Foreign Policy Blogs

Why can European integration offer the tools for success to Sudan?

Sudan has become synonym of the atrocities that took place in Darfur over the years. But on Sunday, January 9th, a new page could be written as the independence’s referendum will decide on the future status of Southern Sudan. It is difficult to believe that the current violent regime in Khartoum will comply in accordance with the referendum results. President Omar al-Bashir’s regime has over the years sought absolute power and repressed dissidents. However some have argued that President Omar al-Bashir will recognize the result.

Even though experts are raising the necessity of a fair and transparent referendum, followed by international monitoring of the division between north and south in case of independence, they are always coming back to one aspect: oil. As expressed in the Financial Times, Sudan is not prepared for separation at so many levels, administrative, political, economic and so on, but especially over oil. Southern Sudan is extremely rich in oil, which is transferred to refineries located in the north through a network of pipelines. “Government revenue from oil production in Sudan was $4.5bn between January and September 2010.”

Current debates on the consequence of Sunday’s referendum have focused on two points: oil and regional repercussions. Independence of Southern Sudan could be the starting point of movements of independence throughout Africa especially in Congo and Nigeria, which could be causing even more instabilities on the regional balance of power.

But one avenue has not been developed considering the construction of solid grounds for the future of the two ‘Sudans.’ For that, one needs to look back to post-World War II European history. In the aftermath of World War two, Europe was entirely destroyed and started a long process of material and psychological reconstruction. The rapid reconstruction of Europe needed to be done in order to limit the possibilities of another regional or international war, and control nationalist and communist sentiments. The idea of creating an alliance, a community bringing two European archrivals, enemies, France and Germany, together was the only solution. Former French foreign minister, Robert Schuman, declared on May 9, 1950 in what is known today as the Schuman Declaration, that the principle of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” The ECSC was then formally established by the Treaty of Paris in 1951 and signed by six nation-states: France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium.  The objective behind the ECSC was to pool two commodities, coal and steel, under the supervision of a supranational entity, the High Authority. The creation of a common market of two products, in the European case, would ultimately strengthen cooperation between countries leading to economic and political interdependence limiting the possibilities of war. The rest is history.

Going back to Sudan, oil could be the vector strengthening peace and cooperation between north and south in case of independence. A supranational institution should be established in order to monitor the production and supervise the distribution of revenue through the sale of the oil. Such institution should be independent, autonomous, and far from domestic pressures of either country. Of course, one can argue that the European case cannot be duplicated for several reasons: different history, different culture and religion, and different perceptions of world politics. However, one should remember that, at the beginning and even to some extent today, the European project was not welcomed in either in France or in Germany due to obvious animosity and vengeance caused by violent shared past.

Institutions and political will are not enough. Sudan needs to find his political figures that will undertake the necessary steps and lead the reconstruction of this ravaged part of the world. They need a vision not shaped by personal interests, political motivation, and greed, but by dedication to peace and philosophical openness the way Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, and Konrad Adenauer shaped Europe’s future.

 

Author

Maxime H.A. Larivé

Maxime Larivé holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and European Politics from the University of Miami (USA). He is currently working at the EU Center of Excellence at the University of Miami as a Research Associate. His research focus on the questions of the European Union, foreign policy analysis, security studies, and European security and defense policy. Maxime has published several articles in the Journal of European Security, Perceptions, and European Union Miami Analysis as well as World Politics Review.