Secession.
It’s almost impossible not to know the word after living in the South. It was the main reason for the Civil War, and it’s something some Americans believe is a valid option.
Many people fought and died for the believed right of a state to secede during the Civil War. Yet the outcome showed us it was not going to happen. If a state pulls away from the rest of the country, the union will do what it must to get them back — even if it means war.
Yet, while people here at home continue to debate what the Constitution dictates on the topic, a country about 7,500 miles away is in the middle of such a process.
Having dealt with a fair share of difficult times in recent years, Southern Sudan is seeking secession as an answer.
Sudan, located in northeast Africa, seems to be working in the opposite way we went about it. Unlike our Civil War, which occurred after part of the country seceded, theirs started nearly three decades ago, lasting from 1983 until 2005.
Fought between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the centralized government, there were a few main points of contention.
While it mainly focused around disparity caused between the northern and southern regions of the country after decolonization, others have also painted the fighting as either racial or religious.
Although most of the details around the war are far too much to cover in a simple column, we can still easily see the repercussions of it. We don’t have to look much further than the situation in Darfur to realize this.
With all of this in mind, a referendum was held in mid-January for the people to decide whether Southern Sudan should split from the rest of the country. With an impressive turnout of 83 percent in Southern Sudan, they far surpassed the 60 percent required for the vote to count.
Early on, it looked like the vote was going to go to the secessionists, and when it finally finished, the results were obvious. With 98.6 percent of the vote, the people of Southern Sudan would soon split from Northern Sudan and have freedom from Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s rule.
Al-Bashir accepted the South’s secession, giving further cause for celebration. After fighting for the cause for more than 50 years, Southern Sudan finally achieved independence, and soon we shall see the creation of the Republic of South Sudan, scheduled for July 9.
Yet, as with many cases regarding the splitting of countries, many other variables need to be considered before this move can be called successful.
After accepting the southern region’s secession, al-Bashir announced he would be make North Sudan into an Islamic country, going so far as to remake the constitution so Shariah law and Islam will be the main sources of inspiration for it.
As al-Abir also said, “If South Sudan secedes, we will change the Constitution, and at that time there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity,” according to the New York Times.
While this vote may indeed have been for the greater good of Southern Sudan, it may be at the expense of those in the North.
We haven’t even taken into account the economic or territorial ramifications, either.
While Southern Sudan may be richer in oil deposits, it depends on pipelines running through the north to properly distribute it.
Additionally, many of these oil fields lay right along the old 1956 border, which could easily cause tension between the two new countries.
Although I celebrate with the southern Sudanese in their fight for freedom from oppression, this success is only the first step toward a free country. There will be many obstacles, whether it’s from their former president, fellow countrymen vying for a position of power, or simply the common throes of a newborn country.
Through all these possible problems, however, the people of the Republic of South Sudan must remember what they’re getting away from and how they are yet another part of the newly changing Africa.
Zachary Davis is a 20-year-old history junior from Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_zdavis.
 
_____
Contact Zachary Davis at [email protected]