South Sudanese Independence

[Dimentio]

MMdYnE27sPo

Discuss.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We had a small section in the south of Sudan in our old organization. They worked closely with members in Uganda.

"South Sudanese independence" has nothing to offer the working class or humanity in general and will bring us no closer to a classless world free from exploitation and oppression. Calling on workers to support "South Sudanese independence" is nothing more than a call for them to die for one set of exploiters in conflict with another set.

[Dimentio]

We had a small section in the south of Sudan in our old organization. They worked closely with members in Uganda.

"South Sudanese independence" has nothing to offer the working class or humanity in general and will bring us no closer to a classless world free from exploitation and oppression. Calling on workers to support "South Sudanese independence" is nothing more than a call for them to die for one set of exploiters in conflict with another set.

What is the difference with Palestine, really? The population in South Sudan are understandably quite frustrated over Sharia laws, imposed Arabic and some million killed people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think he's trying to say that Africa has too many countries based on colonial borders.

[Red Commissar]

Just to add on to the point about gas reserves:

http://www.zawya.com/eiu/images/SUDAN_Industry_overview_01May2008_1.gif

This is really central to the issue right now and why a lot of foreign countries have become interested in the matter right now. It has something to bring to the table and nations who were originally shut out of Sudan's industry now have a chance to benefit from it.

I'll be watching the referendum for sure to see what different country reactions are to the result.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What is the difference with Palestine, really? The population in South Sudan are understandably quite frustrated over Sharia laws, imposed Arabic and some million killed people.

Are you really asking how the situation differs from that of Palestine? They are far from identical.

Still, I don't think "Palestinian independence" offers anything the working class or humanity in general and will bring us no closer to a classless world free from exploitation and oppression.

Show where "national independence" has, anywhere.

[Rusty Shackleford]

independence = likely war.

the vast support in the west has its roots in the resources in the area set to secede.

[Dimentio]

Are you really asking how the situation differs from that of Palestine? They are far from identical.

Still, I don't think "Palestinian independence" offers anything the working class or humanity in general and will bring us no closer to a classless world free from exploitation and oppression.

Show where "national independence" has, anywhere.

There is a slight difference between having four weeks paid vacation reduced to three and having to defecate in ditches alongside public roads.

The main difference is also that foreign oppressors tend to be more brutal than indigenous oppressors.

The comment on Palestine was because Freepalestine had thanked that post.

[Sasha]

note that its not only natural resources or religion wich fuel this conflict, its originaly an conflict over land and water by farmer/rural blacks and nomadic arabs.
the top boys/power behind the groups might be in it for the oil, for the normal rebel or militia fighter its an centurys old fight over very basic stuff.

[Sasha]

independence = likely war.

the vast support in the west has its roots in the resources in the area set to secede.

well, there is already an war, an very brutal genocidal war so i understand the south sudanese for going for the full stretch.



The main difference is also that foreign oppressors tend to be more brutal than indigenous oppressors.


:confused: while imperialist war are often brutal, and in the case of the real colonial wars the brutallity inflicted by foreign troops was horrific but i would say that in this day and age its the civilwars, the tribal/ethnic conflicts that are the more brutal. as you can see even in iraq and afganistan, foreign opressors tend to aim mostly at fighing the actual ressistance (with still an ton of "colleteral damage") while indigenous opressors tend to target the civilian population even far worse.

[Dimentio]

Southern Sudan is not Darfur. In Darfur, it is basically nomads vs farmers. In South Sudan, it had been the Khartoum government against the population.

[Dimentio]

:confused: while imperialist war are often brutal, and in the case of the real colonial wars the brutallity inflicted by foreign troops was horrific but i would say that in this day and age its the civilwars, the tribal/ethnic conflicts that are the more brutal. as you can see even in iraq and afganistan, foreign opressors tend to aim mostly at fighing the actual ressistance (with still an ton of "colleteral damage") while indigenous opressors tend to target the civilian population even far worse.

The people of southern Sudan view the Khartoum government as foreign exploiters.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

How much is this a call for independence or a call for some companies access to the oil? Im not saying that the Khartoum-regime is the best alternative (far frome) its just too shaddy and too many gaps in the way media presents it.

[Dimentio]

The local government is also consisting of crooks, and the guy who would become the leader of South Sudan would it be independent would be a homophobic warlord who have called for the killing of gays (but the North are also doing the same).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The main difference is also that foreign oppressors tend to be more brutal than indigenous oppressors.

Tell that to the Ugandan victims of the Idi Amin, the German victims of Hitler, etc.

