Talk:International recognition of South Sudan/Archive 1

Eritrea questionable?
The link is a Somaliland page which holds a grunge against Eritrea, I dont consider it a reliable source? RGDS Alexmcfire

United States recognition
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/167906.htm indicates that U.S. recognition takes effect today. I'm not sure how it times out compared to Germany. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the 8th comes first in Germany so recognition could have possibly, and most likely, taken place before the U.S. statement. 08OceanBeach S.D.  03:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Egypt said they intended to be the 2nd to recognize. Were they actually the second, or did Germany inadvertently foil that plan? — MK (t/c) 06:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Position of Libya
What about the Tripoli government of Libya? Is it having a similar position as Eritrea? Peter Geatings (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed both it and Iran from the list as the references were to articles where they expressed a preference for a referendum result that did not split Sudan. This is very different from non-recognition of the result once it is out. If we were to add Libya back in, we would need a source which actually showed them rejecting the result. The Iran source actually showed them saying that they would accept the result even if it was not the one they wanted.
 * I'm not entirely convinced by the Eritrea source as it refers to rumours rather than a direct announcement by Eritrea.
 * A key difference between South Sudan and the likes of Kosovo, North Cyprus, Tibet etc. is that the state from which it is seceding recognises it. This makes a position of non-recognition seem rather extraordinary.--Peter cohen (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldnt be extraordinary at all, the SPLA was allied with a rebel faction that fought the eritreans. Its not uncommon for states to not recognize other states for merely diplomatic reasons. For example despite the fact that no other state claims its territory, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia due to that nations dispute with Azerbajian. Liechtenstien also for many years did not recognize the Czech republic and slovokia due to a dispute over some properties that were in possesion of the house of liechtenstien prior to world war two.XavierGreen (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

International bodies to list
As of now, we list the following bodies:


 * African Union
 * Arab League
 * Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation
 * United Nations Security Council

The rationale before was about organisations that they are ones that South Sudan intends to join, or have a bearing on South Sudan's general recognition (the UN SC). Because of this, the following have previously been removed as irrelevant to this list:


 * European Union
 * NATO

However, given South Sudan's predominantly Christian people I'd be a little surprised if they joined the OIC, or the Arab League for that matter.

What do you think?

James F. (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to list the EU or NATO. The column is for relevant international membership, and these organisations have no relevance to South Sudan, which will have neither aspirations nor prospects for joining them. Bazonka (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you add the Commonwealth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.200.233 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added info on Commonwealth membership, due to the evidence in the thread below which shows its relevance. Unlike EU membership, which someone keeps adding. How on earth is this relevant? Bazonka (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to define relevance. The UN and AU would seem relevant by definition, the EU similarly irrelevant. For all else, I'd suggest that they are relevant if South Sudan is eligable to join and has expressed a desire to do so. Perhaps a link to an article demonstrating that an organisation is relevant should be added the first time it appears, like the Commonwealth link in the next section. And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done. Bazonka (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this article even needed?
The independence of South Sudan is not controversial, and it is highly likely that all countries will recognise it in the near future. So while similar articles like International recognition of Kosovo (which is disputed) are certainly of benefit, I'm not convinced of the necessity for this one, certainly not once South Sudan becomes a full UN member anyway. The only thing of merit is the question of Eritrea's lack of recognition, but that may be best handled in a new article called Eritrea - South Sudan relations or something like that. Bazonka (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with you. We cant know for sure that all nations will recognize south sudan. There are a number of African nations that could decide not to recognize and some other nations that could make decision in a distant future. So this article is needed and is relevant in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what happens. If all countries bar one or two recognise it, then I think there will be a good case for article deletion - it'll just be a list of (almost) all the countries in the world. But if there is significant rejection of independence, then the article will have merit. It's too early to say. Bazonka (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have wondered about the need for the article. We would really see a move towards non-recognition to justify creating it. There seems to be a lot more concrete evidence of organised non-recognition of Israel than for that of South Sudan where the only evidence for non-recognition we have so far is related to Eritrea which has its own idiosyncratic reasons for non-recognition. We have not had similar articles for the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Armenia which seemed to have similar hold outs for idiosyncratic reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the people who made this page (who may be excited), I suggest it be re-merged into the foreign relations article. There is more or less no rejection of South Sudan's independence, and in due course all countries will recognise it (even the Eritrea thing doesnt say they won't recognise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is needed, but after South Sudan becomes a UN member it should be merged to Foreign relations of South Sudan like all the other real countries. Such content is found in other articles, for an example Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro --Avala (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can now argue your point at Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan

