"Clinton: Southern Sudan Independence Vote 'Inevitable'" VOA

 "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that a secession vote by the people of southern Sudan in January is "inevitable."  Clinton telephoned senior leaders of the coalition government in Khartoum as part of a U.S. diplomatic effort to make the expected north-south split as peaceful as possible.  

Clinton says that neither the Sudanese government in Khartoum nor the southern administration in Juba is ready for an independence vote, and that a successful referendum process will require an all-out diplomatic effort by the two sides, the African Union, the United States and other concerned parties."  VOA

------------------------------------------------------

Northern and Southern Sudan were always "une idee mauvaise" in the words of a Belgian quoted by Reuel Gerecht to me.  He was referring to Belgium.

Sudan is the same kind of mistake.  The north is Arab and variously Muslim.  The south is animist or Christian.  The Sudan (Arabic for "land of the Blacks") was created by Anglo-Egyptian ambition in the time of the khedives.  The two regions never had anything to say to each other that was not hostile.  It is a tale of foreign oppression imposed by colonialism and the regimes who have been the heirs of colonialism.

John Garang led the fight.  The time has come to free the Dinka, the Nuer and the others.  

Can we see in Hillary's statement the beginning of a new American willingness to accept the right of native peoples to fight foreign domination?

De Oppresso Liber.  pl 

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Clinton-Southern-Sudan-Independence-Vote-Inevitable-102471829.html

Comments

[Lysander]

When Clinton recognizes Texas' right to secede, I will be impressed. Until then, I will assume any support for secessionist movements (or for governments combating them) will be for reasons of statecraft nothing else.

As for Sudan, the story is a common one in Africa and world wide. Someone is unhappy with central authority. Central authority likes being in charge and will fight to keep it that way. My council is to let them settle it on their own. That's what this country did and it was pretty damned bloody. Interference from Europe would not have been appreciated.

[JohnH]

A potential precedent for Palestine? De Oppresso Liber.

[Rider]

Does COIN inevitably involve our providing support for corrupt and / or oppressive colonialist regimes? It seems this is a fatal flaw in terms of promoting democracy. The people see us as hypocrites, preaching our democratic values yet enabling the anti-democratic abuses of the regime. Is this a fair appraisal?

[b]

"Can we see in Hillary's statement the beginning of a new American willingness to accept the right of native peoples to fight foreign domination?"

My guess - no. The "west" wants the south to secede because of its oil. The south has little else. What it is especially missing in the capacity to govern itself. It will be a mess. A failed state right from the start.

Now what about those 33 tanks on that Ukrainian ship the Somali pirates had and that was later escorted to Kenia by a U.S. frigate. Oh yeah - they have been found in south Sudan.

It will be bloody game.

[walrus]

But what about the oil Col. Lang? The oil?

[johnf]

Apologies for bringing up a verboten word but isn't "oil" fairly important in the South (and Darfur)? From memory, the Israelis have been involved in the South since at least the 90's.

The Sudan - however unpleasant its government - would appear to be the DRC of the North. A weak, mineral rich country surrounded by stronger neighbours.

[johnf]

Also from memory, aren't the Chinese involved in the South's oil? It isn't normally China's modus operandi in Africa to interfere in the politics or borders.

[Jake]

Sudan Policy? We actually got one?

Our policy on Sudan is a bloody mess. It changes with the winds. Not to mention that the Sudanese Government is and has been a mess since the Egyptians and the British gave them their independence.

I am always tickled by the support that the Sudanese Government renders to those fine and charitable humanitarian organizations such as, Egyptian Islamic Jihad,Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Eritrean Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Ethiopian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and of course our favorite...al-Qa'ida ...While tossing out those nasty, terrorist organizations like OXFAM and Save the Children (sarcasm intended).

Tells everyone what state of mind the government is in these days.

So my friends besides oil ( which I never assume a stupid reason) and religion (which I always assume is a stupid reason) what is the "real vested interest" for the United States involvement in making sure the split is as peaceful (or keeping the riot to a low) as possible?

Is this not the job for the Super Duper United Nations? Or are we the United Nations now? Or should the question be....

Who is that man behind the curtain?

