The results of the referendum in southern Sudan were released on February 6, and more than 99% of voters voted for the independence of the south, which is almost no suspense. In the eyes of many observers, Sudan is the largest country in Africa, and being divided into two is not only the tragedy of Sudan's geopolitics, but also the latest portrayal of the increasingly fragmented trend of the world geopolitical map.
At the end of World War I in the last century, there were about 30 countries in the world. At the end of World War II, there were more than 50 countries in the world. After World War II, the national liberation movement increased by more than 65,438+000 countries. After the end of the Cold War, due to the disintegration of the Soviet-East camp, more than 20 new countries suddenly appeared, bringing the number of countries to nearly 200. 20 1 1 Sudan split, which proves this trend again.
Similar to the Kosovo model in 2008, under the coercion of western powers, the northern and southern Sudan reached a "comprehensive peace agreement" in 2005, and the central government was forced to agree to hold a referendum in the south six years later to decide whether to be independent. On a larger scale, more than 90% of the countries in the world are multi-ethnic countries, and ethnic divisions caused by ethnic problems have not decreased. The "Sudan model" of independence through referendum can be said to provide a dangerous precedent for those countries facing the threat of separatism. If this separation mode continues, the trend of geopolitical fragmentation will intensify.
For the split of Sudan, many observers look for reasons from within Sudan, such as the complexity of race and religion, the separation of the North and South governments, and the lack of capacity of the central government. Although these factors are at work, from a deeper perspective, Sudan, like many previously divided countries, has suffered the fate of division, which has deeper theoretical misleading and realistic political reasons.
First of all, it was misled by the theory of "national self-determination". The so-called "national self-determination" means that "the nation is separated from foreign collectives, and this is a successful and independent nation-state." Any country has the right to decide who will represent and rule them. There are two theoretical sources: one is the theory of racial nationalism which originated in Europe, and its typical manifestations are the American independence movement and the French Revolution in the18th century. During World War I, American President Wilson clearly put forward the principle of "national self-determination" in the "14 Point Plan". Second, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin gave all ethnic groups in China the "national self-determination" in order to resist the czar's rule. After World War II, the right of national self-determination became one of the important principles of international law. Therefore, splitting the country in the name of "national self-determination" is the most difficult and theoretically chaotic place for a multi-ethnic country.
Historically, this "one nation, one country" model originated in Western Europe. Since the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century, Europe has been a small country with few people. This special geopolitical map has strengthened and formed different ethnic groups with different characteristics, and the nationalist trend of thought advocating "one nation, one country" is the poppy growing on this fragmented political map. After modern times, this ethnic theory with European genes was brought to the eastern countries as a panacea. In areas where ethnic groups live together, the import of political thoughts from other countries did not bring good news to the eastern countries, but caused huge vendettas, wars and regional turmoil for no reason. The Balkan region, which is closest to Western Europe and has the most complex ethnic composition, has thus become a "European powder keg", which triggered three Balkan wars in a short period of time and finally triggered the First World War. Today, the words "small countries in groups" and "Balkanization" are still used as derogatory terms.
Secondly, the west regards splitting other countries as a strategic means to weaken its opponents. Morgenthau, a master of international politics, once pointed out: "Countries that try to weaken their competitors or keep them weak adopt this divide-and-rule method by splitting their competitors or keeping them split." It is not difficult to understand why western countries are increasingly strengthening internal unity and integration, while in the non-western world they are vigorously instigating the national separation movement.
Take Kosovo, which was independent in 2008, as an example. In order to incite the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo, Europe and the United States publicly removed the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has been listed as a terrorist organization, from the list of terrorists, turned it into a "freedom fighter" and took violent actions against the Serbian army and Serbs. When the Serbian government fought back, the United States and Europe used it to launch the Kosovo war, which eventually led to the referendum on Kosovo's independence.
The reason why the west is so keen on splitting hostile countries is that the smaller the country, the easier it is to become a geopolitical pawn at its mercy. Kosovo was once called the "slum" of Yugoslavia, and now it is also one of the poorest areas in Europe. According to the statistics of the World Bank in 2005, the unemployment rate in Kosovo is 44%, and 37% of the residents live below the poverty line. The province can't provide lighting power for its capital Pristina, so it can't survive independently after independence, so it has to turn to European and American countries.
As far as Sudan is concerned, the United States has been hostile to Sudan for a long time and has taken a series of measures: listing Sudan as a "state supporting terrorism", carrying out a "surgical" attack on it, speculating on the Darfur issue, issuing an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Bashir, and so on. Planning the split in southern Sudan is the most dangerous. In 2005, under the temptation of western powers, the northern Sudanese government and the southern autonomous government reached a "comprehensive peace resolution", stipulating that the south would decide whether to stay or not by referendum six years later. Garang, the leader of the southern autonomous government at that time, firmly supported reunification and advocated internal autonomy. But strangely, Garang died in an air crash only half a year later, and the successor leader was obviously pro-Western and inclined to independence. Looking back now, Sudan's separatist road was basically carried out in accordance with the track set by the West. After the independence of southern Sudan, it is likely to follow the footsteps of Kosovo and throw itself into the embrace of the west, while the northern government is more difficult to compete with the United States because of its great damage.
Historical experience has proved that the unity and integrity of the national plate is a strong foundation for ensuring the survival and development of the country, while the division of the geopolitical plate is likely to lead to political turmoil and even the disintegration of the country. /kloc-In the middle of the 0/9th century, in the face of the disintegration of Germany, German Prime Minister Bismarck realized national reunification with the "iron-blooded policy" and made Germany a European power. In the face of the south's call for independence, American President Lincoln resolutely used force, which finally safeguarded national unity and laid the geopolitical cornerstone for the United States to become a superpower. In contrast, the disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the loss of superpower status. □ (Author: west asia and africa Institute, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations)