March 14, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)

Elena Galkina

SUDAN ON THE "GREAT CHESSBOARD"

China is overcoming the United States in the battle for Black Africa's resources

"Its people is a toy, its soil is gold.
It belongs to those countries which are worth conquering."
Amir bin al-As – to Caliph Omar, 639 A.D.

 

AFRO-PESSIMISM AND STRUGGLE FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE

The sub-Saharan Africa is a region of which an ordinary European's knowledge is scarce, usually restricted to exotic flora and fauna. Political news from this area rarely hit the pages of global media, featuring either a new humanitarian disaster like an outbreak of famine, disease, tribal carnage, or a new intervention of the noble West for rescue of local starving kids, or seizure of a new portion of illegal migrants at the EU borders. And almost nothing about policy an economy, beside a ritual write-off of debts, which comprise over 65 percent of Black Africa's aggregate GDP. Political science has invented a special term "Afro-pessimism" implying that on this territory, plunged into miserable breakdown and incurable maladies, nothing in particular could happen.

In reality, however, Black Africa is one of the battlegrounds of the contest for global dominance, which goes on for five hundred years, since the epoch of great geographic discoveries and first colonies. Originally, the attractiveness of the territory was measured with the quantity of exported slaves, later with the amount of colonial goods and the advantage of sales on unequal terms, by the so-called non-equivalent exchange. In the second half of the XX century, these sources of profiteering were replaced with the potential of extracted raw materials, primarily hydrocarbons. Naturally, the desperate level of economic development of African counties makes them rather objects than subjects of global policy. Thus, the situation on the continent becomes a marker of the global power shift.

Not all of African countries are equally attractive for those global powers, which can allow themselves a neocolonial policy. Priority trends may be distinguished indirectly, from the attention paid to certain African counties by international institutions, primarily by the United Nations.

 

DARFUR: A WAR OF EACH AGAINST EACH

Today, the highly respectable institution of the United Nations is preoccupied in Africa with a task a special importance – namely, reconciliation in Darfur, a province of Sudan, where an ethnic crisis broke out in 2003. The pretext for the insurgency was an agreement on division of oil incomes between Sudan's regions. Some of Negroid tribes of Darfur (where oil hasn't yet been extracted) declared that the incomes are shared unfairly. Later, old intertribal contradictions, including division of water resources and territory, came to surface. Ethnic cleansing broke out, which all the sides were eagerly engaged with. Naturally, it is very hard to cease such bloodshed in a community dominated with family and tribal thinking.

According to UN estimates, the conflict between the rebels and the pro-government forces cost over 200,000 casualties and around 2.5 million refugees. The activities of Janjavid, the unofficial pro-government paramilitary force, are characterized in mass media and NJO reports as genocide.

An active role in Sudan is played by the United States, which is permanently involved in shuttle diplomacy. In spring 2006, Foreign Policy a respectable US magazine, which traditionally reflects the White House's overseas priorities, jointly with "Fund for Peace" composed a remarkable rating of "failed states", in which Sudan was granted the "honorary" first place.

In the spring of the same year the UN raised the issue of dispatching "blue helmets" to Darfur. In May, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1706, suggesting (in coordination with Khartoum) deployment of a contingent of over 22,000 peacekeepers. The most curious development starts since that moment.

Khartoum, despite its efforts, appears really unable to cope with the conflict independently. The country is emburdened with lots of problems beside Darfur. Massive riots break out in various places. Still, Sudan's government was opposing intervention of "blue helmets" to Darfur. The UN and Khartoum were engaged with an intensive bargain over the structure of the peacekeeping group, which started from the public statement of President Omar al Bashir that the UN forces would be crushed in case they try to invade the rebellious province. Only in December 2006, after numerous rounds of talks, al Bashir principally agreed for the presence of the contingent. Still, the issue of the peacekeeping force's structure is not yet resolved; an agreement is reached that the operation will be fulfilled jointly by the UN and the African Union, the UN forces playing an auxiliary role. Apparently, President al Bashir succeeds in achieving an indirect control over the peacekeepers through the African Union's mechanism.

 

WHAT ATTRACTS THE UNITED STATES IN SUDAN?

The United States follows a different approach in this issue, insisting – on the contrary – on a UN-, not African Union-led mission. At present, the US diplomacy seeks assistance from Libya (!) for support of this option.

