The USA and the UK on Sudan

By Steve Paterno

November 10, 2010 — In his farewell address, the first US President George Washington laid out the foundation for US policy of isolationism. “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” President Washington warned the people of his newly formed country. At the time, it made sense for America to pursue policy of isolation. The USA has just barely been established with a unique constitution like no other before. Foreign nations, especially those with colonial ambitions were viewed with suspicions. The great oceans erected natural buzzer zones, separating between America and rendering the rest of the world remote. Therefore, America could do without others.

Nonetheless, before long, America found itself expanding its dominance over the Western Hemisphere. The US was gradually redefining its isolationism. A century later after its foundation, America was fully entangled in affairs of others, far away from the comfort of fortress America. As such, isolationism was eroded. Interventionism took deep root. America inherited the “frequent controversies” of world affairs, which President Washington warned that it must be avoided. To some, American interventionism becomes a force of good in the world; promoting peace, establishing democracies and providing humanitarian assistance to the world needy. While to others, American interventionism is a force of evil; motivated by self interest, which display arrogance, ignorance and lack of empathy toward others.

On the other hand, the UK has a different history to show off for. Its approach toward the world is based on imperialism. King Henry VII of England helped laying down the foundation of what would become the British Empire, which at one point at its peak, covered almost a quarter of planet earth, with one quarter of world population under its crown. This lend to the credence that “the sun never sets on British Empire.” The colonization served the Imperial British very well. Up-to-date, British influence over its subjects is profound.

In a race against time, the USA and UK are converging in Sudan in a last ditch effort to avert a potential catastrophic war between the South and North of Sudan. Sudan presents a set of difficult challenges to America. By getting involved in Sudan, America is venturing into unchartered territory. Up until recently, Sudan never featured in American radar, much less on its policy. However, a combination of events that show the emergence of international Islamic terrorism and increase of human rights abuses, dragged the US into getting involve in Sudan affairs. While in Sudan, the US is trying to balance its effort to maintain peace and stability on one hand and on the other, to safeguard its strategic interest, particularly gain cooperation on war on terrorism. Sometimes, the US is finding that it is playing a contradictory role or that its efforts are counterproductive. The American brokered peace deal on Sudan, the CPA is on verge of proving US legacy of success or failure. The Abyei Protocol, which is drafted by the Americans is already unraveling, largely because of disengagement.

The UK in its part is going back to Sudan in an attempt to resolve the problems it once contributed to create. The UK invaded Sudan, for among other reasons, to overthrow Islamic fundamental regime of Mahadi and also to establish unimpeded access over the Nile River. (Unfortunately, the remnants of Islamic fundamentalists of Mahadi’s era continue to ravage the country for the last half a century). When the British conquered Sudan, the country was already separated between the South and North. The British were quick to discover this. Ironically enough, the only thing the British found, which united Sudan was the Nile River that so happened to flow from South to North. As National Geographic correctly depicts it, the contrast between the South and North of Sudan is so stark that it can even be seen from the surface of the moon.

Given this stark contrast, during its colonial rule, the British pursued a more pragmatic policy of two Sudans; where Christianity and English was encouraged in the South and Islam and Arabic allowed to flourish in the North. The British policy in part stipulated that it must “keep the Southern Sudan as free as possible of Mohammedan influences.” The threats of “Mohammedan” against the South Sudanese then and now, can never be underestimated. Sadly though, the British decided to abandon its own policy and bailed out on South Sudanese by allowing an artificial unity between the South and North of Sudan—the result of which, decades of fierce wars, death, and misery.

Now that the UK wants to redeem itself by getting actively involve in Sudan, it must get back into the basic. This means: the British must recognize and support the rights of South Sudanese people for an independent country. The US is also still have an opportunity to prove that it is a force of good in the world by supporting South Sudan to achieve its full democratic rights of self determination. A successful independent South Sudan is an American legacy of success and a redemption to the British cruel imperial history.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]