And so it begins. Check out the updates Global Voices has here, and read my recent roundup, “Sudan: President Announces North Will Be Ruled By Islamic Law If South Separates,” here.
~*~*~*~
After a few days of voting, it looks like the expected results are pretty much in. Not surprisingly and understandably, the Southerners are very happy about this historic moment, and I’d like to congratulate them. They’ve endured hell at the hands of this regime, especially in its early NIF days when that scumbag known as Hassan al-Turabi, the man responsible for inviting and hosting Bin Laden in Sudan during the 90’s, was still in power.
Those days are now over, and they’re behind us in many ways. However, by the time the South formally proceeds to separate, those days might return again in a new form.
Thing is, those most visibly upset and enraged in the North about the South separating are the radical Islamists who see this as a “loss of the land of Islam.” They’re the ones that al-Bashir is going to have to work hard to please and comfort if he wants to maintain the balance of power. His speech about the full implementation of Sharia in the North after the South’s secession is part of that attempt. It’s also part of his attempt to paint the separation as a positive thing.
“Yaaay, damn those infidel Southerners, those annoying idiots who’ve always been an obstacle to the full implementation of our Sharia throughout the country. Yaaay, finally, we’ll be able to apply our lovely version of Islamic law, after they get lost.”
Many in the North share this sentiment but in some cases, not just for “religious” reasons, but also due to a racist “good riddance” attitude. How unfortunate. Because the undeniable fact is, a Southless Sudan will still continue to be Afro-Arab, and those Afro-Arab Northern Sudanese who deny their African roots - roots that in some cases go all the way back to the Great Ancient Nubian Civilization - need to face the reality. They should be ashamed of themselves for their idiocy.
All in all, there are many developments that are worrying, and it does seem that fighting on a small scale is inevitable, at least in the contested oil-rich area, Abyei. Moreover, with the SPLM soon to-be-gone from the Northern political landscape, the NCP is going find itself in a stronger position, since Northern opposition parties are too weak and disunited to mount any from of real challenge, like the SPLM was capable of.
Economically, both the North and South will have a lot to resolve if the separation goes smoothly, and hopefully, if it does, we might finally be able to mainly focus our energy on building our futures, rather than fighting each other.
And now, I’m going to leave you with this excellent blog post by Zoulcolm X on the separation, and also this special Aljazeera program on the situation.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m obviously keeping a very close eye on the situation, and I’m looking forward to what I’m sure will be a very well thought out and written analysis of the referendum.
Keep up the good work, Drima!
I thinking the South Sudan will go for independence… I know the border of most of African countries was mostly drawn during colonialism- will Sudan be the first African country or nationality to split… I don’t think it will be in limbo like Western Sahara.. Oil is going to win Southern Sudan many friends… I wonder what are they going to call the country?
It is ironic I am hearing Bashir talking about Federalism now…
“I think, for Sudanese problems, federalism is the best solution,” that is what he is saying now…
Kinda of a bit too late… I wonder if some sort of genuine federalism was implemented a couple years back instead of all the mis-management… to certain extent Ethiopia with all of its issues seems or looks like it has made Federalism work for it..
I don’t see how federalism could work between two countries so different as Sudan and South Sudan (or Nile, or whatever they call it). They are totally different in every way.
There are also some West African states which have a Muslim North and a Christian/Traditional South. These might split some day.
I don’t see how federalism could work between two countries so different as Sudan and South Sudan (or Nile, or whatever they call it). They are totally different in every way.
In theory, that shouldn’t matter. Native Alaskans were different from “Americans” in every way when Alaska joined the Union too, and native Hawaiians were not only different in every way but were not even residents of the same continent. And I’m sure the US is not the only example of that. But I’d agree in this case it seems like there’s far too much bad blood for them to have even made a go of it.
If South Sudan were ever to be a part of a federation, it would be something like a Federation of East Africa.
I don’t think that’s likely in the forseeable future. It is more likely that Africa will split into more and more little states, like Germany or Italy in the 17C.
Well, you’re probably right Don but if so I’d submit that’s just because there isn’t any major regional power that is so far out in front that it’s beneficial for others to want to join with it. Which is a pity, because I don’t think Africa fragmenting into ever smaller “statelets” will help the continent. But it’s better than trying to force people who hate eachother to live under one rule.