'Unofficial' recognition?
"So far, seventeen countries have recognised the Republic of South Sudan (four of them officially)"

This seems oddly worded. Diplomatic recognition is something that is extended, or not. A country cannot be 'unoffically' recognised, so is the correct figure four or seventeen? P M C 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Map
The map shows that Eritrea, Libya and Iran oppose independence, yet the text only mentions Eritrea. Either the text needs improving, or the map needs to go. Bazonka (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.leparisien.fr/flash-actualite-monde/la-communaute-internationale-a-rapidement-reconnu-le-sud-soudan-09-07-2011-1527093.php says that Libya recognizes SS. However, it doesn't specify if it is Tripoli or NTC (note that France recognizes NTC as Libyan govt). --Soman (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Finland and Bulgaria
Finland will recognize on July 22 and Bulgaria will do so next week.--Avala (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should not be listed at present. They haven't recognized yet. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a way that we can somehow state that certain countries intend to eventually extend their recognition? Ghana doesn't seem to have officially recognized the country either, but the statements made by the president indicate their support about it. --190.157.238.103 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's usually best to just wait until they recognize. You get into cases where they'll say they'll recognize on a certain date and then it gets delayed and such.  - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of South African recognition
In the light of this statement on the 7th from South Africa's foreign ministry: ""South Africa officially recognises the Republic of South Sudan and welcomes the 54th state of Africa.""

would it be fair to say that South Africa's date of recognition was in fact the 7th (of course only effective on the 9th)? - htonl (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should wait to list it until there's a formal statement from the RSA MFA or it's reported in the reliable press. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you distinguish a formal statement from the media statement which I linked? You mean an official letter of recognition or something like that? (South Africa's recognition is already listed, with a cite to AFP, but with a date of the 9th.) - htonl (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's reported in the reliable press, but essentially just quoting the aforementioned media statement from the DFA's spokesman. - htonl (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan recognition of South Sudan
Libyan recognition of South Sudan: Sud Sudan:Tripoli riconosce indipendenza (Italian) source: ANSA, JANA --Melo86 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian Recognition
Can someone change the world map to ad india as a country recognizing south sudan's creation viyyer (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not sensible to show a map at this early stage because things are changing so quickly, that the map can't keep up. Bazonka (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevant international membership
Why isn't NATO mentioned? Since vast majority of recognition is NATO members I am thinking... -- Cat chi? 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The clue is in the word relevant. Why would NATO be relevant to South Sudan? This has already been discussed in an earlier thread. Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As above, the article only shows the organisations that are relevant to South Sudan, in this case the ones it is able to join (the AU, AL, OIC and Commonwealth) and the UN Security Council, an important international body. There is no reason to show what states are part of NATO or the EU in the same way there is no reason to mark which countries recognising Kosovo (which has a similar table) are members of the Commonwealth or the African Union; it's just not relevant.--109.154.122.1 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Along similar lines, is the Community of Democracies relevant? Has there been any hint of South Sudan potentially joining it? - htonl (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That organisation is a bit obscure. We can't open the list up to everything, or we'll end up listing the likes of the International Basketball Federation. I think the organisations that are currently included are all we need. Bazonka (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came to the same conclusion and removed it already. - htonl (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the East African Community. It's an important organisation that's aiming for federalisation, it has its own Common market and is planning it's own currency for next year. Adding this shows the notable shift of South Sudan's foreign policies from those of Sudan, in fact, I would say that South Sudan is much more likely to join the EAC than the Arab League (I know, WP:CRYSTAL).-- 23230 talk 10:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

