Sudan has recently been in the news, as it's Southern population turn out in huge numbers to vote whether they wish to secede from Sudan, splitting the country in two. If this should happen (and it looks like it will, according to Jimmy Carter) therefore making it a valid election) it could be a historic day, not just for Sudan, but for Africa as a whole. It may even have global resonance, as other secessionist movements may view any success in Sudan as a precedent that they can use as ammunition in their own call for autonomy. We only have to look to the last few years to see that secession is still a hotly contested, and fought over issue. From the war between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia (and Abkhazia), to the mixed international response to the International Court of Justice's ruling that Kosovo's Declaration of Independence was legal, secession is widely debated by academics, politicians, and activists. This being the case, it is highly unsurprising that Sudan's vote should be of importance and interest to the international community.
The poll was agreed on during the 2005 peace negotiations which ended years of civil war that ripped through the largest African country. Current Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir publicly supports the vote, and has promised to accept the results. Whether the South can peacefully secede if the vote should be a positive "Yes" for separation, remains to be seen. There has already been some trouble in areas of neighbouring north and south, including the kidnap of three Bulgarian airline workers. Certainly the following years will be difficult for the divided countries - whilst North Sudan has better infrastructure, economic development, and dominates current politics, South Sudan has the majority of the extremely valuable oil fields that has fuelled the North's economic boom. Without this resource, North Sudan may need to rely on a different resource to support their commendable economic development. South Sudan, on the other hand, faces years of trying to build and improve scarce infrastructure resources, learn how best to utilise their oil reserves, and improve (nay, create) their educational system.
But what of the effects it will have on the rest of the world? Did I not open this post by saying that this was a historical moment? Well, possibly.
Secession is a controversial subject. Historically, governments fear secessionist movements because, they argue, it threatens state sovereignty, a legal right that is enshrined in Article 2 of the UN Charter. State sovereignty is the right for a state to rule over their country without interference from outside forces, and it is this law that prevents states from declaring war on each other (well, theoretically. This is the basic law that the US, UK and other coalition forces broke when they invaded Iraq, among other wars).
However, whilst the UN holds the principle of state sovereignty as one the central pillars of it's Charter, there are other principles that are enshrined within it. Another, of course, is human rights, but the right of self-determination is the principle that I am primarily interested it (though it can sometimes be subsumed under human rights).
Self determination is a right noted in Article One of the Charter, but is not explicitly defined by the Charter. This can cause problems, as organisations can interpret this right in different ways. One simple way of defining self-determination is the right of a people to freely choose their sovereignty or political status. This is obviously rather open ended, with no indication of what that status is, whether full territorial sovereignty (such as South Sudan now seeks), or some form or self-government or autonomy (such as Scotland has), or even just representation in government. It does not even describe who the people are, are they individuals, ethnic groups, geographically located groups or are they just whoever lives within the state borders and holds a passport?
The lack of agreement over defining the law makes it a problematic right. In fact, the way it has been applied to international relations has changed over the decades since it was first enshrined in international law (as part of the League of Nations). Because of this, the right of self-determination has only been used by the UN under very specific cases.
The first of these was during decolonization in Africa. This was achieved by accepting the existing colonial borders as the sovereign power seeking self-determination. Whilst this made it easier bureaucratically, it meant that ethnic groups, which some argue should be seen as "the people" were often split, or combined with other groups based arbitrary geographical, rather than cultural bases. This has led to much of the ethnic conflict that Africa has seen during it's years of independence, including the civil war in Sudan that led to this referendum, but it was also the reason why Eritrea gained it's independence from Ethiopia, which was the last African state to gain recognition from the UN.
The other example of self-determination being employed was during the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia. Because the countries that formed Yugoslavia were part of a federation, which had itself enshrined the right to depart from the federation in it's consititution, when the sparring countries finally agreed a peace deal that ended the Yugoslav wars, it was partly under the idea of self-determination that the countries legally seceded from the federation. I would point out that this is a gross simplification of the break up of Yugoslavia, and would suggest further reading would be needed to fully appreciate the historical and legal complexities of the period. Further to this, I would also point out that the talks that led to the break up of Yugoslavia didn't deal with the status of the autonomous regions within Serbia, and this led to further conflict during the Kosovan war.
So, what makes Sudan special? Well, quite simply, it will be the first country to legally secede from it's parent state through fully legal means - if, as promised, the North recognise the South's poll (and assuming the South will vote for self-determination), in other words, by defining "the people", polling them as a whole, having an independent, outside force monitor the election, and having acceptance of the North (or at least it's elected leader). Eritrea and East Timor succeeded through bloody war and international community acceptance that they were legal entities that had been forcefully incorporated into Ethiopia and Indonesia. Kosovo, which has tried to secede from Serbia, which until now was the most widely recognised new state, still has no legal status, due to lack of recognition by the UN. If South Sudan succeeds, they will become the youngest African nation, and the first to gain recognised sovereign status, despite having not been a governing entity before (as Eritrea and East Timor were).
Success may mean that other secessionist movements may hope that they, too, might eventually gain the same status. However, legal ambiguity, international suspicion and fear over separatist movements (especially among countries with minorities of their own, such as Russia and China) creating separatist contagion means that this would be highly unlikely. South Sudan are likely to remain an exceptional case.
Whatever importance South Sudan holds to secession and self-determination, Sudan faces and difficult and uncertain future. With poor infrastructure, lack of education, and the possibility of unrest in areas neighbouring North Sudan, it will be a long, hard road after separation, and it is likely to be equally difficult for the North, with political, economic and social ramifications facing the government, and the North Sudanese.
