Despite long committed activism by notables, George Clooney, Mia Farrow, Don Cheadie, and many others, is Bashir hoping and opting for strategy to get globe to forget or at least demote priority of Darfur human rights presumably in favor of focus on South Sudan independence? Is President Bashir of Sudan hoping that his indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) will fade away? What about the oil, resources and status of the “middle provinces”? President Bashir’s (Sudan) strategy in traveling to South Sudan immediately before that region’s UN supervised referendum on independence raises more questions than any assurances that may have been provided. It certainly would not be unreasonable to read multiple motives into Bashir’s apparent gesture of support for South Sudan’s right to make its choice/self-determination. (Although in subsequent statements Bashir’s more cavalier attitude on South Sudan independence seemed to take on a cautious, condescending paternalism.) Sudan’s problems did start, and long time ago, with the South. It is almost deviating from the critical issues at hand to speak of why. Khartoum has for too long impressed upon the other provinces an aura of supremacy, (whether in communications [attitude], politics or military.) However, because South Sudan is different from the North in religion as well as culture and languages, Khartoum may view that the western democracies, or as they see it “Christian” world, is much more concerned about the South rather than Darfur, (which is overwhelmingly Muslim like the capital Khartoum.) Also, most of Bashir’s “problems” with the ICC stem from his government’s alleged actions in Darfur. As the globe has ever more drifted into religious rationalizations for political/military/terror behavior and religion has again reemerged as basis for delineating boundaries and government policies, Bashir can be “forgiven” for lapsing into indulgence that world will give him a pass for what he does in Darfur, as long as he lets the Christian/Animist majority areas go. So, while much of the UN community expresses “cautious optimism” regarding the South Sudan secession referendum, I have several reservations, or if you will, reasons to be cautious overall: * Defining national boundaries on basis of religion and/or ethnicity is bad policy in general and dangerous precedent to promote as progressive.” This was a basis for defining empires and nation states that helped give rise to everything from religious wars and persecution to fascism and genocides. (Last great partition into Pakistan and India, while started as politically agreed and non-military, ended up in millions of innocents killed as each sought to get on the right side of the boundary designated for them.) * More to point, will precedent in Sudan be employed to further ethnic/religious divisions in Africa (from Ethiopia to Nigeria)? How will this reflect in current hot spots flamed by religious intolerance –Copts bombed, to Ivory Coast Muslims labeled as “foreigners,” disenfranchised and potentially targeted for ethnic cleansing. * Beyond Africa, will ethnicity/religion become more legitimizing consideration in defining borders and openness - South East Asia, (Myanmar to Philippines), Caucuses, SE Europe, (Cyprus to Bosnia), Western Europe (Spain to Great Britain & Ireland), United States and North America --well, hopefully you get the point. * When I was representing Bosnia & Herzegovina during and after its war for survival (BiH had status as both federation unit and recognized independent state by time conflict erupted fully,) – I believed that I was serving on behalf of state battling to survive, to stop genocide against one or more of its peoples and to help its age old multi-ethnic society survive. As in BiH, ethnicity/religion are not necessarily the problem – they can be positive catalysts – but undoubtedly religion and pseudo-theology can be readily catalyzed for nationalism and metastasize through societies seemingly pluralistic and otherwise healthy for generations. * Pluralistic societies, by their sheer diversity and openness, are frequently suited to advance our common human family from arts to technology. Monolithic societies can also advance while promoting respect for openness and differences but they may also be more rapidly mobilized for some much narrower nationalist agenda, abusive or legitimate. As to the future of Sudan, as one or two or even more states, I have even more cautious reservations: --- Will the lack of resolution before the referendum on critical issues as oil, natural resources and “middle provinces” serve as pretext for further conflict, with the unique peoples/cultures/tribes of that region potentially suffering the worst consequences. On this point, I do not give any part the benefit of doubt. ---Darfur is likely to be worse as a consequence rather than better. Bashir has made clear distinction between his loosening of grip on South and tightening on Darfur. ---Pretext of Sharia can be employed for reasons of pure ethnic/racial suppression and political domination over more reformist elements in Khartoum. The referendum in the South Sudan is noteworthy for itself and the people of the region. However, it is only the beginning on a range of considerations with implications for rest of Sudan, region, Africa, globe, and the adaptation of models that we as civilization will employ, from diversity in arts/culture to advancement in technology and industry. Coincidence or Karma, Bosnia & Herzegovina presides over the month of January 2011 as the globe’s highest executive body oversees these highly dynamic transitions and transformations. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey See more film clips on rapidly evolving events in Sudan and related developments at UN including: “Bosnia (BiH) President of UN Security Council (Sudan)” diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/bosnia-president-of-un-security-council/23944 "Bashir in South Sudan/'Darfur Forgotten'?" diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/bashir-in-south-sudandarfur-forgotten/23951 More at: www.unitednationswebtv.com www.unsecuritycounciltv.com