Next January, residents of southern Sudan will vote in a referendum on independence from Sudan. Sudanese officials are calling on the south to demarcate a precise boundary of the potential new independent country of southern Sudan before the January vote. While some see this as a challenge to delay the vote, others consider it a practical matter in the establishment of statehood for the south.
Sudan: South Sudan Boundary Must Be Decided Before Vote
By Matt Rosenberg, About.com GuideAugust 2, 2010
Explore Geography
Comments
I always thought that the vote would be delayed but al-Bashir has made several comments stating that he will support a vote for independence by the south. When I first read about the possible delay because of the demarcation issues I thought it was just an excuse to delay but I really do buy in to the fact that it’s necessary. We don’t want another conflict like Eritrea-Ethiopia.
I can’t wait for the vote but I’m worried about oil in the area. A war between countries is no better than a civil war.
And ‘independence’ by no means forestalls war – see the ex-Yugoslavian region in the 1990s.
I’ve long realised that smaller ethnic-based nations can make far more sense in the 21st. century.
Previously not often viable – due to over-bearing neighbours – now communications, international bodies, ‘instant’ world opinion can protect; and the ructions due to religion, race, whatever, removed.
But it’s not all happy going. We’ve just returned from a trip around the Balkans to check out just this factor.
Ludicrously sparse comment would be:
Slovenia & Croatia: Entirely happy with their new independence, forward-looking & positive. Possibly their proximity to ‘established’ Europe is making their transition easier.
Montenegro: Odd. Just a 700,000 population with no real ethnic/religious identity separate from Serbia, from whom they recently disengaged, with a barely 50% vote. Doesn’t really fit the reasons for ‘modern’ ethnic independence and might not have the essential mass for true progress alone? The jury is still out.
Serbia (not visited): Now relatively isolated, landlocked, and disliked in the region having lost all its cruel ‘empire-building’ wars against most other new nations in the area. Now has to re-find itself, but should survive as a nation.
Bosnia: Still a mess. It has no ethnic, cultural or religious entity. The original causes of all its troubles are still there – Roman Catholicism, Orthodox and Islam … Serbs, Croatians, Bosniaks … internal tensions still all vying. Therefore not encouraging.
So South Sudan? Not known personally, but appears to have the ethnic integrity that often now favours smaller independent nations. But some ‘difficult’ economic/political mountains to scale first.
If South Sudan can do it, why not Somaliland. It has been essentially independent and stable for a decade. But is not recognized by any other countries.
Good for them. I really hope they can pull this off without blood, fingers crossed.
But as gigantic as Sudan is, I’m only aware of it having one major city (actually 2 adjoining cities), located right in the country’s center. Will this remain the capital of either the north or the south, and if so, which one? Are there any other cities at all, in the north or the south of the country, with the size and infrastructure to become a new capital? And how could they ever afford the cost of erecting new buildings and infrastructure there?