Anyway, is our job to sit around rooting for the "least brutal" oppressor, or to fight for the abolition of oppression?


well, there is already an war, an very brutal genocidal war so i understand the south sudanese for going for the full stretch.

The fighting in Sudan is being labeled genocide by people in the US and UK governments for very specific reasons.

Hint: It's not because they are great humanitarians.


In South Sudan, it had been the Khartoum government against the population.

As opposed to the rest of the world, where the government does not serve the ruling classes?


The people of southern Sudan view the Khartoum government as foreign exploiters.

And "native" exploiters are somehow better?

The process of exploitation continues.

I think the main point is that there is no local/national solution to what are specific effects of a global capitalist system.

[freepalestine]

The main difference is also that foreign oppressors tend to be more brutal than indigenous oppressors.

The comment on Palestine was because Freepalestine had thanked that post.the irony...lol
as for south sudan and the sahara region - the poster mentioned exploitation from the u.s. and multinational oil companies.forget about khartoum,and the being "arab"-the south will be independent.
and the u.s. is impartial to it all.
n.b. what has palestine -isreal ,got to do with sudan.

[Dimentio]

Nothing, except that it is also a case of a country that wants to be independent and is prevented by another country which has occupied it's territory.

[freepalestine]

it's a comletely different situation.
the south of sudan want to be independent of the north.
they arent occupying the south.
as for palestine-the country was stolen,the palestinians transferred .
the palestinians want to be go back to their country,towns,villages.
half the popualtion 5.6million are outside palestine 48

[Dimentio]

it's a comletely different situation.
the south of sudan want to be independent of the north.
they arent occupying the south.
as for palestine-the country was stolen,the palestinians transferred .
the palestinians want to be go back to their country,towns,villages.
half the popualtion 5.6million are outside palestine 48

The situation is similar. De-facto, the South of Sudan has been occupied by Khartoum, especially as the two areas - while being a British colony - were having two regional administrations, one in the north and one in the south. It was only just prior to independence that the North was gaining the right to administrate the South as well by a Salomonic British decision.

If Israel had been given all of Palestine, would therefore Palestinian resistance have been less legitimate because of Israel "legally" owning the land?

For me, the important thing is not who is owning the land, but that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Moreover, it is evidently clear that the south would probably vote for independence.

[hatzel]

Of course the north are occupying the south (as far as the south Sudanese are concerned). Otherwise there would be no call for independence, because they would already be free. Working on the assumption that they're not free, this must mean that the south is 'occupied' by the central government in Khartoum. The original point by NHIA was that we should not support the south Sudanese fighting and dying for 'independence' from the north, so that they can have their own 'local' oppressors ruling over them, rather than 'foreign' oppressors. Dimentio merely pointed out the potential irony in natlib types agreeing with this sentiment. Which, of course, I would agree with, as surely natlib movements are supposed to support one another...

The issue here is of course the oil. Not necessarily looking outside, beyond the borders of South Sudan. Irrespective of what reasons western governments give for supporting this movement, there is a movement existing outside of this, a desire for the people to claim independence. Locally, this desire still stems from the oil. Merely the desire, as a nation, to claim exclusive ownership of that oil, and other resources, to then profit from. Even if there were already dozens of American and European companies boring for oil in South Sudan, their desire for independence would still exist, as they would want to be the ones taking the profits from this whole enterprise.

This isn't to say that there isn't oppression of the people going on, but there might be the issue. One could potentially fight this oppression, and fight for equality, without breaking out and setting up a new country. The main people to benefit from an independent South Sudan would be the local capitalists, who will have exclusive ownership of the resources, without having huge slices of the profits taken away and shipped off to Khartoum. Remembering that your common rural farmer probably doesn't give two hoots about who he's got to pay taxes to, interest in independence is most likely spread among the people by the capitalists and the ruling class set to benefit from independence. Even if this common farmer did feel that he was being oppressed, that (government) people were coming along and razing his crops and killing his family, I doubt his solution would be 'we must set up our own country, so that our own people can raze my crops and kill my family!' unless he had been fooled into thinking that was the solution...

[Dimentio]

This isn't to say that there isn't oppression of the people going on, but there might be the issue. One could potentially fight this oppression, and fight for equality, without breaking out and setting up a new country. The main people to benefit from an independent South Sudan would be the local capitalists, who will have exclusive ownership of the resources, without having huge slices of the profits taken away and shipped off to Khartoum. Remembering that your common rural farmer probably doesn't give two hoots about who he's got to pay taxes to, interest in independence is most likely spread among the people by the capitalists and the ruling class set to benefit from independence. Even if this common farmer did feel that he was being oppressed, that (government) people were coming along and razing his crops and killing his family, I doubt his solution would be 'we must set up our own country, so that our own people can raze my crops and kill my family!' unless he had been fooled into thinking that was the solution...