Apparently, the situation around Darfur has got some untypical features. The leadership of a half-pauperous African country is faced with enormous domestic and foreign policy problems, and a fair perspective of being subject at least to the Hague Tribunal in the nearest future, over genocide and ethnic cleansing. The existence of oil deposits on Sudan's territory makes this perspective even more probable. The United States, deeply involved in the problem of Darfur has repeatedly conveyed its viewpoint both to the UN and Khartoum. However, Omar al Bashir, the west-denounced "bloody dictator", seems to be succeeding in the bargain. Neither Milosevic nor Hussein could reach similar results.

Meanwhile, the United States more and more often has to deny that the purpose of its ostensibly humanitarian activities in Darfur is secession of this troublesome province from Sudan. These refutations are addressed not only to the world community but also to Sudan's leadership – which not only expresses open mistrust on this issue but also allows itself unusually bold gestures. For instance, Jendayi E. Frazer, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, spend several days in August 2006 waiting for al Bashir’s reception, but wasn’t allowed in "because of the president's heavy schedule".

What is this self-assurance vis-à-vis the "Imperium" based upon? What is the reason for the recent increase of international attention to Sudan? (The Darfur problem itself should be considered an element of this attention and not the reason – as the rebels are financed not by Sudan's government.)

Due to its geographical position Sudan is strategically important both for the African continent and the Middle East. Firstly, Sudan is historically located on the verge of the Arabic world and Black Africa, while geographically and anthropologically it almost entirely belongs to the "black" part of the continent. From the political and religious aspect, Sudan is a part of Al Masriq, the Asiatic part of the Arabic geopolitical community. Not accidentally, in 1956, immediately after Sudan declared independence, the United States and Great Britain made everything possible to prevent Soviet – Sudanese diplomatic rapprochement and Soviet economical assistance to Khartoum, correctly interpreting it as USSR's attempts to penetrate into the Middle East through Sudan.

Secondly, Sudan's territory is crossed by Nile, the largest African river. The waters of the White and Blue Nile meet exactly near Khartoum, and the great river flows down to Egypt across the Nubian desert. This factor, as explained below, is especially important.

The third factor is oil, discovered in Sudan in 1978. The demonstrated oil reserves are not great: with 1.6 billion barrels, the country is the 37^th richest oil power. A number of North African, as well as sub-Saharan states, are higher in this list. Those are Libya (No.10, 42 billion barrels), Nigeria (No.11, 36.25 billion barrels), Angola (No.13, 25 billion), Algeria (No.19, 11 billion), Egypt (No.30, 2.5 billion), Chad (No.34, 2 billion), Gabon (No.35, 1.827 billion), and Tunisia (No.36, 1.7 billion). Sudan has got also some explored but not developed reserves of natural gas – 84.5 billion cub.m (No.60). While hydrocarbons as an energy source don't have any real alternative, so large reserves can't be neglected.

These factories in a whole make Sudan on of the most attractive countries of Black Africa, along with Nigeria. However, huge investments and efforts are needed to elevate these parameters from arrears into assets. The major obstacles are ethnopolitical and socio-economical. In order to use Sudan efficiently today, these problems, if they can't be solved, should be taken under control.

 

THE ARTIFICIAL BORDERS AND THE COLONIAL HERITAGE

The borders of Sudan, like those of other post-colonial countries were determined not with the historical logic of internal development but ultimately, by the world powers, sharing the territory accordingly to their interests. For that reason, since the emergence of an independent Sudan, the existence of this country was complexified with territorial disputes with neighbor countries, as well as with internal ethnic and religious contradictions.

Over 70% of Sudan's population is comprised of representatives of Arabic-language culture (Sunni Moslems), inhabiting the country's north. Though most of them belong to the Negroid race, they identify themselves as Arabs, while genuine Arabs recognize them as their ilk, and include Sudan into the realm of "al Watan al Arabi". Genetically, the Northern Sudanese are a mixture of Nubians, ancient Egyptians, and those Arabs who invaded this territory in the middle of the VII century A.D. In the Middle Age, Arab language-dominated areas spawned statehoods, strongly interwoven with the Moslem world (primarily with Egypt and Hejaz), and involved in slave trade. Slaves were retrieved from southern lands populated by variegated tribes, worshiping local cults. Exactly these tribes dominate in the troublesome South of today's Sudan. The last war between Sudan's North and South abated only by 2005, but the conflict is still smoldering. In 2011, a referendum on independence is going to be held in the South.

