Sudan .. between the traps of the past and the stability postponed from stability
The independence of Sudan in 1956 was not only the end of a colonial stage, but was also the beginning of a difficult and complex national path in which political, economic and social challenges in a country which has enormous natural wealth and a strategic geographical situation, but it has not yet succeeded despite the passage of decades in the realization of sustainable stability and development.
Since independence, Sudan has witnessed a series of rapid transformations which included security disorders of political coups, economic crises and internal wars, which has hindered the process of building the state and the weakest institutions at several periods. Despite the various successive governments in visions and programs, the common denominator between them is the difficulty of achieving a qualitative change which guarantees long -term stability which reflects the aspirations of the Sudanese people.
In a deeper reading of this reality, the colonial heritage is highlighted as an analogy which cannot be ignored, because Sudan inherited, like other independent countries, an administrative and institutional intention drawn by the colonizer and had a long -term impact on the formation of the modern state, and the repercussion of this stage has always thrown a shadow on the entire political and social scene directly or indirectly.
When the United Kingdom withdrew from Sudan as a former colonial power, it ended its official military and administrative presence, but it left a network of sweet influences that continued through education, economic relations, cultural and diplomatic report, and despite the opportunities that these links maintain the necessary cooperation, the absence of a transparent dialogue on the past.
It is striking that Sudanese governments of a different nature have not seriously seen this dossier with London, not from the dispute site, but in matters of re -evaluation of the relationship in a way that serves the interests of Sudan in the present and the future. There was a rapprochement relating to certain periods, in particular at the time of former president Jaafar Nimeiri, but these attempts were not crystallized in a permanent strategic form.
Here, questions arise:
Can the United Kingdom, as an active party in Sudanese history, contribute to a positive role in supporting Sudan stability and helped it with overwhelming obstacles?
Does London have the “key to the solution” that Sudanese politicians insist to ignore? Does Sudanese stability in its real concept require a historical confrontation with the colonial force preceding the dismantling of exceptional crises?
Does Sudan have a sufficient political courage to open a new page based on a fair partnership, not from the point of view of dependence, but rather of mutual interest?
The treatment of the Sudanese complex crisis is no longer possible by partial approaches or temporary solutions. On the contrary, the current step requires a complete strategic dialogue with international parties with a historical influence, the highest of which is the United Kingdom, to discuss the means of constructive cooperation and overcome the deposits of the past in a framework that respects national sovereignty and improves development and peace opportunities. Experiences have proven to ignore the roots of the contract and the opening of new ways to stability and from Sudan today, and it goes through a precise step in its history which needs courageous approaches to balance between evoking the lessons of the past and anticipating future perspectives in order to reach the aspirations of its people in good governance, fair development and lasting peace.
