ZENIT: Unity or secession, what do they mean for the people and for politicians? Could a referendum change the humanitarian and economic problems of the country?
Ashworth: The root causes of the conflicts in Sudan are generally agreed to be identity and the center-periphery dynamic.
Sudan is a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual and multi-religious society.
But in practice, one cultural and religious identity, Arab-Islam, has been imposed on everyone, attempting both to assimilate the rest and make them second class citizens.
This has been done by all northern governments, not only the current Islamist regime.
Governance in Sudan, including access to power and resources, is highly centralized at the center, with all peripheral areas being marginalized.
In addition, oil has become a major factor in the conflicts, although it was not one of the original root causes. These problems have never been solved in a united Sudan, so southerners believe that the only solution is secession.
In their own independent state they will not face "Islamization and Arabization," nor marginalization from the center of power, and they have most of the oil in their territory.
Southern Sudan is already functioning as a state, so for them secession will not be a major change on the ground. It is hoped that the progress will continue and that some of the weaknesses in the government will be challenged.
The churches are rolling out a program of dialogue to assist with this.
The North depends on oil from the South, but it is likely that an amicable solution will be negotiated to allow them to continue to receive oil revenue -- the South needs the pipeline in the North to export its oil, and doesn't want a bankrupt and unstable neighbor.
The war in Darfur is likely to continue -- it is not ripe for a solution yet.
Life will probably become more difficult for the Church in the North after secession of the South, as it will continue to live under an oppressive Islamist regime, but it has experienced this often before and no doubt it will survive.
At least some Christians recognize that they have the right to preserve their own cultural and religious identity from external forces using violence and coercion. They can be protected from the charge of having a double standard by arguing that Catholic Christian missionary activity is offered in peace, and not with the threat of force. Nor is it accomplished by one people taking the territory of the other or infiltrating their society. (Even if some rulers in the past may have imposed conversion with the threat of the sword. But this was not a part of the goal of the Crusades as declared by the popes, nor was it endorsed by them.) In most cases, missionaries were received as foreigners and guests -- they may have been turned away or even harmed or killed, but they were not there to bring salvation using "temporal" means.
No comments:
Post a Comment