States which refuse to recognise
Would it be more relevant to list states which refuse to recognise South Sudan ? The fact that some pissant country could not be bothered is not very notable. The fact that some country refuses to recognise South Sudan because of some grievance is more notable.Eregli bob (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This whole article is a bit rubbish in its current form. We might not necessarily have information about recognition from some of the small or underdeveloped countries, or alternatively we'll end up with a list of almost all of the countries in the world. As South Sudan's independence is uncontroversial, what's relevant are the countries that won't recognise, not those that have recognised or those for which we have no information. Bazonka (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there countries that refuse to recognize?--Avala (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And Eritrea is not one of them - A Warm Welcome to Independent South Sudan from Eritrea--Avala (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The nearest example could be the declaration of independence of Kosovo, but there is a fundamental difference. While Serbia (wich was the previous ruler of that territory) refuse to recognise the independence of Kosovo in the past, present and future, position followed by several countries of the world; in the case of South Sudan the previous ruler (Sudan) had been the first on recognising the independence of the former territory of Sudan, so I doubt (are they going to be more catholic than the Pope?) that any country would not recognise South Sudan in the following months and years. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There can be a country having direct issues with South Sudan though. Like Czech Republic and Slovakia had issues with Liechtenstein.--Avala (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that Eritrea has welcomed South Sudan's existence (the only possible dissenter as far as we knew), the purpose of this article is brought even more into question. There is no point in listing states that don't recognise (because there aren't any), and no point in listing states that do (because its highly likely to be all of them). What is the article for? As far as I can tell it was created by editors jumping on the International recognition of Kosovo bandwagon, but there is no comparison between the two - one is a disputed territory/country, the other isn't. Bazonka (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've created the afd.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bazonka, we cannot assume that it will be all of them. Montenegro is so far recognized by 144 countries.--Avala (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'll admit I've been following this article regularly since the 8th, I still think that even if several countries don't recognize South Sudan, once those figures get finalized (or as close to that as possible) it would make more sense to have those specific cases of non-recognition explained in the broader Foreign Relations article. And if everyone recognizes it, that fact wouldn't be particularly notable at all unless it was some sort of record for "fastest acceptance into the international community" or the like.ChristopherGregory (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sierra Leone recognizes South Sudan?
on the map it says Sierra Leone recognizes South Sudan, but i don't see it anywhere else. is it a typo or should it be added to the list? Not only Sierra Leone - there's Ghana too. They appear in the map, but not in the list. Is it an error in the map? In this case could someone edit it please? I don't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.231.110 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Polish presidency EU, budget and maybe money for help - this is REVELANT
Hmm Polish EU presidency is revelant for Sudan. For e.g. we will choose budget now. And If we want, we will drive negotiate way in that case - to send a help in money for them...
 * How is it relevant? South Sudan isn't in Europe. Bazonka (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is completely irrelevant indeed. I would actually remove that whole column.--Avala (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevant non-UN member states
Somaliland is not recognized by a single United Nations member nor any other intergovernmental organization. Its recognition is absolutely irrelevant. 26oo (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is in Africa, and in the same region than South Sudan - East Africa. Moreover, the African Union is actually working on possible recognition, and now with the South Sudan precedent the probability appears stronger (although still quite small). Moreover, several countries in the East African Community, which South Sudan is to join, are said to be in favour of it - most notably Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Ondinga has stated several times Kenya would recognize Somaliland even if the rest of the African Union did not, if he wone the 2012 Presidential elections (I read this once on a Kenyan media source, I'll look for the link and post it here). Some experts even believe South Sudan might become the first country to recognize Somaliland and open the way for the rest of the African Union to do the same (no need to mention this in the article as it is only speculation). Some Western countries (Great Britain, US, France, are the ones I know about, there might be more) have announced they would follow the African Union's stance on recognition or non-recognition. And finally, I believe this section should contain all entities de facto functioning as independent states, whether recognized by whosoever or no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.72.120 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Arab League
This is a page in Arabic that expresses the Arab League's position on South Sudan independence: http://www.alhadag.com/news-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81_%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B9_%D8%A8%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-24179.html Anyone understands Arabic here? Would be interesting to resume it and add it to our "International organizations" part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.72.120 (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google does: . Doesn't really tell us anything new though. Bazonka (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Albania recognized South Sudan on 9 July 2011
Albania recognized South Sudan on 9 July 2011 and not 11 July 2011 Statement by the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the independence of the Republic of South Sudan The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Albania, welcomes the declaration of the independence of the Republic of South Sudan, on July 9, 2011. This act comes as an expression of self-determination by the people of South Sudan, which was confirmed in a referendum on independence, held in January this year.

