By Mading Ngor Akec Kuai
Though I endorse the view of the SSDF that the Americans oughtn’t to be the ones shielding our oil (but from whom?), I question the allegiance of the warlords to south Sudan as is epitomized by the following issue to the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) on February 26 th: "The Southern Sudan Defence Force (SSDF) has warned the government of Southern Sudan of dire consequences, if it agrees to a plan by the USA to set up a military base in the region to protect the oil fields."
Are the "dire consequences" the South Sudan Defense Force raves about directed against America or on south Sudanese they claims to be defending, or do they see the calamitous upshot of such a move in the long run on a mountain?
Additionally, if it is true that the United States of America wants to extend its mightiest empire to the ravished part of the continent, there will be both gains and loses. Having an American military base in south Sudan will add more fluidity to the deadlocked implementation of what is clearly a Complicated Peer Argument (CPA). On one hand, the Khartoum campaigns vigorously in opposition to foreign forces for she fathoms that her powers would be reduced to negligible levels with their presence. On the other hand, the National Congress Party would see its shares of southern oil sink to abysmal dividends.
However, in contrast, the disadvantages of having the sole Super Power on our land are severe, probably at the long run. What are they? The Americans are driven by their own interests and we only benefit when they coincide with ours such as their pressure in the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. In other words, we eat crumbs as they dine chirpily in America. Matter of fact, why do they offer to protect our oilfields when humans in Darfur are howling for protection, a crisis they’ve termed as "genocide" which I personally think it is. Why didn’t the U.S.A protect south Sudanese when wars were commonplace?
Another aspect that is worthy of discussion is the position of that of the National Congress of Field Marshal Omar H. Bashir. I wonder how I can put my points across without appearing as a "crony" of Mr. Bashir, but frankly, I share the same opinion with Omar Bashir that foreign troops shouldn’t set foot on Sudan soil because it is a violation of national sovereignty, hence the idea of the African solution to our problems.
That Mr. Bashir makes life harder for the people of his country is the difference. The kind of brutality that has set Darfur ablaze is the kind of internal aggression that is intolerable and gives "others" incentives to medal in our affairs. A person from one of the marginalized areas for instance, would be seen as "defecting" in a mere mention of "I agree with Omar" because everyone is weary of the Arab hegemony over the non-Arabs, non-Muslim and (foreign (African) Muslim)) populations since our house is full of discrepancies and distrust. Therefore, if we cannot organize ourselves, don’t we automatically invite the "experts" to exploit on our weakness?
At the meantime, indicate to a south Sudanese that unity with the Arabs is beneficial and I doubt that you would come out healthy and sound. He’d eat you up in a manner of cat and a rat. It is rather perturbing that forgiveness is so meager, so meager that we’re sinking to the level of our oppressors, attributing to the Khartoum’s apartheid like policies that has made Sudaniness (cohesion, unity and solidarity between Sudanese) a paradise lost. If this was the real essence of the New Sudan Vision,