Most likely, the end result would be a civil war in South Sudan between various ethnic groups about who is going to get the oil income. Then in 2020, some semblance of stability might have been established. Moreover, the regional government is already corrupt and have blood on it's hands. And yes, it is true that South Sudan is supported by the west (which is the reason why National Liberationists are lukewarm or against it), and that North Sudan traditionally has friendlier relations with Russia and China.

[freepalestine]

The situation is similar. De-facto, the South of Sudan has been occupied by Khartoum, especially as the two areas - while being a British colony - were having two regional administrations, one in the north and one in the south. It was only just prior to independence that the North was gaining the right to administrate the South as well by a Salomonic British decision.

If Israel had been given all of Palestine, would therefore Palestinian resistance have been less legitimate because of Israel "legally" owning the land?

For me, the important thing is not who is owning the land, but that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Moreover, it is evidently clear that the south would probably vote for independence.as for sudan it was part of egypt.
although the main point-palestine/zionist state is not like sudan.in palestine the native population was transferred to neighbouring arab states.with the approval of the imperialists.they have no state ,it was entirely stolen.
the sudanese struggle in the south is for nation al liberation/separation from the northern sudanese.as for western interference its all part of whats happening in all states across sahara region.with oil/minerals being their main interests.real leftists would be against that.

[hatzel]

And yes, it is true that South Sudan is supported by the west (which is the reason why National Liberationists are lukewarm or against it), and that North Sudan traditionally has friendlier relations with Russia and China.

I wonder how long it will be until people start viewing these Chinese-supported states as imperialist pawns, in the same way they view western-backed states...particularly as Chinese companies continue their roll across the third world, much as American companies have for decades...

[FreeFocus]

European colonialism and the international state system with arbitrary borders has really fucked Africa (and a lot of other places) up. I do think that the people of South Sudan are being killed by the Khartoum government; if secession would result in the North invading, then what's the point? They would probably lose and we're back at square 1, possibly even worse. It would end up being a resource war, I doubt the northern capitalists would want to surrender those resources.

Yeah, working class revolution is the only thing that can improve the situation, etc etc, ad nauseum. It's true. But at the moment, there's a lot of racial oppression, there's genocide and ethnic cleansing, there's mass poverty. A nominally independent South Sudan probably won't solve any of this. All I know is that it's a bad situation there, I can't really speculate about practical solutions right now because I don't know enough details.

[Sankara1983]

Khartoum had the chance to rule the south for 55 years, and the northern government botched it. A vote in favor of independence is inevitable, so it is pointless to argue about whether the workers in the United States or Western Europe should support it. They don't get a say in the matter.

[hatzel]

Rakunin's (somewhat misplaced) thread highlighted something interesting. Namely, that outlined in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11812926 - do we attach much credibility that this might negatively impact the people of the north, as Khartoum attempts to turn the authoritarianism on, to prevent any other provinces, such as Darfur, following South Sudan in declaring independence? We are constantly talking about the new state, and don't even stop to think of the old one...

[Dimentio]

European colonialism and the international state system with arbitrary borders has really fucked Africa (and a lot of other places) up. I do think that the people of South Sudan are being killed by the Khartoum government; if secession would result in the North invading, then what's the point? They would probably lose and we're back at square 1, possibly even worse. It would end up being a resource war, I doubt the northern capitalists would want to surrender those resources.

Yeah, working class revolution is the only thing that can improve the situation, etc etc, ad nauseum. It's true. But at the moment, there's a lot of racial oppression, there's genocide and ethnic cleansing, there's mass poverty. A nominally independent South Sudan probably won't solve any of this. All I know is that it's a bad situation there, I can't really speculate about practical solutions right now because I don't know enough details.

Well, independence could make the people of the South think about other things.

I don't think Omar Al-Bashir would invade. He has even stated that no matter how the results are going, he would accept an independent south. The question though is where the borders are going to be placed.

If there is no war between the both Sudans, it will most likely be increased violence in the south, as the South hardly is ethnically homogenous.

Africa in the year 1800 was around the same level of social development as the Mediterranean region was during the early iron age. Colonialism simply forced Africa into the modern world, but without the social organisation required to form successful societies. Now, the Africans are placed with achieving thousands of years of social development in mere decades.