On this historic day for the people of South Sudan, the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveys to the government of the new state in the political map of African continent, the best wishes for the prosperity and lasting peace. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses its readiness to cooperate with the government of South Sudan for the development of relationships in all areas of mutual interest.

http://www.mfa.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7712:deklarate-e-ministrise-se-puneve-te-jashtme-mbi-shpalljen-e-pavaresise-se-republikes-se-sudanit-te-jugut&catid=112:lajme&lang=en&Itemid= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.4.168 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this source, Albania recognized South Sudan two days after the declaration of independence of South Sudan. (11 July) Ahmetyal 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Angola and Slovenia
The Angolan source: doesn't say Angola recognized South Sudan. The word recognition or recognize is not even used in the article. It only tell us that a Angolan minister visited South Sudan. Ahmetyal 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The same goes for Slovenia. They were added to the list based on the article which only says that they welcome the independence. But now they have announced that the recognition wont take place until Tuesday when the National Assembly meets - Slovenia to Recognise South Sudan on Tuesday--Avala (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Slovenia yesterday recognised South Sudan. 

Holy See
The Holy See (at least according to the source given) didn't explicitly recognize South Sudan. Gugganij (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Vatican UN General Assembly observer - relevant or no?
When I added the Sahrawi Republic to the list of non-UN members, I also mentioned that the Vatican has an observer status at the UN General Assembly. I thought this information was useful, but someone undid me twice and mentioned he believed it was irrelevant. What do you think? Relevant or no? (Please do not change it again until we agree here.)
 * It's not relevant. The observer status it is not a membership. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant either. Bazonka (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is more relevant that the UN recognises the Vatican as a state. In theory the vatican is eligible for membership, but for political reasons they are disinclined to join.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan, Cyprus
I was just thinking, will Azerbaijan and Cyprus recognize South Sudans independence? As that recognition could effect their own non-recognition of their breakaway areas. So you see there is no 100% certainty of full recognition.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no indications they won't plus South Sudan was granted independence by Sudan, not declared unilaterally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * South Sudan is not recognized by neither Azerbaijan or Macedonia

Map
Albania is not colored even though it recognizes it. Also I know Kosovo has sent a congratulatory letter.....don't we recognize S.SUDAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.67.228 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Estonia
MFA of Estonia released a press statement today titled 11.07.2011 - Estonia Plans to Recognise Independence of South Sudan. So if it >>>plans<<< to recognise South Sudan on July 11, we can't add Estonia as a country that recognised South Sudan on July 9. Simple, isn't it?
 * But according to oryginal Estonian language statsment of 9th of July : Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said that Estonia intends to recognize the independence of South Sudan today. . Today = 9 July. Aotearoa (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They intended to, but they didn't, or at least the link does not explicitly say that they did. And the English note published today is simply a translation of the Estonian one, published two days later. So, Estonia should be deleted as soon as we get another source saying the indeed DID, not just intended to, recognise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.74.149 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the Estonian Public Broadcasting, Estonia has recognized South Sudan.
 * Thank you, in this case that should be the indicated source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.74.149 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, when we talk about the decisions of the MFA of Estonia and we have two sources, one the news agency and the other the MFA itself then there is no doubt who is more reliable on matters of the MFA decisions. And even if we accept the EPB article, the date has to be July 11 because even the EPB published it on that day. The Estonian language source from July 9 speaks in future tense too.--Avala (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the EPB might have misunderstood the same MFA publication we are talking about.

So, do you believe it should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.166.155 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And now someone added Russian newspaper article as a supposedly better source than the Estonian MFA on the matters of the decision made by the Estonian MFA. Seriously?--Avala (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a better solution, scroll down to Conflicting sources regarding the recognition of South Sudan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_recognition_of_South_Sudan&curid=32350368&diff=439080452&oldid=439079954 take a look. Ahmetyal 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this should be good enough for those who can't wait to see Estonia in the article even before the formal recognition - --Avala (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone chgange it than? I can't, I don't have access to the page as it is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchmanPhilip (talk • contribs) 09:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Costa Rica
I speak Spanish, and the link for Costa Rica doesn't explicitly say the country is currently preparing to recognize. Basically it only says they're happy about independence and wish South Sudan the best luck for future. I think this entrance should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchmanPhilip (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true, but such a friendly statement can only lead to recognition some day. It is like Cuba Presidente de Sudán del Sur recibe a Esteban Lazo. Their Vice President even went there and so far there is nothing else that a very friendly statement. Is it hard to believe that after such comments those countries wont recognize South Sudan´s sovereignty... one day.Coquimbano 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but there's a difference between wishing to recognize and favouring the country's independence, and taking concrete steps towards recognizing it. There is a huge number of countries, especially in Africa, about all of them in fact, who have welcomed the independence, but we can't list them all. If you have another source please give it, but according to this source there is no reason to list Costa Rica more than for example Nigeria or Ghana or Poland or several others we are already debating about here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchmanPhilip (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from FrenchmanPhilip, 13 July 2011
Add "Conflicting resource" sign for Denmark in the European Union entry. FrenchmanPhilip (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have no idea what you're asking. Can you be more specific? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the entry for the European Union, there is a "Hide/show " item which lists all EU members, with a sign to show those who recognized Kosovo, another sign to show those with "Conflicting resource" according to our list. Denmark is listed in "Conflicting resource", but the sign does not appear. Am I clear enough? It's really a detail, probably noone except me had noticed, but I am usually very scrupulous on small things like this.
 * Anyway, why was this entry protected? Has there been vandalism? Usually protection is used for controversial topics, I don't find this topic controversial. Anyway, for tiny changes like this it would be far easier if we could edit it ourselves instead of signalling it to an admin.FrenchmanPhilip (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More recognitions
Mauritania, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti and Uruguay has recognized South Sudan. Ahmetyal 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Excelent job! Could the administrator add´em meanwhile we debate? Oh, and in the page of Uruguayan presidency is the confirmation: Coquimbano. 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquimbano (talk • contribs)