The self-identified could hardly be described as a single nation. They are divided into numerals tribes, clans, ethnic groups, and this tribal affinity prevails in the population. For most of them, the definition the Sudanese nation is a mere abstraction. Groups of Moslem fighters, opposed to the government and to their fellow believers, operate in the northeast of the country. Most of Darfur's inhabitants are Moslems and Arab-speakers, but the conflict can be easily sustained in open form.

The deliberately established state border cut tribal lands alive. Many ethnic groups populate both Sudan and adjacent countries: Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic, Chad, and Ethiopia. This circumstance arouses mutual territorial claims and a protracted condition between war and peace.

Sudan's economic development was greatly influenced by its dependence from United Kingdom. Sins 1899, Sudan had been officially denominated as a condominium of the British Empire and Egypt, thought actually, London frequently estranged the Cairo from supervision. This pact was revoked only in 1953, and three years later, Sudan officially acquired independence. Still, the fruitage of British domination is observable even today.

An agrarian country, 80% of its population is engaged in agroindustry with the typical specialization unchanged since colonial times. Sudan produces cotton, sesame, Arabic-gum, sugar, peanut, and cattle for exports. At the same time, Sudan depends on foodstuff imports. This classical neocolonial pattern dates back to the early capitalist division of labor between colonies and metropolitan countries.

In the 1930s, Sudan became a single-purpose cotton producer (in the early century, Egypt and Uganda were also used as cotton suppliers, and Ceylon as a tea plantation). In such cases, other traditional cultures were eradicated, and these countries were deprived of their domestic foodstuff base, which is very hard to revive for many nations, including Sudan. By today, the share of cotton in Sudan's agroindustry as slightly reduced, for expense of other export commodities, like peanut and Arabic-gum in which Sudan is a leading world producer.

Lately, foodstuffs have been decreasing in the structure of Sudan's imports; still, the country is far from being food-independent.

 

SUDAN AS THE KEY FOR EGYPT

After Sudan joined the club of oil exporters (1999), the national economy demonstrated a rather promising rate of growth. During 2006, the GDP increased by 9.6%. This surplus originates exceptionally from growth of oil extraction. In 2007, Sudan is going to reach an average amount of 520,000 barrels a day (as compared with 365,000 in 2006). Still, hard currency profits from oil trade have not yet benefited Sudan's real economy. Due to earlier long-time backwardness, today's inflow of oil cash only increases social stratification and tensions. A high inflation rate and budget deficit still persists; the foreign debt is increasing; the railroad network, built yet by the colonial power, is in decay.

Meanwhile, political problems, which would bring leading circles to a catastrophe, don't seriously affect the stability in elite in this sub-Saharan country. The population has got accustomed to regular outbreaks of famine, terrible food ration, being unaware of high quality goods, the demand for which therefore does not exist. Still, monetary inflow is inevitably fallowed whit a combustion hike. Wants bring new wants. Thus, religious contradictions in Sudan may be once replaced by social contradictions, which are more complicated to play upon.

However, the particular world power, which would establish control over Sudan and therefore take charge for its conglomerate of problems, is likely to achieve a precious bonus. In the geopolitical perspective, Sudan's relationship with Egypt is acquiring priority importance. Essentially, these two countries had been most closely associated for millenniums (since the Early Dynastic Period), representing an integral sub-region.

The currently modest trade turnover (Egypt's share in Sudan's import not exceeding 5.5%; Egypt's exports tending to zero) is the aftermath of the political complications of 1990s. The relations of the two countries deteriorated due to the Civil war in Sudan, resulting in the ascent of Omar al Bashir. The support for Saddam Hussein, expressed by him during the "Desert Storm" operation turned international isolation of Sudan, which found itself in the list of "terrorism sponsoring states". Between 1995 and 2000, the Egyptian-Sudanese diplomatic relations were suspended, which was detrimental for both nations. Though the situation has since improved, it is very hard to regain the old level of economic ties.

Egypt is vitally interested in friendly relations with Sudan due to the water problem. With a drier climate and at the same time, a higher level of economic development, Egypt requires increasing amount of fresh water from the Nile – which also crosses Sudan and Ethiopia. Until today, fresh water distribution among East African countries is regulated with the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian treaty, forbidding other African states to reduce Egypt's share of water consumption (by means of dams and relevant projects); the Egyptian-Sudanese agreement on water sharing, signed in 1959, allots an amount of 55.5 billion cub.m to Egypt and 18.5 billion cub.m to Sudan.

