(Why) South Sudan’s Independence Is Something Worth Celebrating
"Even On Its Dismal Third Birthday, South Sudan’s Independence Is Something Worth Celebrating. Gone is the possibility of pseudo-genocidal policies inflicted from Khartoum. This alone is a success."
(circulated by John Asworth)
South Sudan’s Independence Is Something Worth Celebrating
ARMIN ROSEN MILITARY & DEFENSE JUL. 10, 2014
Even On Its Dismal Third Birthday, South Sudan’s Independence IsSomething Worth Celebrating
ARMIN ROSEN Business Insider JUL. 10, 2014, 5:39 AM
ARMIN ROSEN Business Insider JUL. 10, 2014, 5:39 AM
Link to web article here.
On the third anniversary of its independence, South Sudan is arguablythe most fragile country in the entire world.
Nearly a fifth of its population has been displaced since rival ethniccadres of an elite army unit faced off in the national capital of Jubain December of 2013, setting into motion events that rapidly mutatedinto inter-communal atrocities and civil war. Interrupted supply linesand a truncated growing season are raising the specter of famine forthe coming year. The government is resistant to internal reform, afull70% of the military has defected or deserted, and South Sudan hasfailed to fully resolve a number of outstanding issues with theRepublic of Sudan, from which it seceded in 2011.
Independence was supposed to resolve one of the world’s longest-running conflicts, while redressing some of the worst abusesever committed by an African government. But less than a half decadelater, South Sudan is dealing with some of the biggest challenges thata country can face, as well as the likelihood that those problems will get substantially worse.
On the third anniversary of its independence, South Sudan is arguablythe most fragile country in the entire world.
Nearly a fifth of its population has been displaced since rival ethniccadres of an elite army unit faced off in the national capital of Jubain December of 2013, setting into motion events that rapidly mutatedinto inter-communal atrocities and civil war. Interrupted supply linesand a truncated growing season are raising the specter of famine forthe coming year. The government is resistant to internal reform, afull70% of the military has defected or deserted, and South Sudan hasfailed to fully resolve a number of outstanding issues with theRepublic of Sudan, from which it seceded in 2011.
Independence was supposed to resolve one of the world’s longest-running conflicts, while redressing some of the worst abusesever committed by an African government. But less than a half decadelater, South Sudan is dealing with some of the biggest challenges thata country can face, as well as the likelihood that those problems will get substantially worse.
It’s legitimate to ask what South Sudanese Independence has actuallyachieved, especially with the existing state system under such strainelsewhere throughout the greater Middle East. In Iraq and Syria, theIslamic State of Iraq and The Levant (ISIS) has framed its blitzthrough Mesopotamia as a repudiation of the Sykes-Picot pact (the post-World War I-era demarcation of colonial borders in the MiddleEast) and everything it represents: the external imposition ofborders, and imported concepts of republicanism and statehood. IraqiKurdistan seems better positioned for full independence than at anypoint in its history. But South Sudan’s rough first few years suggests that there’s some inherent value in keeping existing states together,and that dissolution actually creates as many problems as it solves.
This approach to the value of South Sudanese Independence is myopic,though. Civil wars and famines are horrible events, but they are alsotemporary. Independence is theoretically permanent, as are the responsibilities it demands and the opportunities it offers. With that in mind, South Sudanese independence was a just solution toa cascade of historic wrongs.
This approach to the value of South Sudanese Independence is myopic,though. Civil wars and famines are horrible events, but they are alsotemporary. Independence is theoretically permanent, as are the responsibilities it demands and the opportunities it offers. With that in mind, South Sudanese independence was a just solution toa cascade of historic wrongs.
Independence rejected the strictures ofthe existing state system to place a long-disenfranchised people incharge of their own destiny. It was rare evidence that the world’s biggest problems could be met with solutions that were equallymassive, incredibly risky — and, inevitably, fair.
Some background: South Sudan became independent in 2011 as the resultof a 2005 peace agreement that ended a decades-long civil war betweenthe Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which fought onbehalf of Sudan’s non-Arab and mostly non-Muslim south, and the Araband Muslim-dominated Sudanese government in Khartoum.