Diplomatic relations with Japan
Diplomatic relations established with Japan - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Small Flag for African Union?
I noticed that the African Union doesn't have the type of little flag that some of the other multi-national organizations have. I tried working my way through the flaginfo pages to the one for the African Union itself. Am I correct in that the African Union flag is *not* free for use and thus must be justified page by page, the way that would have be done for a company symbol like the Exxon-Mobil logo?Naraht (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestine/PA Recognizes
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4095682,00.html 64.115.19.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

And another source agrees:. Ladril (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Guyana
Guyana has recognized South Sudan: -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabon
http://infosgabon.com/?p=11007 64.115.19.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Singapore
Recognition from Singapore - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan became UN member yesterday: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39034&Cr=South+Sudan&Cr1= FrenchmanPhilip (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Slovenia
The final step, approval by the National Assembly, took place and Slovenia now recognizes South Sudan as independent --Avala (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Montenegro
Montenegro now recognises South Sudan (July 14) - --Avala (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mozambique
Establishment of diplomatic relations --Avala (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan
Recognition: --Avala (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No changes
WHY NO CHANGES ARE MADE ON THIS PAGE SINCE 12TH OF JULY ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.180.115.187 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * article has been protected, by an amin not willing to maintain a protected page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes are not going to be made until someone explicitly requests them using the template. Bazonka (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was the article protected?FrenchmanPhilip (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the page history it was "Edit Warring / Content Dispute". Whilst there was a bit of this, it was manageable, and the effect of blocking edits is much worse in my opinion. An over-zealous admin perhaps. Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Tis now unblocked. Bazonka (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Guinea Recognizes?
http://www.kaloumpresse.com/guinee-politique/1-politique/985-le-president-alpha-conde-reconnait-la-republique-du-soudan-du-sud 69.203.217.91 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Poland
The source for Poland only says that Poland welcomes the independence and that Poland will help South Sudan with the building of a democratic country. Please do not add Poland on the list. Ahmetyal 17:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Poland welcomes with a huge rise on the African continent a new sovereign state of the Republic of South Sudan. Polish society invariably supported the aspirations of the freedom of Southern Sudanese. We share with the inhabitants of the country's joy and enthusiasm on the occasion of the proclamation of independence.

We hope that the newly created state will be active and constructive member of the international community, a promoter of peace and security, human rights and democratic values. Poland is ready to share with the Republic of South Sudan their experience of building a modern, democratic state.

In this historic moment to join in congratulating the other European Union member states, and we wish the young citizens of the state and its many successes. In celebration of the proclamation of independence of Southern Sudan attend the Polish delegation, headed by Krzysztof Stanowskim, Undersecretary of State at the Foreign Ministry. The delegation will provide the message of the President of Poland Bronislaw Komorowski addressed to the President of Southern Sudan gen.Salvy KIIR Mayardita."

