As the first year of an independent South Sudan nears its end, the prospects for peace and diplomacy between the new country and its northern neighbour seem to be increasingly bleak. On July 9^th of last year [[1]], South Sudan seceded from the government in Khartoum and has since played part in an inaugural year riddled with political provocation and even military operations. Among these is South Sudan’s capture of Heglig oilfield in April, which accounts for 55% of Sudan’s daily oil production [[2]]. This occurred only two weeks after South Sudan’s new president, Salva Kiir, met with President Obama in the White House[[3]].

In 2005, a civil war that lasted 22 years ended with a peace agreement between the government and rebel groups including the SPLM (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement)[1]. Though the south seceded from the north last year, the distribution of oil fields was never completely agreed upon as most of them lie in disputed border areas. The recent hostilities between the two countries show that all will not remain as it is and, as will be discussed in this article, South Sudan’s push for more power is motivated by more than just internal forces.

According to mainstream reports, the split is due to religious tensions more than anything else. The African, Christian Sudanese were mistreated by the Arab Sudanese (who were the ones in power in Khartoum), who were reportedly denied the same rights and were forced to comply with sharia law [[4]]. Apart from this, Khartoum was also held responsible for the economic woes of the country. The US and Israeli driven demonization of Sudan have led Southern Sudanese people to believe that their standard of living will increase with the division [[5]].

However, this is not a priority issue in the US and Israel’s agenda, who, along with the UK, have been supporting southern rebel groups, namely the SSLA (South Sudan Liberation Army, military branch of the South Sudan Liberation Movement) since their inception in the 1980s. This support has not manifested itself merely in the political arena; Israel has also been sending weapons to these rebel groups as well as helping to train them alongside the US[5]. Originally, these weapons were sent through Ethiopia, but later had to be sent through Kenya when Eritrea proclaimed its independence in 1991[5]. Even today, South Sudan is increasingly embedded in INMET (International Military and Education Program), which is administered by Africom, the United States African command [1].

This externally driven schism is not due to the goodwill of some of the most important powers in the world. Emperors must be psychopathic in their quest for power and there is no room for empathy in the higher ranks of an empire. Indeed both the nationalist movements of South Sudan and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur are due to imperial competition by the US, Israel and the EU, who wish to undermine the economic interests of mainly China, Malaysia and India[1]. China has previously had a strong economic foothold in Sudan, having built oil rigs and refineries there and has benefitted from the pipeline that brings oil to the red sea through Sudan. Now, however, there is a plan to bring the US and British companies to the forefront of Sudan and South Sudan’s resource exploitation by building a new pipeline, which will run through the South to the Kenyan port of Lamu[1]. By doing this, Washington has achieved an important geostrategic victory, dislodging China from power in an important region and claiming the spoils for itself.

Yet another probable reason for the separation of Sudan, and one that is held as the prime reason by Canadian based scholar Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, is the advancement of the Yinon plan[5]. This plan is based on an article written by Oded Yinon and published by the World Zionist Organisation in 1982[[6]]. It advocates that, to survive, Israel must become a regional power by dividing and weakening the Arab states surrounding it. Though it may be difficult to swallow that there is a master plan at work in the Middle East focused on ensuring Israeli and US regional dominance, bear in mind that Iraq has been significantly weakened to the point of being less than a shadow of its former self by the US invasion, Afghanistan is now destitute, Libya is in political turmoil, current nationalist movements in Yemen seem sure to divide it and it seems increasingly obvious that Syria is the next candidate for foreign intervention. Add to this the fact that belligerent rhetoric towards Iran, the only real remaining threat to Israeli and US dominance in the Middle East, has recently been steadily and noticeably increasing, and you will find that either powerful countries are coincidentally and conveniently falling around Israel, or that there is a conscious effort to systematically take these countries down.

If there is still any doubt as to whether there is indeed an attempt at an Israeli/US condominium over the Middle East, consider retired US four star general Wesley Clark. He has been outspoken about conversations he has had with other US officers and policy makers and has talked about a “Seven Countries in Five Years” plan[3]. The countries in question are Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Libya and Iran and the plan would be to weaken them. This plan is unnervingly similar to the Yinon plan.

It is widely known that Israel and the US are close allies. Given what we know about the situation in the Middle East, it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is a grander scheme that encompasses both seemingly isolated nationalist movements and US interventions in the region. Sudan and South Sudan are simply one example of how events in the world are often due to more than internal issues. If one is to understand the situation in the most hostile region in the world today, it is necessary to view it from the perspective of an empire attempting to consolidate its control over a strategically essential region. Israel and the United States are jointly assuming this role in the Middle East.