CORRECTION: Life for Church in north will probably become harder if Sudan separates – Catholic group

August 4, 2010 (KHARTOUM) – The northern Sudanese church will suffer if the south secedes from the north after a referendum next year according to a prominent South African catholic organization.

The referendum due for the coming January signifies the end of a 6 year peace agreement between the parties that control mainly Islamic north and south Sudan where many people are Christian.

John Ashworth, the acting director of the Denis Hurley Peace Institute told the Catholic news service Zenit that:

‘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.’

Ashworth who has lived in Sudan for over a decade working for the Catholic Church and aid agencies, said that all northern governments since independence from Britain had attempted impose an Arab-Islamic cultural and religious identity on the whole of Sudan making those who do not assimilate ‘second class citizens.’

‘On a day-to-day level many Christians, Muslims and followers of African traditional religions live side by side without problems,’ said Ashworth.

‘However, the government of Sudan is an Islamist regime and successive northern governments have had a policy of “Islamization” that has adversely affected non-Muslims.’

The main cause of conflict in Sudan – a centralized government marginalizing peripheral areas – has never been solved in a united Sudan, according to Ashworth. It is for this reason, he said, that ‘southerners believe that the only solution is secession.’

‘In their own independent state they [Southern Sudanese] will not face “Islamization and Arabization,” nor marginalization from the center of power, and they have most of the oil in their territory,’ the acting director said.

Of Sudan’s known oil reserves 85% lie in southern Sudan. Many southern Sudanese are Christian of various denominations, while others practice tradition African beliefs.

The semi-autonomous region has had its own government, controlled by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement since the former rebels signed a peace deal with the country’s ruling National Congress Party in 2005.

The two parties agreed to share power and Sudan’s oil wealth as well as giving the south the opportunity to vote on secession after a six year interim period.

At the time of the deal south Sudan was one of the worlds least developed regions having experienced conflict almost continuously since 1955.

Many groups in southern Sudan are still heavily armed. Last year alone ethnic clashes killed 2,500 people and forced 350,000 flee their homes. Yesterday a medical aid group MSF announced it had pulled out of some areas in southern Sudan saying it was too dangerous for them work.

In his interview Ashworth said the southern government needed to improve but seemed confident southern Sudan would be a viable state should it choose to separate from the north.

‘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,’ he said.

The Denis Hurley Peace Institute, helped the Sudan Catholic Bishops’ Conference produce their statement on the referendum last week.

The statement did not* openly advocate for unity or independence but underlined the importance of respecting life and human rights.

In July many Church leaders have came out strongly in favour of separation.
Bishop Paul Yugusuk, of the Episcopal Church of Sudan told the BBC earlier this month that church leaders are not willing to willing to leave the decision to his congregation.

“We should not leave them to decide for themselves [… ] If they decide for unity… it will be disastrous,” he said.

Under the deal – known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) – the SPLM are not allowed to campaign openly for succession.

Ashworth describes the CPA* as not being comprehensive:

‘It is not comprehensive, as it only deals with one of the conflicts in Sudan — it doesn’t touch Darfur — and it is only between two warring parties, excluding all other political parties and military factions, north and south, as well as civil society.

It is not peace — it is actually a ceasefire with a roadmap towards peace. Of course moving the conflict from the military to the political arena was a great step forward, but the conflict continues.

It is not an agreement — it was signed in 2005 by Khartoum under intense diplomatic pressure.

Southerners view the Comprehensive Peace Agreement almost solely in terms of preparation for the referendum in 2011.’

Southern Sudan is widely expected to vote for full independence in the referendum scheduled for January 9, 2011.

(ST)

* In the original article not was omitted.

** The original article described Ashworth as being highly critical of the CPA. John Ashworth contacted Sudan Tribune to say:

This Sudan Tribune article is an example of poorly recycled journalism. It refers to the Sudan Catholic Bishops’ Conference statement issued a couple of weeks ago, an interview I gave to Zenit some time later, and an older statement by other religious leaders. The quotes which Sudan Tribune attributes to me are correct, but they were short answers to specific questions in a limited interview, and Sudan Tribune has mischaracterised my position by stating, “Ashworth is highly critical of the CPA”. At no time did Sudan Tribune contact me to check this. In fact I am not “highly critical” of the CPA. I believe it was a great achievement which moved the peace process forward – indeed Sudan Tribune contradicts itself by quoting me as calling it “a great step forward”. However I also believe it is important to understand what the CPA is and what it isn’t, and it is not the first time that I have analysed the CPA in this controversial manner.