I think Poland already recognized SS.--Spacejam2 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can see original verion on MSZ website msz.gov.pl . Text translated by google.--Spacejam2 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's official translation http://www.msz.gov.pl/index.php?document=44169 --Spacejam2 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would apear so - considering several facts about this: Vice-minister of foreign relations was present is south sudan that day, declaration from Ministry of foreign affairs and also a message from Polish President to President of South Sudan (I also tried to find news about it and it seems Poland recognised south sudan, but i won't deny statement of Polish ministry is a bit strange). --KalrinUE {talk} 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Colombia?
I'm not quite sure how official this is, but El Tiempo seems to suggest that Colombia has recognized. "Al reconocer a este nuevo miembro de la comunidad internacional, Colombia destaca el proceso que condujo a este resultado, el cual incluyó el cumplimiento de los términos del Acuerdo Comprensivo de Paz celebrado en Nairobi en 2005" http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/africa/colombia-saluda-admision-de-sudan-del-sur-en-la-onu-_9925184-4 96.49.147.56 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Montenegro recognition unsourced
I think the source for Montenegro is missing. The linked page is in french but I think that covers Gabon, not Montenegro. -- とある白い猫 chi? 16:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a link to this end on this page but I do not know if it is relevant as I do not understand the language. -- とある白い猫 chi? 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the right source, translated it here: . Added it back in. Delusion23 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon recognises
Short blurb in a news spot about the Lebanese cabinet, 5th paragraph down:

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=292539

Ajbenj (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

UK + Commonwealth
South Sudan is reckoned to likely join the Commonwealth

Also, the UK is missing NATO and EU flags — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.200.233 (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that backs up your claim about the Commonwealth? Bazonka (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmetyal 13:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Singapore is also a Commonwealth member state as well, yet this is not indicated in the chart, which needs to be corrected as well. - (203.211.72.38 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC))

Adding EU and NATO back in maybe
I think EU and NATO is relevant to the politics of the world. It isn't surprising to see EU or NATO nations to act collectively. Currently the list implies all the countries listed have "randomly" decided to recognize. The reader would find the relationship (on why a cluster of countries recognize (ie relationship between the countries that are actually recognizing) to be relevant. To put it in a few words, recognition happened because NATO / EU member nations didn't oppose it at least for said members. How relevant such organizations could be left to the reader. -- とある白い猫 chi? 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not also add the Caribbean Community and ASEAN? Come on, there has to be a limit, and that limit should be those countries that South Sudan could join. Bazonka (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Why do we need to limit it provided the above table structure is used. It would extend the side by 30-40 pixels per organisation. Also you aren't seriously holding those two at the same category as NATO and EU I hope. I really do not see a rationale as to why the two most important organizations (in the world) aren't worth mentioning. -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also only about half of Arab League has recognized South Sudan so I am uncertain how relevant AL is at this point (I realize they are relevant to the actual new country - just not sure how relevant this organization is for the actual recognition). Certainly the lack of recognition is significant. On the other hand vast majority of UN and NATO members did recognize South Sudan... -- とある白い猫 chi? 01:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we add whether they've established diplomatic relations with the recognizing country, too? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two countries already have such articles, namely Sudan - South Sudan and Israel - South Sudan. There also is List of diplomatic missions in South Sudan -- とある白い猫 chi? 06:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=20110719105543 64.115.19.42 (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Iran source
The Iran source only states that Iran "hails" the creation of South Sudan. There is no mention of recognition. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the foreign ministry hailing it which is more or less recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Uruguay
Why does it say that Uruguay is part of the African Union and Arab League? ––Spesh531, My talk, and External links 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus
Cyprus has recognized South Sudan - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh begins recognition process
The Bengladeshi FM has announced the process to recognize South Sudan has begun:

http://bakshiganj.blogspot.com/2011/07/granting-of-transit-to-india-political.html

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/frontpage/26734.html

Ajbenj (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This says Bangladesh recognized today - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

MoFA: Peru recognises???
Been a while since Spanish class, but still I don't trust Google's translation, but Peru "salutes" the foundation and sovreignity of South Sudan. This is a link to the news article, but most of this was on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs site's front page until yesterday (don't have time right now to dig thru it to find the original MoFA press release):

http://noticias.terra.com.pe/elecciones-presidenciales/2011/peru-saludo-a-sudan-del-sur-como-estado-independiente-y-soberano,741728108aa21310VgnVCM10000098f154d0RCRD.html

Here the Ministry notes Peru's involvement in and presiding over an UN committee to assist in South Sudan's statebuilding, SS's entry into the UN, and acknowledges that ROSS is an independent country as of 9 July, 2011:

http://www.rree.gob.pe/portal/boletinInf.nsf/mrealdia/F99E1C09DBCB0081052578D3005D8748?OpenDocument

Even though the ministry is celebrating and welcoming the nationhood of SS, they still do not use the Spanish word for "recognize". As the line between "welcoming" and "recognizing" is a bit murky here, by all means please discuss. I'm getting verklempt... :P

Ajbenj (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=58736&Cat=2 69.203.217.91 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

North Korea
The official Korean Central News Agency briefly reports that a statement was sent to South Sudan's President from Kim Yong Nam, President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly. It congratulates SS and expresses wishes by NK to establish relations. Is this recognition?

