Sudans' decision time; the faster, the better

If it is true that every disaster brings opportunities, then Sudan and South Sudan should go ahead and act.

Before splitting last July, the two had fought long and deadly wars; subjecting their people to immense suffering and misery, and denied generations the peace and happiness they deserved.

At some point, both firmly accepted that they would better co-exist as two independent states, through the amicable dissolution of the union of the old Sudan.

The split was yet to fully deliver that anticipated peace.

Unfinished issues of the 2005 peace deal that ended the war were pushing the rivals to the edge, including the oil transit fees, border demarcation, the status of disputed Abyei region and citizenship.

The relationship between the two countries has been unprecedentedly tense since the beginning of the year, characterised by aerial bombing, ground attacks at the borders, and excessive diplomatic quarrels.

Diplomats would say the war rhetoric had escalated, risking a potential return to conflict.

The UN Security Council asked Sudan and South Sudan to unconditionally resume the African Union-led negotiations on the outstanding issues with the aim of reaching an agreement within three months. The UN pressure coincided with hard economic and political times.

Last July, Sudan lost 75 per cent of oil revenues due to secession of South Sudan; it lost income from the transit of South Sudanese oil through her facilities to the export terminal along the Red Sea coast.

Basic commodities

As a result, the economy had shrunk considerably. The currency suffers hyperinflation, with $1 dollar selling at around 5.5 Sudanese pounds in the black market.

Sudan was also facing strong rebellions in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, coupled with another rebel front of Justice and Equality Movement in Darfur.

In South Sudan, the situation was no different. Her currency has been rapidly devalued, having lost 98 per cent of foreign exchange earning with the closure of oil production in January.

And the market prices of food and other basic commodities had shot up sharply. Although South Sudan doesn’t face any weighty rebellion, the cross-border militias, supported by Sudan, could not be ignored.

The inter-dependence between the two states was quite apparent.

In essence, if no agreement was quickly reached between the two, devaluation of their currencies would further lead to loss of monetary value in both states.

The little resources available could be committed to sustain the armies on the frontline.

Civilian discontent could thus grow, and might not favour the regimes

But if Sudan and South Sudan were to agree to end the wars, the above disadvantages could be reversed.

The AU-led negotiations currently going in Addis Ababa, were more of an asset than a liability to both countries.