Comments on: Splitting Sudan Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:12:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: » Splitting Sudan: Dangerous Contagion, or About Time? Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:17:39 +0000 [...] week, I wrote about “Splitting Sudan” into two states and possibly another autonomous region. If it goes ahead, this would be the first such partition since Eritrea and Ethiopia were [...]

By: Eddie Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:51:25 +0000 DPT,

I agree about the depressed nature of independence. If the Chinese were wise, they would invest heavily in both countries to keep the oil flowing and help create something resembling a at least a 19th century nation-state in S. Sudan.

By: J. Naylor Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:54:51 +0000 The present situation in both regions is the result of years of neglect by the government in Khartoum and the British/Egyptian condominium before that. If both areas vote for independence of one kind or another the end result will be two new failed states on the continent. Lack of food,water and little or no infrastructure plus oil does not a good mix make.

By: DPT Sun, 03 Oct 2010 05:50:11 +0000 Re Windthorst and Eddie, I think China’s reaction will be particularly interesting – on the one hand, China has always been a strong opponent of any sort of “splittism” because of its own issues with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang – so it would not be surprising for Beijing to stay at Khartoum’s back.

But on the other hand, China’s economic interest would be to forge some kind of arrangement with South Sudan to access the oil. The Chinese might try to broker some sort of deal between Juba and Khartoum to keep those pipelines open, but a lot of China’s reaction will probably depend on how independent South Sudan becomes in practice. If the Sudanese Civil War resumes, China might just support Khartoum or fence sit.

And given the difficulty of getting oil from South Sudan to anywhere else without going through Sudan (new pipelines through Kenya would probably fall victim to terrorism from Al Shabaab or the like), the new government probably will not be in any position to make or break oil supply agreements at all.

Considering that the US and other states trying to impartially form a peace agreement cannot provide much support to South Sudan without disavowing their neutrality, South Sudan will probably not be in a position to govern in general. I am not sure if 2011 will be call for much celebration, even in Juba.

By: Windthorst Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:54:29 +0000 Thanks for the reminder. The topic is really rarely covered

As you raised the question concerning the international alignment, I could imagine that the new South Sudan could move to the side of Ethiopia by that towards the USA. With the still fresh memories of the recent civil wars, I think South Sudan will stay away from Arab dominated and Muslim orientated countries.

I wonder how the Chinese will react, if the new government breaks some oil supply agreements.

By: dave Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:10:30 +0000 Having travelled extensively through Africa, a problem (not the main one), is that most people that rise to power, do so for powers sake, and not for the sake of the people.
Africa has far too few selfless politicians.
Any succession by the south of Sudan will come about due to the wantr of power of the few, not gthe masses.
Does Africa need another Liberia / Sierra Leone ?

By: kurt9 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:15:35 +0000 There will be a period of chaos following secession. However, the separation of Arabs and Blacks will be better for both groups over the long run.

Africa has to be Africa. It has to be free from the meddling of Europeans and Arabs so that they can evolve their own model of economic growth.

It is currently fashionable to talk about the hopelessness of Africa, of the inability of the African people to pursue growth oriented societies. One must remember that it was fashionable to say these same things about East Asia around 1960 or so.

Give it time. Africa will be OK.

By: Scott Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:28:05 +0000 Some how I don’t think peace will last, the oil issue as well as water will be a big thing.

By: Eddie Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:51:22 +0000 As this has unfolded to its seemingly unbelievable end (unbelievable in the sense it may actually be a peaceful split), it does inspire a few questions.

Primarily, what country will be the primary int’l backer of South Sudan? Khartoum has China bankrolling it so who will Juba turn to? America, Great Britain, India? All three and South Korea as well? It won’t just be a matter of aid money and investment, but the training and arming of the armed forces, the police and the intelligence service.

In other fake states in sub-Saharan Africa, could we imagine similar outcomes? Nigeria comes to mind, as it seems to be running into a hell of a rough patch of late, with leadership chaos, mounting insurgency, and rising religious tensions. How could the dissolution of the Somali state be better navigated and guided?

Finally, what happens if it becomes a failed state (which it is perilously close to as we speak)? Do you get an East Timor like situation where the IC steps in once again (via a regional hegemon) and tries to put Humpty back together again?