What do Argentina and South Sudan have in common? At first glance, nothing. While one has a vast territory – it is the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world – the African nation could fit in the territory of two of its southernmost provinces, Chubut and Santa Cruz.
South Sudan is landlocked, while Argentina’s territory boasts a long coastline. While the South Sudanese nation has for decades had a vast educational system that has allowed for some development in science and technology, the country, which only gained formal independence in 2011, still bears the traces of ongoing armed conflicts that have claimed the lives of more than 2 million people and displaced more than 4 million refugees.
While the population of the Latin American country is predominantly urban, the South Sudanese live mostly in rural areas. Nearly half of the African country’s inhabitants are under the age of 14, while in Argentina, this figure drops to just over a fifth of the population.
For its part, South Sudan defines itself as a “multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-racial entity” while racist patterns and indigenous and Afro-descendant genocide have predominated in an Argentina governed by Europeanising elites.
Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in the African country, while same-sex marriage is legal in the South American country.
However, both nations share the celebration of a very important day. The 9th of July marks each year the anniversary of their respective national independence.
And at a closer look, despite the differences, this is not the only thing they share.
Both nations have significant natural resources, in the case of South Sudan, especially oil, which has been one of the main reasons (and discord) for achieving self-rule by seceding from Sudan.
Both countries have an unacceptably high number of people living in poverty, high annual inflation and heavy debt to foreign institutions.
In both countries, multinational companies extract natural resources on a large scale, threatening the abundant wildlife and biodiversity of their habitats. Yet neither South Sudan nor Argentina are substantial contributors to climate change, both having low per capita carbon emissions.
If at a great distance in the world football rankings at the moment, both peoples share a passion for the game. South Sudan’s national team played its first international match in 2012, precisely on the occasion of the celebration of the first anniversary of its national independence.
Independence” in a world of interdependence
Beyond these somewhat schoolboyish comparisons and similarities, which merely serve to set the scene for this article, it is worth asking her about the meaning of national “independence” in a world of profound interdependencies.
Or is it not obvious that many aspects of people’s lives today are intimately connected to circumstances that go beyond their strictly state frameworks?
States were born from a vision that overcame the vassalage to which populations were subjected, both by local feudal powers and by the violence of the foreign colonial yoke. This violence was perpetuated by liberal imperialism, even after the crowned heads progressively abandoned their power over most of the world’s territories.
The historical triumph of national independences meant a certain amount of self-government, which although always controlled by minorities and with a relative dependence on the former colonial powers, made possible the growing conquest of rights and new opportunities for the disinherited of the earth, previously enslaved and exploited without any protection whatsoever.
National sovereignty, an inseparable part of the landscape of successive generations from their earliest childhood, represented at the same time an important factor of social cohesion, but also of the intended annihilation of pre-existing cultural differences.
On the basis of the construction of national entities, a governing body of some basic principles of international relations was also built in which, at least nominally, the peoples acquired the possibility of expressing their concerns, needs and convictions with relative parity.
The current situation shows the need for a profound renewal of institutional arrangements, both in terms of social and political organisation within national borders, which have been largely transcended, and in the relations between nations.
In the framework of an interconnected planet, it is necessary to recognise new meanings for independence. Meanings that today are trying to make their way through cooperation, regional integration, the convergence of diversity, multilateralism, the recognition of the need for a collaborative approach to common issues, as well as the unrestricted right of peoples to decide on their own future.
To make this effective, a more balanced redistribution of power both within, and in the relationship between nations is undoubtedly essential. This is where history requires our efforts.