Direct link to the article on the KCNA Japanese-based website:

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2011/201107/news17/20110717-28ee.html

This is also available on the actual North Korean-hosted KCNA official site, but there is no direct link. Luckily they do have a search feature, so search "South Sudan" and it'll pop up.

Also KCNA is THE official media of North Korea, and it reported on the independence ceremony and SS's entry into the UN. However, on the actual KCNA site, an editorial blames the division of Sudan on colonialism. Check that out too. It's always a trip to read the North Korean news!

If this is a recognition, it took place 17 July 2011.

Ajbenj (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Recognition
Is this Gadaffi recognition or Rebel recognition? Which should inform the reader IJA (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the Gaddafi government. Spanish source: Ahmetyal 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If the rebel government ends up taking complete control over Libya, will they have to recognize South Sudan independently or will the Gaddafi's government recognition still apply?Zzyx19770 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

State recognitions listed without proper sources
I'm not exactly sure why, but I've been keeping regular tabs on this page, and a bunch of these African nations now listed as having recognized South Sudan several days ago were not there until recently. Also, I believe the sources for these "recognitions" are misleading. For example, it now lists Zimbabwe as having recognized South Sudan on 9 July, and has four sources attributed to it, but I read through them and nowhere does it say outright that Zimbabwe has recognized South Sudan. Three of them simply mention Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe's presence at the independence celebration and the fourth is about a meeting between Mugabe and a Southern Sudanese minister, which occured in-wait for it-2009, which was two years before South Sudan even became independent. Now, looking through other countries, I've found that many of them do not specify that the country listed actually recognized South Sudan. Other countries added recently are the Central African Republic, Mali, Rwanda, and Guinea (I have not translated the sources for these yet- they're in French). I believe that all of the sources provided for the recognizing countries listed should be checked to make sure that they are absolutely valid. Zzyx19770 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Usage


References that would appear at the bottom of the article

 * To demonstrate what I mentioned I have created an example using France. See how membership changes based on the date? This can be managed automatically. The idea can be developed more. -- とある白い猫 chi? 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of recognition vs. "welcoming" needed!
There seems to be a disagreement as to what constitutes a recognition versus just a nice, warm perfunctory welcoming note. Is a welcome note enough to say recognition if whoever responsible for diplomatic decisions makes the statement? Or an official government media outlet acknowledges it? Or does the text have to explicitly say the word "recognition" in whatever source language the statement is found?

Clarification of what is acceptable is needed.