Africa was not even feudal when the Europeans simply carved it up. The most advanced kingdoms were slave states, still in an ancient mode of production.

That's not saying that Africans were/are inferior. If Europe had the same geographic characteristics as Africa, then Europe would have followed a similar path of development.

[freepalestine]

Sudan: History of a Broken Land Al Jazeera maps the turbulent history of a country on the verge of a momentous decision.




7okF15IeSXE


As the people of southern Sudan prepare to vote in a referendum that may see them secede from the North, filmmaker Jamie Doran looks at the history of a troubled country.
It was the giant of Africa: a nation which once represented the greatest hope for peaceful coexistence between Arab and African, Muslim and Christian. That hope is all but gone. The promise of Sudan was just an illusion.
It is already a fractured country and, in the longer term, this is unlikely to be an isolated matter of north and south breaking apart following the referendum on southern secession. Separatist movements in regions such as Darfur and the Nuba Mountains are watching with more than curiosity. And it is not just Sudan: in other African and Arab countries independence factions are eyeing developments with a view to making their move either through the ballot box or the gun.
In the run-up to the referendum, I travelled to Sudan to make the film. I have been fortunate enough in my life to have visited most of the world's countries and yet, this would be the first time I had set foot in Africa's largest.
To say that the northern Sudanese people are enormously friendly may be clichéd, but it is also very true. Soon after our arrival, the car we had hired in Khartoum broke down and we quickly found ourselves surrounded by young men, all of them trying to help discover and rectify the fault. No-one was looking for money; it simply came naturally to them to help out and was just one example of many we would discover in the following weeks.
Unfortunately though, I also discovered self-delusion: in the coffee shops, restaurants and streets, the vast majority of people I spoke with wanted desperately to believe that it was not too late and that, surely, the South will never leave the union. It will.
Sudan's lost unity
In the South I found determination and certainty: that independence is the only goal and that they will face up to any other problems once that goal is achieved. This naivety is an ironic repetition of events in 1956, when Sudan gained independence from the British/Egyptian administration. Then, as now, internal problems and disagreements were set aside until the target was reached.
Almost five decades of conflict followed and, today, the prospect of intra-tribal war in the South, following its own independence, is very real ... but no-one wants to talk about it until the referendum is over.
As always, it is the innocent people who will suffer. Well over two million may have died in the civil wars, but I have little doubt that the self-destruct button humanity has pushed so often in the past will be employed once again.
So who is to blame for Sudan's predicament?
Most northern politicians and historians will tell you it is the British. And they have a strong case. The splitting of the country in 1922, when northerners were not allowed to travel south (over the 10th Parallel) and southerners north (over the 8th), ensured that Muslims were stopped from spreading their faith southwards while the British openly supported the influx of Christian missionaries to the South. This created much of the division that exists today.
The two cultures were never given a proper opportunity to interact, which is a genuine tragedy as they could have learned so much from each other. Most certainly, I met very many individuals from both sides of the soon-to-be border who could have coexisted with ease. I think here of the Tabibi brothers in Omdurman, Aban Raphael in Malakal, villagers in the Nuba Mountains and their counterparts in Bor; all of them good people, wishing only for peace.
But is it really just the British who are to blame? As the youngest son of an Irish nationalist, I am not about to defend the actions of colonialists. But a question must be posed: why, in the 55 years since those colonialists departed, has the Sudanese government failed to invest in the South?
To this day, there are just 50km of paved roads in a country the size of France. Illiteracy amongst women is almost 100 per cent; poverty is rife, healthcare virtually non-existent and starvation a frequent blight.
Add to this the attempts by northern politicians to impose their own interpretation of Sharia Law (the infamous 'September Laws') on southern Christians and another picture emerges. The North imposed its dominance by force and, inevitably, the South rebelled.
'The forgotten tribe'
As the country awaits the outcome of the referendum, I cannot help but think that, whatever the outcome may be, we have not seen the last of conflict. Eighty per cent of the oil is in the South, while the pipeline runs north. There is Darfur, potentially insoluble. And there is Abyei, situated right on the proposed border, inhabited by the southern Dinka Ngok tribe but used by the northern nomadic Misseriya tribe on a seasonal basis for grazing their cattle herds.
Frequently, the Dinka have come under attack from Misseriya militias, resulting in massacres and destruction. But the Misseriya see themselves as the forgotten tribe, and they have a case.
Under the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which brought civil war to an end, two referenda were agreed: one for southern secession or unity and the other to give Abyei the opportunity to choose to be part of the North or the South.
There is simply no question that the Dinka Ngok would vote for the South but, under the terms of the CPA, the Misseriya were not given the vote and feel massively aggrieved. They fear that Abyei, as part of the new south, would attempt to stop them crossing the border, denying them the grazing rights they have enjoyed for centuries. As the Misseriya chief, Babu Nimir, told me:
"If Dinka Ngok say that they will not permit the Misseriya to reach the waters, I tell you, we will fight them. We will fight them. We will fight them. And we will go through even beyond Abyei to drink water and to take pasture."
The Abyei referendum has now been effectively abandoned, leaving a dangerous state of limbo which could ignite at any time.
Sudan is already a broken land and it is difficult to envisage any form of lasting peace in the near or even distant future. I can only hope, on behalf of the many good people it was my privilege to meet, that I am wrong.
Sudan: History of a Broken Land can be seen from Wednesday, January 5, at the following times GMT: Wednesday: 0300, 1900; Thursday: 1400; Friday: 0300; Saturday: 2200.
Source:
Al Jazeera








