What's in (Southern Sudan's) Name?

In Southern Sudan, from January 9th to 15th, a referendum was held to decide if Southern Sudan would secede from Northern Sudan. As of January 23, 2011, the preliminary results indicate that 98.8% of the voters voted for independence (votes per region). The result of the referendum will be declared, at the latest, on February 14, 2011. There were delays and problems in the preparations for the election, however, the elections went over with very few problems, and the African Union said that the referendum was "free, fair, and credible". This referendum comes after years of war between the north and the south. They gained independence from Great Britain and Egypt in 1956. A civil war began even before they gained full independence and lasted from 1955-1972, and a the second civil war began in 1983 and finally ended in 2005 with a peace agreement that promised this referendum. Over 2 million people have died in this conflict. Beyond the history lesson though, when Southern Sudan secedes (if everything goes as expected) they will face the question: What do we call ourselves now?

The name Sudan originally comes from the Arabic phrase bilad al-sudan (land of the blacks) which was used to describe Sub-Saharan Africa. So, the name Sudan does not have historical significance to the people of Southern Sudan any more than Native Americans have an affinity to the label 'Indian'. However, the Southern Sudanese people have grown up and struggled under the name of Sudan, they have developed an identity of the Sudanese people so to give that name up may be to forget all the struggle it took to finally gain independence. In the Sudan Tribune there have already been many articles about the possibilities of new names and arguments to keep the name Sudan. The leading contenders right now are South Sudan and The Nile Republic, as well as some other more creative and strange ideas (like Wunjubacel - a name made up of the first letter of the 10 southern Sudanese state names plus Abeyi, Nuba Moutains, and Blue Nile). Find arguments for South Sudan here, The Nile Republic here, and Wunjubacel here. Both the article for Southern Sudan and the article for The Nile Republic make valid points about each name. The name Southern Sudan helps the history of the country and the struggle towards independence apparent, and honors those that have perished to fight for it. While the name The Nile Republic gives the region its own separate identity and allows them to move forward. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (previously Zaire and the Belgian Congo) have had many names and with each one came different baggage. The name was changed to Zaire in 1965 partly in order to move past the dark ages of the Belgian Congo. However, under the name of the Congo the Congolese had developed their own identity, grown as a country, and in Zaire they found themselves living in a home that felt very different to the one that they remembered. I am not saying that if the South does secede they will be governed like President Mobutu governed Zaire, but I think it is an interesting parallel to draw. To what extent does what we call our home change us?

Beyond that, I think that Southern Sudan should decide on a name that is best for their future. Moving forward however, should be done while remembering the past. So, when they do decide what they will call themselves, be it Southern Sudan or the Nile Republic (or anything else for that matter), they should choose a name that represents them as a people - united, strong, and hopeful.

What do you think?

Mountains Beyond Mountains

Dr. Paul Farmer

Recently I finished the book Mountains Beyond Mountains, written by Tracy Kidder. The book follows Dr. Paul Farmer, an infectious disease specialist who truly cares about every human beings welfare and has devoted his life to making healthcare available to those who do not have it. The book is touching and thought provoking and will leave you with a sense of uneasiness that comes with the knowledge that so many people suffer unnecessarily in the world and wonder at the ultimate kindness of the people that are trying to stop the tide of suffering. It would have been easy to portray Dr. Farmer as someone who is beyond human, but Kidder does an excellent job at keeping Farmer both real in your mind and showing the amazing things he has done. With that juxtaposition the acts seem both closer so that the reader can help as well, but they keep their mythic appeal because they are, in reality, fantastic. Dr. Farmer is not only a doctor, he and his organization Partners in Health have developed an organization that not only provides healthcare but fights for the rights of the poor locally and globally, and attempts to provide every opportunity they can for those they encounter. I am interested in medicine and public health so that aspect of the book was interesting to me but I think that the other themes are prevalent enough for anyone to enjoy the read.

An issue throughout the book that Dr. Farmer fights with is the issue of "cost-efficacy" of healthcare. When dealing with a small amount of funds and a large amount of sick people, what are you supposed to do? Throughout the book Farmer takes the stand that no one should be turned away because medicine that can cure them is too expensive. I wish that this could always be the case but this issue is very important currently because that is not always possible. It is abhorrent that medical care that can save someones life must be denied because that money could save others more cheaply. I think though that although it is not a happy subject it deserves at least some thought because closing our eyes and pretending it doesn't exist will not make the problem of inefficient funds for healthcare go away. PRI's the World did a thoughtful series on the subject a few weeks back, where they examined both sides of the argument, and I think it is worth listening to. I think it may be one argument that does not have a right answer. The thought you should come out of Mountains Beyond Mountains thinking (or at least the one I did) is that the fact that rationing healthcare does happen, and may be necessary in certain situations today, but that as human beings we should do what we can to make it so that it is not necessary. To work towards the same ends as Dr. Paul Farmer and make it so that no one dies from a curable cause because their cure was too expensive.