The Abyei area’s future has been up in the air since the secession of Southern Sudan. The tiny region is extremely rich in oil but very split on whether to join the south or remain part of the Khartoum-based nation. A referendum is expected in the future.

But the referendum was expected to be very close, and the move to chase large numbers of pro-South residents out and move in pro-regime nomads could sway the vote decisively toward keeping the area under the Bashir government’s control.

The occupation began after a group of southern Sudan troops killed 22 northern troops who were being escorted out by the UN. In the wake of the attack, the northern government deployed thousands of troops and captured the region.

Last week the situation came to a head, when southern troops ambushed and killed 22 northern soldiers who were being escorted by the UN out of the region. This led to a massive invasion by the north, and the full conquest of the region.

The attack has led thousands of civilians to flee, and has led to reports of massive death tolls. Apparently the north has lost a number of troops themselves, however, with a top diplomat saying at least 70 were confirmed killed and 127 others are simply “missing.”

UN officials say they doubted that the toll was authentic, but major violence is undoubtedly going on in the region, and the refugees continue to pour out of the region. Whether any legitimate referendum on Abyei will ever be held remains very much in doubt.

“It’s not our first time there,” the official insisted. It is presumably a reference to the January 2009 Israeli attack, which likewise was not directly confirmed by the then-Olmert government, but was confirmed by US officials. That air strike was initially reported to have killed 39 people, but the Sudanese state media later put the toll over 100.

So far the identities of the two men killed in Tuesday’s attack have not been released, but rumors saying they were Iranian, Palestinian, or some combination thereof have been swirling. Other reports say at least one Sudanese citizen was slain.

The reason for the attack likewise has not been made public. Sudanese media outlets claimed it was an Israeli attempt to keep Sudan from being taken off the list of “state sponsors of terror.” Other reports make vague mention of arms smuggling, which was also the excuse for the 2009 attack.

Sudan has been some protests over the past month, but so far they have been relatively small compared to the others in the region. The pro-active promise, though likely irrelevant to the 2015 election, appears aimed at tamping down those protests before they get any bigger.

And while it remains to be seen if this will work, the track record is not good. Indeed, when other leaders have pledged not to run for those additional terms in office, Yemen being a notable example, it had no impact on the protests.

Of course, the largest collection of likely protesters against Bashir were already removed from the situation when South Sudan seceded from the nation a few weeks ago. Still, Bashir, as with most of the regional tyrants, has no shortage of enemies from his decades of rule, and the prospect of a new Sudan revolt still seems possible.

The fighting involved a former Southern Sudan army commander, George Athor, creating a rebel army and conquering the town of Fangak, as well as attacking the nearby town of Dor. The Southern military eventually reconquered the towns, but the fighting left massive numbers of civilians dead.

Tensions over the massive death toll prompted Pagan Amum, a top official in the southern ruling party, to accuse the Sudanese government of backing Athor, saying “his guns are coming from Khartoum.”

Northern officials denied the accusation, insisting Athor, a long-time southern faction member, had no ties to the northern government and was entirely a problem for the newly created state of Southern Sudan.

The troops were said to be former local militia members who had been brought into the Sudanese military, and the clash was sparked by the forthcoming secession of South Sudan and orders to relocate.

The troops apparently were not keen on relocating to the north, and had likewise refused to turn in their heavy weaponry, insisting it belonged to the unit and not the military. It appears they intended to remain in South Sudan.

The clash ended with artillery fire exchanged between Northern soldiers and Southerners who were nominally still members of the Northern Army. The region is currently being jointly patrolled by both Northern and Southern Army forces.

The possibilities literally span the entire Muslim world. From Morocco in the far west of Africa to the US-backed government in Pakistan, people are riled up and their rulers are insisting that their situations, with an angry population seeking more freedom and less unemployment, is somehow so different from the situation everywhere else that the comparison is ridiculous.

There are some obvious situations, as in Sudan or Yemen, where the opposition to the president-for-life model is pretty straightforward. But even in nations with fairly recent regime changes like Pakistan and Iraq, the hope for change is palpable.

Indeed, there seems to be a sense of jealousy in Baghdad, which saw massive deaths and a US occupation as their path toward regime change, and is now watching Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki consolidate power at an alarming rate. Though analysts say it is unlikely Iraqis will take to the streets (particularly with 50,000 US troops still on hand to prop up Maliki), the resentment is growing.

Even in Iraqi Kurdistan, the “good part” of Iraq, the opposition Gorran Party is calling for resignations and reforms in the regional government, and likening the situation in the region to that in Egypt.

The question “is this Egypt” will be one invariably asked when governments face resentment, and the answer “no” will undoubtedly always be given. But with the world transfixed it seems the reality is that there is at least a little bit of Egypt everywhere.

Despite little violence in the voting, there seems to be rising fighting along the border, with officials reporting over 60 people believed to be killed in the disputed Abyei region over the past three days.

According to a top referendum official, the clashes are between the police force of the region and a tribal militia associated with a nomadic Misseriya group. Northern media reported the clashes as a function of the southern army moving north into the region.

The referendum began this weekend and will continue through the week. Though it is a foregone conclusion that the southern portion will secede, exactly what will happen to Abyei remains to be seen, as Sudanese officials have threatened to start a war to keep the region under their control.

Members of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the rebel faction involved in the talks, slammed the move as a “declaration of war” and said that it proved al-Bashir’s goal was to aim for a military solution in Darfur.

The talks were widely expected to fail in the wake of major clashes Monday, in which Sudanese troops moved into Northern Darfur. The clashes left at least 40 rebels dead and spawned arguments at the Doha talks over who was really to blame.

Reports from the site of the clash suggested that the JEM had fought alongside members of two other rebel factions from the region, suggesting that the groups are increasingly cooperatinhg with one another as more

Obama’s waivers cover four countries, Yemen, Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo which in addition to their various other crimes against humanity are all known to be using child soldiers. Without Obama’s actions the Child Soldiers Prevention Act would have barred the US from providing military aid to those nations.

Yet Obama insisted that all four were vital to “the national interest,” citing Yemen and Chad in particular as allies in the global war on terror. With US military training dramatically on the rise, particularly in Yemen, it seems the administration is making clear their intention to make “child soldiers” something to give lip service to, at best, while eagerly funding the militaries that press them into service.

President Bush signed the ban on funding militaries that use child soldiers in 2008, but the ban did include a provision allowing the president to temporarily waive the bans in special cases. Far from being a special case, however, President Obama’s waivers appear to have covered materially the only nations to be affected by the ban.