African Sunrise

"Landep News"

African Sunrise

South Sudan proclaimed independence from Sudan on July 9, thus becoming the newest state on the map of Africa, and one of the poorest in the world. The secession follows 22 years of civil war, and a referendum where more than 90% of the population of the country agreed to leave Sudan and create a new state.

The creation of the new state was hailed by many countries in the world, especially the powerful ones, who were quick to recognize it and talk to the provisory government in Juba about business, given that, though as poor as South Sudan is, it sits upon a reserve of oil, which makes countries like Russian, U.S.A., or China very interested in the destiny of the new state, and in the political preferences of the regime.

Even Omar al Bashir, incumbent president of what’s left of Sudan, who is under an international arrest warrant for the crackdown on the province of Darfur, was surprisingly open to the idea of letting South Sudan go, hoping that the new state will not forget the common grounds they shared.

African Political Map

Many are concerned that this is not the last conflict of Sudan, given that Darfur is still a problem for the Republic of Sudan, and the Nuba region is having breakaway thoughts, not to mention that Abyei province, also rich in oil, has yet to decide which country to choose.

But the greater concern for analysts and experts is that Sudan could be a trend- setter, and could be inspirational for other territories in Africa that may want to secede, and form independent countries.

Western people know very few things about African cultures and civilizations, and the borders that are now separating the peoples of Africa are mainly dictated by the colonists in the previous centuries.

The Atlantic publishes a very interesting study of a professor of African studies, Pierre Englebert, who talks about an “African secessionist deficit.”

He advances the idea that the split of the actual nations into smaller states, and the creation of new nations could prove very good possibilities and solutions for the underdevelopment of the entire continent.

Africa is being kept into boundaries set by the colonists not only upon the land, but also in the minds of the people.

African Women

Englebert speaks of a cult instituted by the colonists in the countries they occupied, sometimes established without the slightest concern for the specificities of the nations it encompassed, for keeping the boundaries of the colonies (probably to avoid conflict with other colonial powers).

This has kept African nations from dividing so far into smaller nations, but it is believed that the situation will soon change as many other African nations could choose to separate so that their national boundaries may be the natural environment to a state.

Englebert predicts that there is desire for rearrangement in the African countries, especially since most of them have failed to provide their citizens with the life standard they desired.

Still, although the African studies professor considers that the splitting of the existing states of Africa (at least some of them) into smaller states could reduce conflicts, increase economy growth, or even cost less in terms of international aid, there are also reason not to think this would be the salvation of Africa.

The most important reason is that such secession could not be done without war and loss of lives. Not even South Sudan broke from the Republic of Sudan without a fight. In fact the war lasted for 22 years.

Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia at the end of a war that cost very many lives and lasted 30 years. Other wars could bring African countries in situations even more precarious than they are now.

Then, breaking the states into smaller ones would create new power centers, new bureaucracies, and possible new forms of corruption.

Not to mention that the Western states would have to deal with them, which would certainly make their task to help Africa a lot harder.

African Painted Face

It is possible that nations who are as distinct as the northern and southern Sudanese find a way to separate, but it is not expected that the trend would be followed by many other nations, whose differences are not that manifest.

After all, South Sudan is an English-speaking Christian country, who had tried since the 1950’s to make sure its identity was preserved in the Arab-speaking-Muslim-dominated country, and it was only the failure to do so that brought up civil war.

Even though the economic concern seems to be at the heart of Englebert’s vision, the chances that the South Sudanese case could apply to other existing countries are very slim, though the professor seems quite convinced that this is the cornerstone in African self-awareness, and that after 50 years of postcolonial failure, Africans could be determined to reconfigure the map of their continent.

This strange concept comes at a time when efforts are being made to unite continents under continental bodies, such as the African Union in Africa. What will become the African Union concept if the states break down to tribal territories arisen to the rank of independent states?

How could the effort of the AU to integrate the nations of Africa be consistent with a possible trend to make many more states? And finally, who would benefit from such a policy of separation? Would it really be the states themselves and their nations?

Thank's for link:

Tweet