I think Craig is right I don’t see how ethnic or tribal difference should matter. Nationalism or notion one country for one people… is fairly new.. Until 110+ years ago, you had empires….
In the African context most countries have several ethnic or tribal groups and most maintained their colony borders.. If you had asked a Kikuyu in Kenya 90 years if he was Kenyan he probably give you blank look and ask what that is…
If the criteria for having one country is to not have ethnic diversity, I think number of countries in Africa would probably increase up 100x…
I think in Sudan the central government is a bit insular and on certain issues or problem also dysfunctional.. it has issues in the Eastern Sudan and Darfur… In the past for any Sudanese region to get attention of central government it had to take up arms…
If the southern choose to go on their own, given the behavior of central government, I can see how most southern Sudanese feel the need to go on their own. It is not going to be an easy road but that is a decision they and only they can make.. The two countries that have gone down this road haven’t done very well- Western Sahara and Eritrea…
Somailand is the only exception but it is not international recognized yet.. and irony with it is that it wants to go on its own due to government mis-management(no government) instead of ethnic differences..
However, I don’t see many African going down that road. There are 50+ African countries and how many have gone this road? Maybe if we had an Empire like Soviet Union in Africa?
Don, I don’t agree with your analogy with 17 century Italy or Germany.. this was before age of Nationalism, Western Colonialism and Globalization… Your analogy is similar to what some American say about the current depression or recession- “well we came out the great depression and we will come out of this..” well 30s an 40s America used to be one of the manufacturing powerhouses driving the world… What do American now make? What do they produce?
I will agree there many African countries have governmental mis-management or lack of good leadership- how many of them will react by splitting is going to be minimal. I think globalization/technology that will push against this current. With seamless wireless network like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtel difference are slowing coming down.. With a few exception, thank God the days of resolving issues with Gun is almost gone..
a meeting on one side and large shield three colors appears in the part there. cold UGG Boots Sale woman in Cheap UGG Boots mind a surprise, much less think the fingers of one hand trembled over a silver-line ugg boots uk sale operator. WAN nangongshan below to see this store, natural teacher knows the sister of higher than expected. Jade immediately sink, also ignore the transmigration persuasive
Jonah,
Empires are the new invention. Before the bronze age it was impossible to rule more than your own people because without weapons that required training (swords, shields etc.) you simply couldn’t.
For thousands of years humanity lived in tribal societies and ultimately city states and only then did empires grow (out of those city states).
The nation state was the norm, the empire is the new invention.
“the empire is the new invention”
that has more than 200 years of age
uh sorry, I ment 2000 years
Yeah.. even more than 2000 years… I guess it just depends on your definition of “new”..
But here some opinion and definition from wikileaks… I mean wikipedia on nationalism and empire…
Nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire
Anyway to Southern Sudan…
It looks like there will be a new country in Africa…
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0116/Obama-congratulates-South-Sudan-on-independence-vote-but-what-about-Abyei
It looks like there might be border problem… I hope it doesn’t end like Eritrea/Ethiopia border issue with more 100,000 dying … in that case those two country were fighting over region with no natural or any form of resource… but in Abyei it is different story…
I hope they find a peaceful and reasonable way to address issue..
It is no way to start a new country…
What is “new” in the context of at least ten thousand years of human civilisation?
I would say a concept introduced in the last quarter of that time is “new”. For most of human civilisation, there were no empires.
Jonah claimed that “Nationalism or notion one country for one people… is fairly new.. “, however, states based on ethnicity are indeed very old. In the stone age humans lived in clans, then the city states were formed, often around languages spoken. The nation state (or rather the clan state) is the oldest model we have. It’s “new” only in the sense that the Egyptians had one of those 8000 years ago whereas the first empire (state that ruled over several peoples in different regions) is only 2500 years old.
Israel was a nation state before it became part of several empires. Egypt was a nation state before it became an empire (and then part of several empires). The Turks were a nation roaming Asia and Siberia before becoming an empire and finally a nation state (officially, in reality they are still an empire ruling over Kurdistan).
Obviously I would like to comment here. But… I don’t believe in blogs in where the blog-owner doesn’t respond to the comments being placed here
a interesting article on Stratfor about Nationalism and dual citizenship
http://tinyurl.com/6kta7au
Leave a Comment