The conflict killed as many as 2.5 million people and was the secondprotracted post-independence civil war between Sudan’s north andsouth, regions that were yoked into a single country under Britishcolonial rule and were never really governed in anything resembling an equitable manner.
Some background: South Sudan became independent in 2011 as the resultof a 2005 peace agreement that ended a decades-long civil war betweenthe Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which fought onbehalf of Sudan’s non-Arab and mostly non-Muslim south, and the Araband Muslim-dominated Sudanese government in Khartoum.
The conflict killed as many as 2.5 million people and was the secondprotracted post-independence civil war between Sudan’s north andsouth, regions that were yoked into a single country under Britishcolonial rule and were never really governed in anything resembling an equitable manner.
They were two very different and mostly separateplaces, joined only by the Nile River and the particular needs ofLondon and Khartoum — the latter of which fought to avoid a moregeneral breakout of multi-ethnic yet Arab-ruled Sudan, and later toretain the South’s oil wealth.
Notably, the leader of the SPLM during the peace negotiations did notwant the south to become an independent nation, and supported a moregeneral Sudan-wide democratization push. The National Congress Partyin Khartoum, a nominally Islamist regime headed by perhaps the worstdictator on earth, made sure that the 2005 peace agreement wasn’t theroadmap for a democratic “New Sudan” that it was originally intended as being.
But under the treaty, the South got to vote on an independencereferendum in 2011. And thanks to a combination of understandablesouthern cynicism towards the possibility of a nationwide solution toSudan’s problems, and U.S. pressure on Khartoum to allow a greatlyneutered peace process to creep forward, the South was allowed tosecede. It became an independent state on July 9th, 2011.
The major practical accomplishment of independence is that it makesre-escalation of the north-south conflict — which was a hot war forthe better part of the past fifty years — an international rather thaninternal issue. If Khartoum wants to go to war against the south, it must do so as a coequal state, at least in the eyes of internationallaw and the broader global community. Gone is the possibility ofpseudo-genocidal policies inflicted from Khartoum. This alone is asuccess.
More importantly, independence forces both societies to deal withtheir own issues independently of the other’s needs and influence. Inreality, there has been plenty of aggression and mutual meddlingbetween north and south since 2011, with both governments likelysupporting rebellions within the other’s territory, and feuding over oil revenues and the demarcation of a still-disputed border.
But the impact of independence has still been profound. In the north,ongoing ethnic conflict and stagnant quality of life have triggeredoccasional bouts of Arab Spring-style protests in Khartoum in theyears after the country’s breakup. Sudanese wonder how theirleadership could bring the country to the point where its mostresource-rich third was allowed to secede. They wonder at thenational-level failure that the schism between North and Southrepresents.
Even the regime has admitted that independence has forcedthe country to consider a new mode of self-definition: just before theSouth seceded, dictator Omar Al Bashir announced that he wasconsidering declaring Sudan an Islamic state after the split. Eventhis seems like an oblique admission that independence is moving Sudan towards an internal reckoning that even its oppressive governmentrealizes it is badly in need of.
And in the South, independence has required Southerners to face theworst aspects of their recent history. The current civil conflict is areplay of an internal schism that led to a rash of ethnic violence inthe early 1990s. National reconciliation and national are now closelyintertwined.
And in the South, independence has required Southerners to face theworst aspects of their recent history. The current civil conflict is areplay of an internal schism that led to a rash of ethnic violence inthe early 1990s. National reconciliation and national are now closelyintertwined.
Three years ago, Juba, Khartoum, and the international communityreached an ambitious resolution to a costly historical wrong. Itwasn’t inevitable, and the motives of all sides were never entirelypure. It was risky, and its consequences haven’t been entirelypositive.
But it happened. It was a rare instance in which fairness won out overease. It forced two countries into a national-level self-reckoningthat might otherwise have been permanently and tragically delayed.Even with famine and warfare looming, this is worth recognizing and
perhaps even celebrating.
http://www.businessinsider.co.id/south-sudan-independence-2014-7/#.U74Tah_FsUQ