Published by The Day (a newspaper for schools) on Friday 8th July 2011
South Sudan declared independence from the North this weekend after years of war. Does independence hold the answer to the region's many problems?
This Saturday night one party was bigger than most: South Sudan's population of 8 million celebrated its independence. The headlines trumpet 'the birth of a nation', Mother Africa's 54th, but all the analysts agree: if this was a birth, it was a difficult pregnancy, and the baby faces an uncertain future.
South Sudan was conceived through war. After Sudan gained independence from Anglo-Egyptian rule in 1956, a bitter struggle for power between north and south broke out, and lasted on and off for 49 years.
The fighting cost 2.5 million lives. Finally, a 2005 peace agreement granted South Sudan autonomy and a referendum on independence this year, which produced a 99% vote for secession.
Independence leaves South Sudan with many problems. Long neglected by northern rulers in the old capital, Khartoum, the south is desperately poor. One in seven children die before they are five and half the population is fed by aid agencies.
Arab northern Sudan and the more racially mixed south were both conquered by Egypt then ruled by the British, but have little else in common. Differences between the Muslim north and the Christian and animist south were emphasised by the fact that Britain governed the two regions separately.
Travel between the two was banned. Some argue that this isolation laid the seeds of future conflict.
Worse: South Sudan is oil rich, but its oil fields are on the border with the North, and the only pipeline runs to the north, making oil disputes a strong possibility. The border has not yet been finally agreed, and fighting which continues over border areas would now be not a civil but an international war.
Worse: South Sudan is oil rich, but its oil fields are on the border with the North, and the only pipeline runs to the north, making oil disputes a strong possibility. The border has not yet been finally agreed, and fighting which continues over border areas would now be not a civil but an international war.
Straight lines, jagged politics
Many argue that other African nations have similarly arbitrary existences. Their borders are long, straight lines drawn on the maps by colonial rulers, carving up peoples and villages, creating states full of conflict since they ignore ethnicity and religion. Other African countries such as the war-ridden, impractically large Democratic Republic of the Congo would do well to follow Sudan's example and split into two.
Others warn that secession is not a magic cure. First, South Sudan may prove too underdeveloped to become a viable independent state. Second, when a state is created, positions harden and conflicts can entrench.
Q: Making a country sounds difficult, is there a lot to do?
A: There are passports to be issued, new currency and stamps need to be issued. Formal recognition by the UN and other groups of nations like the Arab League is a good idea.
Q: How's South Sudan doing?
A: Not bad. They had an X Factor-style competition to choose a new national anthem, which was sung on Saturday, and they have a flag. They don't yet have money or stamps, and there's going to be a problem finding a seat in the UN, because there aren't any desks left!
Q: What about sports teams?
A: They do have a national football team, but they've been training on scrubland because the stadium has fallen into disrepair. The country does, however, hope to take part in the 2012 London Olympics.
No comments:
Post a Comment