- Home
- Washington File
- Will Sudan’s Referendum Stoke Secessionist Struggles in Africa?
Will Sudan’s Referendum Stoke Secessionist Struggles in Africa?
- By Williams Ekanem
- Published January 17th, 2011
- Washington File
- Unrated
As the results of the South Sudan referendum are been awaited, a new twist regarding if the emergence of a new country will fire up secessionists struggle in other countries especially in Africa.
This is more so as the divide in Sudan between north and south, oil rich south and politically domineering north is replayed in many other countries on the continent, including Nigeria.
Only last week, the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC took up a discussion about the potential impact of South Sudanese secession on political configurations on the African continent.
Excerpts from the discussion which took place on the network’s social media has it that “if South Sudan gets independence, will it encourage splits in other African countries? A number of voices are suggesting that could happen as the vote takes place in the South. Could Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Congo, Angola and others break up too? Colonel Gaddafi described a divided Sudan as “the beginning of the crack in Africa’s map” … Would that be a good or bad thing for the continent?”
Responding to this development, assistant secretary of African affairs, Johnnie Carson said, “A successful referendum is in the best interest of the Sudanese people, in the best interest of Africa and regional stability, and certainly in the best interest of the international community. We all want to make this process successful, and our commitment remains there to do so.”
Speaking in the same vein, Ambassador Princetown Lyman, head of the Sudan Negotiation Support Unit pointed out that “the key point here is that the two parties agreed on the right of self-determination for the people of the South. It wasn’t a question that outsiders said territorial integrity does not apply here, but a civil war that is going on for over two decades in which 2 million people have been killed and refugees of almost an equivalent number. Part of the peace process that brought an end to that civil war was an agreement by both parties. Otherwise it’s self-determination. “
A contributor to the BBC discussion stated that “From what I know, border changes and the partition of nations occur relatively rarely. In Africa, you have Eritrean independence from Ethiopia in the early 1990s, but beyond that I am struggling to find an example of a country on the continent seceding from or joining another since the independence era. So I think that South Sudan’s secession may inspire hope among secessionists elsewhere, but I do not think it will touch off a domino effect of splits.”
A referendum is taking place in Southern Sudan from 9 January until 15 January 2011, on whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or be independent. The referendum is one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M).
A simultaneous referendum was supposed to be held in Abyei on whether to become part of Southern Sudan but it has been postponed due to conflict over demarcation and residency rights.
The United States says it is deeply committed to doing everything possible to ensure the referendum and final implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement lead to an outcome in which the Sudanese people can prosper peacefully, either under a single unified state or under two independent states.
President Obama and his senior foreign policy team, particularly Secretary of State Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Dennis McDonough, and Special Envoy General Scott Gration, have made Sudan one of their top foreign policy priorities and have put an enormous amount of effort into supporting the Sudanese people through this critical juncture in their history. Our determination is to see this process through successfully.
Briefing the press at the State Department in Washington D.C, Carson said the occasion will be historic because “for the first time in their lives” the people of southern Sudan will “make a decision on whether they will secede from Sudan and become an independent state or become a part of a united Sudan.”
The Ambassador termed the referendum vote “the beginning of the end of a culmination of five-and-a-half-years of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was negotiated and signed in Naivasha, Kenya, in January 2005. Although the effort was led by Intergovernmental Authority on Development states under the leadership of Kenya,” Carson told reporters, “the United States, Great Britain and Norway were participants and partners in the effort leading to where we are today.”
The United States and the international community he pointed out, were “extraordinarily pleased” by the January 4 visit to the southern Sudan city of Juba by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who stated publicly that the North is prepared to accept the outcome of the referendum and will seek to have a peaceful and beneficial relationship with the people of the South regardless of how they vote.
This is more so as the divide in Sudan between north and south, oil rich south and politically domineering north is replayed in many other countries on the continent, including Nigeria.
Only last week, the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC took up a discussion about the potential impact of South Sudanese secession on political configurations on the African continent.
Excerpts from the discussion which took place on the network’s social media has it that “if South Sudan gets independence, will it encourage splits in other African countries? A number of voices are suggesting that could happen as the vote takes place in the South. Could Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Congo, Angola and others break up too? Colonel Gaddafi described a divided Sudan as “the beginning of the crack in Africa’s map” … Would that be a good or bad thing for the continent?”
Responding to this development, assistant secretary of African affairs, Johnnie Carson said, “A successful referendum is in the best interest of the Sudanese people, in the best interest of Africa and regional stability, and certainly in the best interest of the international community. We all want to make this process successful, and our commitment remains there to do so.”
Speaking in the same vein, Ambassador Princetown Lyman, head of the Sudan Negotiation Support Unit pointed out that “the key point here is that the two parties agreed on the right of self-determination for the people of the South. It wasn’t a question that outsiders said territorial integrity does not apply here, but a civil war that is going on for over two decades in which 2 million people have been killed and refugees of almost an equivalent number. Part of the peace process that brought an end to that civil war was an agreement by both parties. Otherwise it’s self-determination. “
A contributor to the BBC discussion stated that “From what I know, border changes and the partition of nations occur relatively rarely. In Africa, you have Eritrean independence from Ethiopia in the early 1990s, but beyond that I am struggling to find an example of a country on the continent seceding from or joining another since the independence era. So I think that South Sudan’s secession may inspire hope among secessionists elsewhere, but I do not think it will touch off a domino effect of splits.”
A referendum is taking place in Southern Sudan from 9 January until 15 January 2011, on whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or be independent. The referendum is one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M).
A simultaneous referendum was supposed to be held in Abyei on whether to become part of Southern Sudan but it has been postponed due to conflict over demarcation and residency rights.
The United States says it is deeply committed to doing everything possible to ensure the referendum and final implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement lead to an outcome in which the Sudanese people can prosper peacefully, either under a single unified state or under two independent states.
President Obama and his senior foreign policy team, particularly Secretary of State Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Dennis McDonough, and Special Envoy General Scott Gration, have made Sudan one of their top foreign policy priorities and have put an enormous amount of effort into supporting the Sudanese people through this critical juncture in their history. Our determination is to see this process through successfully.
Briefing the press at the State Department in Washington D.C, Carson said the occasion will be historic because “for the first time in their lives” the people of southern Sudan will “make a decision on whether they will secede from Sudan and become an independent state or become a part of a united Sudan.”
The Ambassador termed the referendum vote “the beginning of the end of a culmination of five-and-a-half-years of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was negotiated and signed in Naivasha, Kenya, in January 2005. Although the effort was led by Intergovernmental Authority on Development states under the leadership of Kenya,” Carson told reporters, “the United States, Great Britain and Norway were participants and partners in the effort leading to where we are today.”
The United States and the international community he pointed out, were “extraordinarily pleased” by the January 4 visit to the southern Sudan city of Juba by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who stated publicly that the North is prepared to accept the outcome of the referendum and will seek to have a peaceful and beneficial relationship with the people of the South regardless of how they vote.
