![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldNo one can legitimately claim to be surprised that South Sudanese voted massively for independence
Independent South Sudan's likely problems of basic governance aside, its independence is the best way to end the bloody impasse that has marked the history of united Sudan since the country's independence. Too much blood has been shed, and too much discrimination enacted against the South Sudanese, for said population to have any trust in the promises of the central government. The remainder of Sudan, for its part, is uninterested in continuing to wage an unending war and wants to cut its losses. With luck, a relatively homogeneous rump Sudan will be better able to deal with its issues. South Sudan, meanwhile, can fumble its way through, perhaps ending up in an East African sphere.
Separatism strikes me as a legitimate response to a state that's proven itself incapable of unwilling of treating all its citizens equally and fairly, and of discriminating against peripheral regions and non-standard ethnic/regional/linguistic identities. The Baltic States had every right to leave the Soviet Union that had conquered them; given Milosevic's takeover of neighbouring federal units in the late 1980s and the pervasive malaise made Slovenian and Croatian separatism understandable; the incapacity of the Czechs to deal with Slovakia made the dissolution of Czechoslovakia inevitable. Separatism, in my mind, is questionable when it's likely to precipitate catastrophe--Croatia's move to independence, with a Serb minority concerned and authoritarianism looming--comes to mind. It's also questionable when the established state is actually doing a decent job of accomodating the needs and desires of its constituent groups--Québec and Catalonia come to mind--and especially when there's no legitimate reason for a region to want to break away apart from the amibitiousness of its leaders. (Yes, I know this is problematic, but it's a rule of thumb only.)
South Sudanese independence is a good thing for the South Sudanese. My only problem with independence for South Sudan is the possibility that its example might spread, inasmuch as dysfunctional states are fairly commopn in sub-Saharan Africa (and elsewhere), although Sudan's level of dysfunction is fortunately rare. There's apparently unrest in the western Zambian region of Barotseland.
So, my [FORUM] question to you today: do you think that South Sudan's impending independence will lead to a cascade reaction of separatism in Africa? Beyond? Do you think that this is necessarily a bad thing? The case can be made that an Africa of smaller, more homogeneous states would be a more functional continent than a continent of large but ill-functioning polities. Is separatism becoming not so much an issue, since in East Africa and elsewhere multinational blocs on the European Union model are forming?
Discuss.
Exhausted poll workers posted the first preliminary results from Southern Sudan's week-long independence referendum Sunday, and an Associated Press count of a small sampling of the returns showed a huge vote for secession.
Sudan's south ended its independence vote Saturday, a vote most everyone believes will split Africa's largest country in two at the divide between Sudan's Muslim north and Christian and animist south. Poll workers counted throughout the night to post results.
An AP review of results at 10 sites in the south's capital of Juba found that almost 96 per cent of the almost 30,000 ballots cast were for secession. About three per cent were for unity and the rest were invalid.
That's only a small sample of the approximately 3.2 million votes cast, but almost all observers believe the south voted for secession. The referendum needs to pass by a simple majority.
At a church service Sunday, Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir — a stoic man not known for showing emotion — smiled, gently clapped and swayed during the musical portions of the service.
“We offer a prayer of gratitude for the peaceful voting of the referendum,” Kiir said. “We present these votes to God, who will bring change through his people of this country.”
Independent South Sudan's likely problems of basic governance aside, its independence is the best way to end the bloody impasse that has marked the history of united Sudan since the country's independence. Too much blood has been shed, and too much discrimination enacted against the South Sudanese, for said population to have any trust in the promises of the central government. The remainder of Sudan, for its part, is uninterested in continuing to wage an unending war and wants to cut its losses. With luck, a relatively homogeneous rump Sudan will be better able to deal with its issues. South Sudan, meanwhile, can fumble its way through, perhaps ending up in an East African sphere.
Separatism strikes me as a legitimate response to a state that's proven itself incapable of unwilling of treating all its citizens equally and fairly, and of discriminating against peripheral regions and non-standard ethnic/regional/linguistic identities. The Baltic States had every right to leave the Soviet Union that had conquered them; given Milosevic's takeover of neighbouring federal units in the late 1980s and the pervasive malaise made Slovenian and Croatian separatism understandable; the incapacity of the Czechs to deal with Slovakia made the dissolution of Czechoslovakia inevitable. Separatism, in my mind, is questionable when it's likely to precipitate catastrophe--Croatia's move to independence, with a Serb minority concerned and authoritarianism looming--comes to mind. It's also questionable when the established state is actually doing a decent job of accomodating the needs and desires of its constituent groups--Québec and Catalonia come to mind--and especially when there's no legitimate reason for a region to want to break away apart from the amibitiousness of its leaders. (Yes, I know this is problematic, but it's a rule of thumb only.)
South Sudanese independence is a good thing for the South Sudanese. My only problem with independence for South Sudan is the possibility that its example might spread, inasmuch as dysfunctional states are fairly commopn in sub-Saharan Africa (and elsewhere), although Sudan's level of dysfunction is fortunately rare. There's apparently unrest in the western Zambian region of Barotseland.
Residents of western Zambia were barred from gathering – even for Sunday church services – after an attempt to debate secession led to deadly protests.
It was unclear how long the restrictions, first imposed Friday, would last. Conditions were slowly easing, with people able to go to markets and visit relatives and friends Saturday.
But “it is still quite tense with a heavy presence of police,” said Kennedy Sampa, a Roman Catholic priest in Western Province, also known as Barotseland. Church services were not held Sunday.
Two days earlier, activists from the region's main ethnic group, the Lozi, had tried to hold a public debate on the region's status. Police banned the meeting citing security concerns, an order that set off protests. A debate over Barotseland's status has simmered for decades, and is so sensitive that the information minister has banned radio stations from holding phone-in programs on the subject.
[. . .]
The issue of Barotseland's status has gained attention recently because of the possibility the region could have substantial oil and diamond deposits. Mines Minister Maxwell Mwale on Friday issued the first oil prospecting license to a company that will search for riches in the region.
Activists say they want to ensure the region gets a fair distribution of Zambia's resources, and that secession is not necessarily on their agenda.
So, my [FORUM] question to you today: do you think that South Sudan's impending independence will lead to a cascade reaction of separatism in Africa? Beyond? Do you think that this is necessarily a bad thing? The case can be made that an Africa of smaller, more homogeneous states would be a more functional continent than a continent of large but ill-functioning polities. Is separatism becoming not so much an issue, since in East Africa and elsewhere multinational blocs on the European Union model are forming?
Discuss.