Ajbenj (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now South Sudan is a UN member, and because its existence is not controversial, then all countries will already de facto recognise it (as far as I know, no states have outright rejected the existence of South Sudan). It is largely irrelevant as to whether they issue a formal statement of recognition or not - they're not going to treat it any differently. This is especially true for some of the smaller non-African countries which are unlikely to have any dealings with South Sudan - there's no pressing need for them to establish diplomatic relations. Some countries (e.g. New Zealand) never issue formal recognition statements, but that doesn't mean that they don't accept the existence of the new state.
 * I think that a welcoming statement is just as valid as a formal recognition. Practically, the meaning is the same. But perhaps we could state in the table which ones are formal recognitions and which ones aren't.
 * We should also bear in mind that recognition of a non-controversial state is not especially big news, particularly for less developed countries. Just because we don't know about it, it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Bazonka (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that revising the table to notify readers of whether or not the recognition is formal is an excellent idea. And you also have a point that no nations have outright refused to recognize it. However, that makes me question the existence of this page in the first place. Is it still necessary or is it not important enough that we can simply add a paragraph or two about it on the main article? Zzyx19770 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very well then. I have found a few "welcome" notes including North Korea and Peru listed here. I'll add them. We really should merge this page with Foreign relations of South Sudan, much like the Foreign Relations of Montenegro page. With notation on the table of welcomes vs explicit recognition.
 * Ajbenj (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I entirely agree, I think that it is probably too soon to merge the page. We have only recently finished an AfD, where many contributors voted to keep it. I suggest waiting a bit longer before merging. Bazonka (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed template (above) can incorporate this fairly easily to show the level of recognition. I would interpret welcoming a new country as formal recognition since otherwise countries would not even mention the name in official statements. However the date of formal recognition where the recognition is officially published may come at a later date. Sourcing is particularly problematic as the main source seems to be newspapers and other media instead of official government sites. This needs to be fixed perhaps. -- とある白い猫 chi? 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition
Pakistan has formally recognised South Sudan. 1 Could anyone update the international recognition map? Mar4d (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I've replaced the map with a png version, which more clearly shows international boundaries - this is the preferred style on the Kosovo recognition article. Bazonka (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Choice of map
I recently replaced the svg map in this article with a png version. I feel that the png version is better - it shows international boundaries more clearly, and smaller countries are more obviously depicted. On the svg map these are quite difficult to see, and it is almost impossible to tell what colour they are. An IP user reverted my change with the comment "why would you replace a good svg with a bad png". I disagree with this - I think that I replaced a bad svg with a good png. What do other people think? (Note that this issue has previously been discussed regarding the International recognition of Kosovo article. Whilst there were differences of opinion, the png map was preferred.) Bazonka (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the .svg version so you can see the boundaries and small countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spesh531 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better, but I must say that I still prefer the png version. To my mind, the svg map is over-detailed (just look at the Maldives for example); the map only needs to show which countries have recognised and which haven't - it doesn't need to go into huge geographic detail.
 * I also notice that an alternative png is now being used. Whilst better than the svg, I still prefer the original png. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the new png file should be used because it is just an older version of the alternate map with the same information. ––Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The alternate one contains the unrecognized countries (example:Somaliland, Transnistria, Palestine, Sawrahi Republic...––Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not like the presence of land locked small lakes. The white areas south of south Sudan are particularly confusing. it looks sort of like yellow implying South Sudan territory when it really is white blending with green. -- とある白い猫 chi? 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there any consensus reached to change the image? The SVG is much better. If you have an issue with it, state it and I will fix it. Going from SVG to PNG is always a step in the wrong direction. — MK (t/c) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The technology behind an SVG may be superior to that behind a PNG, so in principle I agree that SVGs should be the preferred option. However, in this case it's the content that's the problem.
 * The map in the PNG image is, in my opinion, much better than that in the SVG image. The point of this map is to clearly show which countries have recognised South Sudan. The PNG version does this well - you can easily see what's green and what's not. International borders are well defined and small countries are clearly depicted with a little circle. You don't have to enlarge the map much before you can see the content properly.
 * The SVG, on the other hand, is nowhere near as clear. The main reason is that there is too much detail in the coastlines and borders. At the scale at which the image is likely to be viewed (i.e. after one click, without going to full resolution), this is way too much - look at the extreme complication of the Maldives in the SVG image compared to the simplicity of it in the PNG, for example. It is poor cartographic practice to go into more detail than is necessary (and I trained as a cartographer, so I do know what I'm talking about). Even at full resolution (on my monitor at least), it's not easy to see what colour some of the countries are, e.g. Bahamas. The addition of dots for the small countries has improved the SVG, but it's still not as user-friendly as the PNG.
 * If its look-and-feel were identical to the PNG image, then I would certainly advocate the SVG's use in preference to the PNG, but not now. (Oh, and by the way, I also prefer the original PNG to the alternative one, for the reasons that User:とある白い猫 gave.) Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Has anyone information on a possible Azerbaijani recognition of South Sudan. Because it would be problematic for them to ever recognize south sudan as that would legitimize nagorno karabakh. I think azerbaijan will be one of the nations that will never recognize south sudan.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unanimous recognition
Considering South Sudan entered the UN as a new member state through what BBC calls a unanimous vote, or what other sources have called through acclamation, the state is really recognised as a fellow member of the international community by all 192 other UN member states. Should this article be changed to cover diplomatic relations? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is an over assumption but that's something we may do eventually. I think it is wise to give this 2 months (from deceleration of independence / 8 July) to let things cool. That is my proposal. -- とある白い猫 chi? 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mexico has made a statement which amounts to recognition. http://radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=185154 Ladril (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the same, see here - Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro --Avala (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)