[William R. Cumming]

The Treaty of Westphalia was designed in part to all formed nation-states to not be undermined by minority populations, including those based on religion. That nation-state system is collapsing, given a huge push by Wilson's efforts at self government at the post WWI peace conference sessions. It is amazing to me at how little real study of the failures of groups as large as the Kurds to get their independence at that conference became the accomplished fact. This may come as a shock to some but I personally have never viewed the boundries of the US as cast in bronze. In fact as discussed previously many federal policies are designed to undermine the US as a nation-state but of course is not politically correct to provide that kind of analysis. And again in the SUDAN essentially this is a religious split and war but none but the brave would argue that just Muslims and Christians doing more of the same for last 1400 years, specifically killing or attempting to limit the influence of the "other"!

[WILL]

the referendum was part of their peace deal.

I used to belong to a "Sudan" Shriner Temple that did not allow blacks to join. I hope the Masons have integrated by now.

These referendums are always political ploys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss#Schuschnigg_announces_a_referendum

[John Howley]

Need to take account of the strong modus vivendi established in post-colonial Africa that resists any re-drawing of borders no matter how dysfunctional those borders may be in any one instance. Remember Biafra, Western Sahara?

The continent has many religious, linguistic and tribal tensions that could easily (further) engulf many countries if this taboo were to be entirely lifted.

Then again, it may only be a matter of time.

[JohnH]

Interestingly enough, Abyei, Sudan's oil producing region, gets a separate vote--whether to stay with the North or join the South. Since matters concerning the politics of oil are routinely ignored in the US media, this significant vote has been all but ignored. I happened to find it reported in Arabic in the Lebanese press.

Also largely unreported is the fact that an international court recently decided the boundaries of Abyei. At Khartoum's urging, significant oil producing areas were put outside Abyei but inside Sudan.
http://www.welt.de/international/article4169020/International-court-redefines-boundaries-in-Sudan.html

Nonetheless I expect that tribal leaders in the Abyei region will be subject to special inducements, threats, and all sorts of other nasty business by all sorts of intelligence services as the January election date nears.

[PS]

Re the questions about Southern Sudan's oil, the known reserves will not last that long (North or South), and all the pipelines go through the North until someone is prepared to build a pipeline to Mombasa.

[CK]

Over the past decades, whenever something really ugly was going down in the middle east, the mighty chorus of media distractors erupts with stories of Darfur or Ogaden or South Sudan.

[R Whitman]

WRC

In regard to the US boundaries beind cast in bronze, you would do well to discuss this with members of the Mexican intelligencia. They will bring up "The North American War of Aggression"(the halls of Montezuma) and the present day "Reconquista". Ten years ago, when he was President of Mexico, Vincente Fox visited major Southwest US cities and addressed the Mexican population, both legal and illegal there. He reminded them that they were Mexican citizens and asked that they remain so (and send money home).

This may sound ephemeral to us in the USA but some of our neighbors think differently.

[Cloned Poster]

A Civil War in Sudan, and here come the cavalry over the hills.

Nice easy Barack Obama PR, and just use drones and airforce.

[Lars Moller-Rasmussen]

Forget about the oil. It is the water of the Nile that is the really big issue here.

[Fred]

R. Whitman,

Fox came to Detroit to in '08 and spoke of how great NAFTA was, the need for a North American Union with a common currency, etc. I enjoyed this quote:

"He said the unemployment rate in Mexico is only 4.5 percent. Along the border, there is no unemployment according to Fox."

http://americajr.com/news/vicentefox0912.html

Easy to have zero unemployment when you just ship them North so your own Billionaires don't have to pay reasonable taxes to support your country; or pay decent wages.

I'll second Lars' comments on the water. Oil is secondary.

[William R. Cumming]

At present rates of immigration-legal and illegal--some are reporting 18 majority Hispanic STATES by 2025. This does not distinguish between Mexicans and other hispanics. What I keep hearing from Mexican friends, usually well educated [US} and well off is the next revolution will result in the Northern Tier of Mexican STATES dividing off from the rest of Mexico and hoping to eventually partion Mexico with ulitmate statehood in US for those Northern Tier States. Most now invest, play and reside quite often in US even now. All are fully bilingual. Is this a liklihood? Have no idea but interesting that it is expressed. Most of these people believe no ultimate self government and reform possible in Mexico. Of course to some degree I think the same for the US. But hey maybe there is a law of small differences that dictate historical outcomes. Rome fell because costs of joining up too high not because it did not have benefits for those joining up. IMO of course.