| Quote: | |  | |
| Isn't Sudan having a vote this week on splitting into a Christian and a separate Muslim country? Is it "only" about religion and oil? And whom is pushing for the separation?
. | |
| | |
Sure, and it is expected that most South Sudanese will approve the secession.
> Oil is part of the matter in so far as the Southerners rightly complain that Khartoum profited too much of the oil, which is to more than 70% in the South. At the other hand, the South has to export its oil via the North (Port Sudan) and so will have to pay for the services rendered.
> Religion ? You have to see "religion" as part of a kind of package. It is culture and religion. The Northerners even if "racially" mostly blacks understand themselves as Arabs, and are mostly Muslim. The Southerners not only are Christians but regard themselves as "Africans" much closer to Kenya and Ethiopia than to the Arab World.
> Background ? When the Brits in close co-operation with the Kingdom of Egypt, set out to bring what then became the "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" under control found it quite practical to have the Southern Sudan being part of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. The deal was simple: The governor and his ministers and some other top-officials in Khartoum were Brits, the men in political command in lower positions were Egyptians and the servants were Sudanese.

> Future : While South Sudan will increasingly look to Entebbe/Kampala, Nairobi and possibly Addis Ababa, North Sudan will increasingly look to Cairo, Beirut and Damascus.
> Speculations : the break-up of the old Anglo-Egyptian Sudan may have its effect on neighbouring Chad with its Arab minority in the north. One potential development may see an Arab split-away republic in Northern Chad, the other one Northern Chad joining Libya.