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

Deadly clashes ahead of Sudan vote At least 25 people killed in unrest involving south Sudan security forces in the run-up to referendum on secession.

Last Modified: 08 Jan 2011 19:09 GMT


At least 25 people have been killed in clashes involving south Sudan security forces in the run-up to the referendum in which southerners are to vote on whether to split from the north.
Sources told Al Jazeera on Saturday that 19 people had been killed in Abyei, the border region which is claimed by both the north and the south. Ten of those were said to belong to the Dinka tribe and nine to the Misseriya tribe, which is loyal to the Khartoum government.
Al Jazeera's Mohammed Vall, reporting from Abyei, cited a spokesman for the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) which governs the south, as saying the unrest had started on Friday.
"According to the spokesman, it was Misseriya armed men who opened fire on a group of policemen from SPLM," he said.
"Those clashes were renewed today and according to the same spokesman, both parties used some heavy weapons.
"Also, we spoke to a spokesman on the Misseriya side and he had a different story. He said it was SPLM policemen who opened fire on Misseriya shepherds."
Deng Arop Kuol, Abyei's chief administrator said "unknown gunmen" had attacked civilians in the Makeir area.
"Several civilians were killed," he said.
'Disrupting the referendum'
Philip Aguer, a spokesman for south Sudan's army, the SPLA, said earlier in the day that his forces had killed six people in separate clashes with fighters loyal to Galwak Gai, a militia leader, in Unity state.
"They were coming from the north to disrupt the referendum. It is a known game. The spoilers are always here. They definitely came from Khartoum," he said.
Gier Chuong, south Sudan's internal affairs minister, blamed the Abyei violence on members of the Misseriya tribe along with "elements that are unknown".
"It is believed that some of them have been putting on uniforms and clashing with the police around Abyei this afternoon," he said.
"Possibly they claim to be Misseriya but are supported by Janjiwid," he said referring to the pro-government predominantly-Arab militia which supports the Khartoum government.
Chuong said that the violence was being instigated by "elements that are looking to undermine the south and interfere with the voting".
Southern leaders have regularly accused north Sudan of backing militias in an attempt to disrupt the referendum on whether the south should secede. Northern leaders have dismissed the accusations.
'Ready for secession'

Earlier this week, SPLA commanders said they are well equipped to deal with any situation that may arise after the referendum, including an attack from the north.
The governor of the Upper Nile state at the border between north and south told Al Jazeera that secession should be peaceful, but that any northern aggression would be met with force (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/01/201117175519469353.html).
"What do we do, we fight. We don't want to fight but we have the capacity to protect ourselves and to defend and our territory," Simon Kuon Pouch said.
Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, said he was concerned about possible instability in the south following the vote.
"The stability of the south is very important to us because any instability in the south will have an impact on the north. If there is a war in your neighbour's house, you will not be at peace," he said.
"The south suffers from many problems. It's been at war since 1959. The south does not have the ability to provide for its citizens or create a state or authority."

'Peaceful co-existence'

However, Salva Kiir, the south Sudanese president, said on Saturday that an independent south would be peaceful and work with its northern neighbours.
"Today there is no return to war," he said.
"The referendum is not the end of the journey but rather the beginning of a new one," he said alluding to the six-month transitional period to recognition as an independent state stipulated by the 2005 peace agreement between the Khartoum government and the former rebels in the south.
"There is no substitute for peaceful co-existence."
Voting in the south starts on Sunday and will continue for seven days
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/20111813935854947.html