Obama welcomes vote on Southern Sudan independence

[Recursion]

Source: BBC

Mr Obama said in a statement: "After 50 years of civil wars that have killed two million people and turned millions more into refugees this is the opportunity before the people of Southern Sudan."

He added that the action of Sudanese leaders would help determine whether Sudanese people move "toward peace and prosperity, or slide backward into bloodshed".

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has promised to respect the outcome, but warned an independent south would face instability.

Southern Sudanese voters are faced with two symbols on the ballot paper - a single hand for independence or two clasped hands to remain one country.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12148935

[JDPriestly]

1. Hopefully, life will improve for the Sudanese.

I suspect that Obama did some very good work here, work for which he is not claiming as much credit as he should.

I could be wrong. I'm not particularly well informed on this topic. I'm thinking however that really working this out took a certain amount of political risk internationally on his part.

I just hope it works out well for all the people of Sudan. I think there is some issue about oil being near or in the area in which the country was divided. That is why it was so difficult to resolve this conflict. Could someone please correct me if I am wrong about this?

[karynnj]

2. There are very many countries and the UN that also were involved, but the

US did make a major commitment - especially since last August. Obama early in his term sent Scott Gration as a special envoy. In addition, Senator Kerry went in April 2009 and was able to get the triparty talks on this re-established and to get some increase in the amount of humanitarian aid allowed into Darfur. (When Kerry returned and spoke of the results, NPR asked a weird question of whether Obama sent him - rather than someone officially in the Obama administration, because of the likelihood that it could fail and that this distanced the administration - Kerry laughed and batted the question away. But, your point goes to this as well - Kerry has been the unofficial high level Obama representative here and in that trip and the later fall ones, Obama did have the luxury of it not being his administration.

This fall, Kerry was there twice - the second time with Obama proposals to get around some of the road blocks. Kerry has also been there since Tuesday. (If you are interested, I put a lot of last week's articles in this thread over in the John Kerry group - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x168182 I had been putting them in a GDP thread as well, but stopped due to no interest (esp after Saturday) Here's a video from today with Kerry and George Clooney!

Even if this referendum succeeds, which looks highly likely, there will be a period where they need to work out the separation and in addition, as Kerry makes clear, there is still the issue in the North of Darfur.

In addition to Kerry, President Carter with Koffi Annan has been in Sudan and his center was among many who were monitoring the voting.

[JDPriestly]

3. Don't be discouraged if no one seems to respond or show

interest in a post. I read the foreign press every once in a while. This is a huge story in Europe -- as is the story about the hostages in Nigeria.

Americans are very egocentric, but that will change. It's mostly because Americans feel uncomfortable trying to deal with foreign languages.

[karynnj]

4. Thanks - I wasn't discouraged and have often posted foreign relations type stuff

knowing fully well that it was not going to be the hottest thing ever on a big forum. I was just explaining why I linked to the JK thread - which I ordinarily wouldn't. After Saturday morning, adding stuff would simply raise a thread that no one was showing interest in - almost equivalent to me kicking my own thread.

I agree with you that there is little interest in anything international now - and suspect that this is because there are so many pressing interests here - as I know you know from all your posts. There have been a few times where something - like Darfur back many years ago - does catch American interest, but then it fades from mind and is no longer an interest. Here, they are trying to avoid another Rwanda/Darfur type situation - and it is still not clear that they will find a way to get a peaceful North, a peaceful South and the North's Darfur area, which STILL has fighting and malnutrition, peaceful and not exploited.

I have read the European and African sources and although this is just a first step - it is a needed first step (or you can argue second step, where the first step was 5 years ago in the end of overt hostilities). The fact is that 6 months ago, the CW was that this referendum would not happen and fighting could well happen with Southerns angry that little was done in 5 years to make the referendum a reality.

[Posteritatis]

5. I'm glad to see some discussion of it at least

I also fully expected it to be overshadowed by what's going on in Arizona (and probably understandably so), but it's nice to see some awareness of what is honestly a really huge piece of news here with the referendum.

I still think what Sudan really needs is President Bashir in a cell in the Hague, but something like this process will do as well. I just hope the vote is fair and the results respected.

[karynnj]

7. I agree that I would prefer seeing Bashir in a cell in the Hague, but

given that there is no way for international authorities to legally remove him - it has made this harder.

One ramification is that Kerry and other Americans have not met him and have had to negotiate with his advisers and others. In a way this is parallel as they met with Kerry (and others) not directly with Obama.

At this point, it is a hard question. Assume that he acts acceptably for the next several months and all the complicated issues are decided and the split happens amicably and steps are begun to greatly improve Darfur, what does the world do with Bashir? On one hand, he will (given assumptions) have made all the needed moves to facilitate peace. On the other, he committed genocide. How do you balance potentially saving millions now alive vs having killed millions? That conundrum is if the best possible case happens - and it is a decision I think anyone would hate to have to make.

[DeeOwl]

6. It's is almost comical...

... to see how uninformed the average American is when it comes to geopolitical forecasts in this, or, heck just about any part of the world. Not really "their" fault since media in US of A is pretty much a subdivision of the State Department. Also, it doesn't help that most Americans belong to one of the two available parties so that pretty much colors their views one way or the other. (Can you say partisanship?)

Let me put it this way: expect a major war in that region within 18 months involving various Somali factions, Ethiopian factions, various Sudanese factions, and various extremists Ugandan and Congolese factions. You can expect various Nigerian factions to use this opportunity to do some serious hell-raising unseen since the days of Biafra. Oh yeah, American advisers and soon after actual troops on the ground... all over that place, you know because AU can't handle that sort of load.

Welcome to reality.

[karynnj]

8. I think most of us commenting on this are relying on US media

Look at the links I posted in my thread - very few are American because the US press has not covered it much.

As to partisanship coloring this - I watched SFRC hearings on this when Bush was President and when Obama was President. The SFRC did not divide on this by party.

Not to mention, no one posting here is giddy that this solves everything - or even close to that. No one - not Obama, Not Senator Kerry, not even George Clooney have suggested that. The fact is that there was a thread of war NOW if the referendum could not be done - and it appears to be going well. This is better than was thought 4 months ago.

Are you suggesting that Obama, Kerry, Carter, Annan, Clooney etc should not even try?

As to US soldiers be used in large numbers - we DON'T have enough soldiers given the Afghan and Iraq deployments.

[Posteritatis]

9. What would Somali or Nigerian soldiers be doing in Sudan?

One of those groups has little reason and less logistical capability to cross multiple countries, including one they're essentially at war with, and the other's on the opposite side of the continent.

I also find the idea of any substantial military presence on the ground by the US in the area laughable at best. I won't say it'll never happen, but it won't anytime soon; the US is still scared of Africa from the early nineties and still generally sees the continent as a monolithic basketcase where people are always at war for its own sake. You know, stuff like assuming all of the continent's trouble spots (that people hear about in western media) get together for conventions.

[social_critic]

10. Unrealistic Projection

The Somalis are engaged in their own internal strife, as well as trying to force out the African Union and Ethiopian troops imported by the US during the Bush regime's failed atempt to impose an arrangement on Somalia.