These restrictions impede the economic development of Sudan and Ethiopia. In case all the ten countries of the Nile basin reach a new agreement, Egypt's share will be definitely reduced.

Realizing the significance of this problem, Gamal Abd al Nasser once proposed to build up a signal Egyptian-Sudanese "powerful state, able to acquire real leadership not only on the continent but also in the hole Mediterranean and in the East".

 

CHINA'S EXPANSION

Analyzing Sudan's trade dynamics, we can't help noticing an abrupt change in the structure of its foreign trade connections for a few years.

In 1998, almost 50% of Sudan production was exported to Saudi Arabia, Italy, Britain, and Germany. The range of major importers included: US-loyal Arab countries (28%), EU countries (23,5%), next came China (13,8%) and Japan (4,5%). Therefore, the United States did not expect Sudan to fall into any hostile sphere of influence, even after Khartoum underwent economic sanctions as a "pro-terrorist state".

However, all but a decade later the situation is quite different. Today, Sudan's leading importer is China, surpassing Saudi Arabia; the same China absorbs 71% of Sudanese exports.

In general, China's trade turnover with African countries increased by 39% for 10 months of 2006, comprising almost $20 billion. Beijing's major economic interests in Africa are focused on the Angolan and Sudanese oil reserves.

China is the strategic investor of oil extraction in Sudan's South. While in 2000 China's and India's investments were equal in rivalry for Sudanese oil, today, Beijing is to be recognized the winner, though Khartoum still greets Indian and Malaysian investments.

No wonder that China does not denounce the Sudanese government for bloodshed in Darfur. Moreover, CPR Chairman Hu Jingtao, on his official visit to Sudan on February 2-3, 2007, endorsed the plan of Darfur reconciliation, most favorable for Khartoum, and earmarked a formidable non-interest loan for Sudan.

In this year, Omar al Bashir's Sudan acquired one more strategic partner. On February 28 – March 1 2007, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid a visit to Khartoum. At the concluding press conference, Omar al Bashir approved Iran's nuclear program, while Iran's leader accused the West of destabilizing the situation in Sudan.

Iran and Sudan agreed to elevate their trade turnover from $43 million to $70 million.

 

WILL CAIRO ALSO BEFRIEND BEIJING?

Today's Egyptian leadership is considered pro-American. The United States is Cairo's strategic, military and commercial partner since the second half of the 1970s. In the region, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US financial assistance after Israel. Most of these "gratuitous donations" are used for technical supply (with US equipment) and combativity maintenance of the Egyptian army.In foreign policy, Egypt, along with Jordan and (to a smaller extent) Saudi Arabia, is regarded as an executor of American strategy in the Near and Middle East – still regarded, as the key for Egypt is already in different hands. The unnoticed shift happened while the United States was preoccupied with the former USSR, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Today, Egypt is spectacularly constrained with the role of US marionette. This is expressed, in particular, in Cairo's relations with Khartoum. During the last years, Egypt's self-perpetuating President Hosni Mubarak has been supporting Sudan's government, speaking in favor of political conditions under which the secession of Sudan's south would be practically impossible. (In 1999, the United States launched a huge effort to thwart a reconciliation plan, endorsed by Egypt and Libya). Egypt was an active mediator in the talks between Khartoum and Juba, and took part in the UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan. Today, Egypt and Sudan officially recognize each other as strategic partners. Cairo is interested not in warfare but in peaceful integration – cultural, economic, and eventually political, as only in this way the water problem can be solved on favorable conditions.

At the same time, Egypt's leadership is seeking closer relationship with China – which means that Beijing is perceived by Cairo as a real center of gravitation, and a comprehensive alternative to the United States. The times when the well-equipped Egyptian army could invade Sudan on any order from Washington are over. For the same reason, US diplomats may be just left outside al Bashir's palace. For the same reason, the UN is so strikingly indifferent to the carnage in Darfur.

An almost unnoticed but historical shift is taking place in North-Eastern Africa. The United States is not just experiencing a failure: a rising rival, which has accurately grasped the rules of the game, is defeating it on the global chessboard.

Number of shows: 1278

(no votes)