Yes to Confederation, but will it do any Good to Southern People?

BY: Nhial K. Wicleek, CANADA

JULY 15/2010, SSN; Confederation has pros and cons that would modify or hamper the existence of south Sudan independence, simply because the idea is more irrelevant. 

As defined in the dictionary and other reliable sources, “A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defence, foreign affairs or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.”

Given this broad definition above, it'd be to everyone’s impulse to discern between the fact and fiction about why this unheard-of in the history of Sudan would come about or be accepted based on the defined clear objective why it should be considered. The question goes back to when and how long have south and the north been separate entities and if that was so, why hasn’t the idea of confederation been advocated ever since?

Our northern brothers have missed the point by urging southern brothers to stay united.  All they need is what so-called irrelevant confederation that has nothing to do with the secession of the south but to simply keep the interest of the northern brothers in the south. 

If it were not because south Sudan has gained a greater momentum that brings it to world standard, this simple idea would have not come to live because not even a single person has ever thought of it.  Otherwise, the-soon-to-be confederate system in the Sudan is meaningless for its primary base was already assassinated long before coming to coin.

We questioned for so long the injustice committed in the north against the marginalized groups, but there was no appropriate answer.  We asked for so long for the system to be reformed, yet the reformation case was left over. 

My fellow southerners, the test is right here placed on the table for us to take. Confederation, like that of referendum case is a subjective challenge one could ever think of. If lack of joy means nothingness in mind, these two important matters need to be dealt with, and clearly define our existence, the benefits we would obtain if necessary and the way forward to change that we have been preaching all day long since the first gunshot until the post modern time.

As I can see, some of us have great desire for confederation. To you all, who ever think of this idea are the ones that underestimate our will and superiority.  He or she is engaged by inferiority complex and that becomes a challenge to his/her cognitive function.  He or she could be considered as a person that lack independence by virtue of being a slave of other and deemed him or herself unjustified object that has no capability of independence. 

Another important example of why confederation should be objected to is that, “A confederation is an association of sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of their competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.” If that is the case, why is the idea of demarcation important to consider?

Yes to confederation, but I don’t think our northern brothers felt the need for this partial confederation, let alone that they are ready for it, for if they were ready they should have done something in favour of confederation. 

They'd have allowed political transparency, oil transparency, implementation of the agreed protocols, border demarcation, and the post referenda conduct for the Abyei people, the Blue Nile and the southern Khordufan people. 

They'd work toward strengthening the smooth political affiliation whereby all voices should be heard in expense of good governance. 

They should promote post-developmental goals and enhance the wealth sharing thereof to facilitate cohesive team work for the greater good of the general Sudan. This has not happened, likewise how can the marginalized groups incorporate into their own thinking the invisible fact?

To the best of my knowledge, if it is permissible, yes the two Sudans come 2011, would form a confederate nation with the definitions above.  However, if it is a choice, come 2011 in January, it's an ultimate decision to be taken collectively by southern people to liberate themselves from the enemy.

To the southern leaders, confederation has nothing as viewed by ordinary southern Sudanese living inside and outside the Sudan. First, southern Sudan has never witnessed development since its creation. Second, if southern Sudan could join with the north after secession that means wealth sharing question would come to play.  It indicates that our resources would still be used for the two separate entities, south and north.  Third, constitutionally, a confederate state involves universal constitution, universal unified government that acts on behalf of the member states that have signed the agreement to form a confederate state with its selected delegates from those separate entities to run the governmental affairs. 

Is this what southern Sudanese need to see after six months? I guess not! As we can see suggested by former South African President Mr. Mbeki by presenting three of his options to southern leaders that:

“The NCP & SPLM on the form of the Sudanese state after January 2011 with the first being ‘two independent countries with no durable links’ and where citizens needing visas to cross the border,” (Sudantribune). This option could be impartial because it represents what would likely happen right after 2011. Given what the administration consider being its policy, it should be noted that the citizens of the two independent states would travel using visas. However, let's take a look at another option for its magnitude.

The second option suggested is that "two independent countries existing within a broad and negotiated framework of cooperation making for soft borders that permit freedom of movement for both people and goods," (Sudantribune). What I think is wrong with this option is that, the smooth flow of goods come once peaceful co-existence comes to play. Without peace between the two independent states, no exchange of valuable goods and so the movement of citizens is endangered. 

This option indeed would be weighed only after the referendum is conducted. If it really goes well, the second option would definitely work well or it would be an option to consider. 

The third option suggests that "two independent countries which negotiate a framework of cooperation, which extends to the establishment of shared governance institutions in a confederal arrangement." (Sudantribune).

As a matter of fact, confederate system function only when the two countries that desire confederation have long established a solid governmental framework where both countries had equal representation.  But this has never happened in Sudan.  The central government of the Sudan, the Khartoum government acted ignorantly against the other marginalized states in favour of the northern states.  That shifted the idea of equalizing the development.

This third option to Mr.Mbeki can be good only if the system at large meet realistic reform with government institutions meeting new regulations so that it works for the best interest of all the people in the country. 

For that matter, I am urging southern leaders to deliberate between the right and wrong and work toward establishing an independent state than to beat around the bush, so that southern Sudanese interest is represented fully. 

To all other southern Sudanese, we are in critical junction where we can arise for the greater good of ourselves.  Let us bear in mind that getting this option done is the ultimate goal of our legitimate struggle, and for that reason it should be noted that we remain vigilant so that our right is not represented unfairly. 

We don’t need this confederation period, and so whoever promotes this idea is against our interest. We can join hands in fight against the enemy of the south by letting the world know that NO TO CONFEDERATION, yes to separation comes 2011.

Nhial K. Wicleek lives in Canada and can be reached at korow1st@yahoo.ca

COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE

Disclaimer: Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the website.