he suggested that if he had another shot, he would "maybe" re-think it. He said though, addressing the concern about it, that in spite of the corruption of these people, the Pakistanis still see them as our leaders and that therefore there is no reason to be opposed to it. That the courts don't pursue their cases, drop their cases, and in one Swiss case, have been ongoing for over 10 years without any veritable progress (he joked that the Swiss court had outdone even the Pakistani courts).

- One of the questioners asked him about whether or not he intended to return to power. He suggested that at present he has no legitimacy in the eyes of the populace but that he wanted to leave things open, and that if he were to return, he would not want to do it barely winning but winning the absolute majority in a real democratic election (read: as soon as things start getting really sour, as they ought to under the present line-up of corrupt and tried candidates - *hint* those strengthed by the amnesty of NRO... */hint*, and we realize that he is really our only reputable viable option - he'll be back in action).

Unfortunately, and to the dismay of the people who protested or supported them, some of the most important questions were never actually raised or answered. As for the protesters outside, I would hazard to guess that they weren't less at their peak (when I was arriving) than the number of people inside - they just didn't pay the $50-$1000+ dollars it would've cost them to come enjoy the dinner and possibly have one of their questions/concerns answered. It seems to be a recurring theme that when controversial personalities come by, the people who oppose them never actually lend an ear, and the people who support them never actually open an eye to anything beyond flattery, and the figures themselves don't go out of their way to reach out to the opposing demographic. We all seem to go back with what we came, no new information and no real change of ideas.