Financial Times Editorial Comment: Sudan’s election

Financial Times Editorial Comment: Sudan’s election
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010
Published: April 20 2010 22:28 | Last updated: April 20 2010 22:28
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/04e4ec2e-4cab-11df-9977-00144feab49a.html


Given what is known about the character of Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, it should not come as a surprise that the country’s elections have been sullied by allegations of ballot-rigging. Mr Bashir’s ruling philosophy is to cling to power at all costs. His victory was assured after his two main rivals pulled out of the race, alleging that it was skewed.

But the result leaves the international community in an awkward place. The election was one of the key elements of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended Sudan’s decades-long civil war. Its purpose was to bring about a democratic transformation after years of dictatorship and to pave the way to a referendum on independence for southern Sudan. A refusal to recognise the result might derail the referendum. Under the terms of the treaty, this must be held next year.

Holes can be picked in the election, and foreign observers have been quick to do so. But former US president Jimmy Carter has nonetheless said that he expects the world to accept the results. It is to be hoped that he is right.

There is little good to be said about Mr Bashir’s regime. But the international community must not lose sight of the bigger goal, which is the referendum. This must go ahead if Sudan is not to descend again into conflict. Past experience suggests that this would spill over the country’s borders and could spark a regional war. It could also reignite radical Islamism in Sudan.

A vote for secession, always likely, is now all but certain. The west should focus its energies on getting Mr Bashir’s government to manage the transition rather than resist it. It would be good if China added its voice too. High up the list must be a deal on splitting the oil revenues between north and south.

There is always a risk that Mr Bashir may simply bank western acceptance of the election and then thwart a plebiscite. But it is a manageable risk. Such a course would entail Mr Bashir going back to war, obliging him to spend much of Sudan’s new oil wealth on weapons. This is unlikely to appeal to him. Sudan also remains under US financial sanctions that hurt investment and subject it to embarrassing restrictions – it is impossible to use a credit card in Khartoum. Mr Bashir has an interest in lifting these.

For all its flaws, the CPA remains Sudan’s best hope. If the country’s leaders fail to stick to its terms, the consequences will be stark. A malodorous election cannot be allowed to derail it.