Sudan equals Karabakh?

January 9 was an historical one for Sudan, as a referendum on separation of its southern territories and formation of a new independent state there began. Experts estimate that the population of Southern Sudan will vote in favor of the project. Ever since Sudan gained its independence in 1956 the Muslims of the North and Christians of the South were in a state of permanent conflict tough a peace agreement was signed in 2005.

Sudan's rich historical and cultural heritage dating back to the epoch of Egyptian pharaohs is virtually unknown to the world. However today, after almost half a century of civil war international community
assumed the role of an arbiter. Russia and China are not ready to recognize Sudan President, Omar al-Bashir, as a criminal guilty of genocide while US, GB and France agree with the position of South Sudan people - and this opinion is likely to become the dominant one.

As the world turned its attention to Sudan once again, Yerevan and Baku officials start talking about yet another precedent for Nagorno-Karabakh situation (after Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia).
So the whole South Caucasus is following the Sudanese situation with attention and anticipates the reaction of international community. Will the probable independence of Southern Sudan strengthen the right of all nations for self-determination or will double standards be applied again?

Azerbaijani and Armenian experts do not make hasty conclusions on the matter. To measure the possible degree of Sudanese situation's influence on Karabakh problem one should look back on the history of Karabakh conflict in the light of its perception by world's major powers.
 
First of all, we should go back to 1988 when Stepanakert decided to leave Azerbaijani Soviet Republic and to join the Armenian Soviet Republic, all in the framework of the USSR. The Union failed to resolve the issue while Western powers did not meddle in its affairs in that epoch. So after the disintegration of the Soviet Union the two new sovereign democracies had to deal with this unhealthy heritage. Russia, as well as the western powers, tried to stop the hostilities, but they could not work out any common grounds (western position was not unified as well).

Sudanese situation is utterly different: USSR as well as western powers had a great deal of influence over Sudan's internal matters since 1956, and that is one of the reasons for prolonged conflict between the country's South and North. After the collapse of the USSR the influence turned into unilateral, however a bit later China entered the scene and managed to establish equally good relations with both conflict parties by investments to their infrastructure (15 billion dollars in 15 years).

Secondly the interest of world powers in Sudan is easy to explain: experts estimate some 7 billion barrels of oil are still left in Sudanese soil. The USA has declared that by 2015 it will obtain a quarter of all the oil it needs in Africa, so it is very keen on supporting African democracy, although it is obvious that US allies will try to benefit from Southern Sudan as well.

A similar scenario was played in Azerbaijan when after the 'contract of the century' signed on the 20th of September, 1994 all key positions were occupied by British and American companies. However, the status-quo was not disturbed and no progress in the Azerbaijani-Armenian dialog was made.

Third of all, in Sudan Russian influence is almost insignificant as compared to the Western.  Therefore, Washington could create a second Kosovo on the Southern Sudanese soil, and neither Russia, nor China, nor India can stop US and its allies from doing it.

The USSR exercised a monopoly over both Azerbaijani and Armenian territories when the conflict started, but after 1991 Russian influence on the situation began to fade and now is almost equal to
the growing influence of the USA. Therefore, no one could exercise exclusive influence in the matter, and only after all states-participants of the OSCE Minsk Group work out a common position progress in Nagorno-Karabakh settlement can be obtained.

As for the Sudan situation, the conflict is due to be stopped, but whether it is moral to put one's economic interests ahead of common international principles and thus create grounds for future conflicts and atrocities or not - is still an open-ended question.

Tigran Manasyan