Atle Hetland We are doing it again in the Sudan, the same thing that we did in Northern Ireland and in other countries. We are focusing on the religious differences between two competing groups, the mostly Muslim-Arab North Sudan and the mostly indigenous Sub-Saharan-Africa South Sudan. With the north traditionally having been more powerful economically and culturally - and the more arrogant, or, as we often say, the more developed. It is therefore wrong to underline one aspect, notably the religious differences between the north and south. It is misinformation and it does no good. In Northern Ireland, we called it a religious conflict, but we forgot that the people on both sides of the conflict belonged to the same religion, just two different denominations, the Anglican and the Catholic Church. It was misinformation and it did no good. The Anglican Church came about since the British King Henry VIII declared independence from the Catholic Church and the Pope due to the Kings serial marriages several hundred years ago. He made himself the Head of the Church, and he was already Head of State. Even today, there is little theological ground for any schism between the two denominations. The Head of State in the United Kingdom, today Queen Elisabeth II, is also Head of the Anglican Church. Incidentally, the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, has said that he would rather like to be 'Head of Faith, not of 'The Faith. In other words, he would like to represent all religions in the country, a very wise idea indeed in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country, with Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and so on, in the 'motherland of the former empire, and homeland to millions of immigrants from all over the world. But if there is so little difference between the Anglican and the Catholic Church, why was there recently a 30-year long religious conflict and terrorism in Northern Ireland - until the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 2005, brokered by the former President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair, with USAs George Mitchell, Norways Hallvor Aschjem, Hilde Frafjord Johnson and many others from the Inter-governmental Authority on Development Group and elsewhere? Politicians and officials brokered the agreement, but the agreement could only be achieved because the parties on both sides eventually wanted peace. And peace slowly grows roots, between and within the regions and beyond. We misread the conflict in the Sudan, on purpose, I suspect. And the more often we keep repeating that it is a religious conflict, the more true it becomes in peoples minds. As in Northern Ireland, it is an economic and class conflict, it is a cultural, ethnic and historical conflict, not a religious conflict, albeit religion is one ingredient. But it was never the real cause. It is too simplistic to claim it is mainly a religious conflict. It is done to divert attention from reality - in the past, present and future. The leader of the International Network for Humiliation Studies and Human Dignity, Professor Gerda Evelin Lindener, has documented in connection with conflicts, including the Second World War in Europe and Rwanda, that we must also consider psychological aspects when considering long-lasting conflicts and ways to solve them. Arrogance from rulers, heavy-handedness in decision-making, unjust trade and economic links, etc., are remembered very long. Cultural and religious arrogance is always remembered and both parties must discuss issues in openness. In the Sudan, for example, it is a sad fact that Muslims or Christians often treat Animists in the south as if they were of lower-level. When such mistakes are made, they cannot be given theological justification. In January 2011, five years after the 2005 peace agreement, the people in south Sudan will vote in a referendum on secession from the rest of the Sudan. Darfur, another large and troubled region, will remain in north Sudan. Most of the rich oil fields are in south Sudan, where much of the fertile agricultural land is also situated. The Sudan, as neighbouring Egypt, relies heavily on the water from the Nile, requiring regional water management plans. The Sudan has had a turbulent history. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was dissolved in 1956. The 17- year conflict between regions, mainly the north and the south, lasted from 1955-1972. The 10-year hiatus in the conflict ended in 1983/84 and it went on until the 2005 agreement was signed. If the January 2011 referendum is not implemented properly (and there are already serious complaints that north Sudan does what it can to hinder it), that may well lead to renewed violent conflict and outright civil war. The international observers have already arrived, but they cannot do much more than report what takes place and decide whether they should give their approval stamp when the referendum is over. Thus, the referendum is in the hands of the rulers, notably the regime of President Omar al-Bashir, in power since 1989, with serious accusations for genocide in Darfur hanging over him. Will he and his regime be fair and democratic? Well, perhaps such words are too big, but at least, will the outcome give a good enough indication of the peoples wish? So that it can be decided whether the country will indeed be split, as most observers believe is what the people in the south want, paving the way for reduced conflicts and even peace between the regions. The Sudan is the worlds tenth largest country, and Africas largest. Even if there will be 'two Sudans in the future, they will indeed both be sizeable countries. North Sudan will still be the largest and it will stay with most of the countries man-made and other resources and institutions. It will take a very long time for south Sudan to develop. It will need the help and cooperation of 'the other Sudan and the neighbours in the region. It will need the help of China, Japan, the European Union, and all the other international partners (or sharks) that are already there to take out as much oil as they can and secure their future place in the Sudan, in the south and the north. This is politics? Yes, it is politics and economics. But what about religion, does religion still play a role? I think it does. But to a much lesser degree than we would believe at first sight and if we listen to the propagandistic words of the media, which uses outdated and wrong terminology, often without thinking about it. Or perhaps not: perhaps we use language and terminology with a hidden agenda? Perhaps, there are forces that want to create a conflict between Christians and Muslims, a conflict which has many other causes? Perhaps, world capitalism does what it can to hide its ugly face, because the real cause behind the Sudan conflict is economic? Perhaps, too, fundamentalist and ultraconservative Christian groups, including American and other western preachers and missionaries in the south, want us to believe there is a religious conflict? I hope the referendum will prove all this wrong. I hope that the Sudanese leaders in north Sudan will play as positive roles in the referendum as they can. And I also hope that the southerners will do what they can. After all, the south Sudan Interim President is also Vice President of the existing Sudan. Whatever the outcome of the referendum north and south will have a special relationship in future. Hopefully, conflicts will be fewer. The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist currently based in Islamabad. Email: atlehetland@yahoo.com