This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International recognition of South Sudan redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International recognition of South Sudan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about International recognition of South Sudan at the Reference desk.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of International recognition of South Sudan was copied or moved into Foreign relations of South Sudan with this edit on 28 August 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: South Sudan Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject South Sudan (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Foreign_relations_of_South_Sudan#Chronology_of_relations]] The anchor (#Chronology_of_relations) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Should this not include more organizations? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Nations needs to be included, as South Sudan's independence is supported by a majority of its member states. There is also very strong support for South Sudan's admission into full membership of the Commonwealth - both within South Sudan itself and in the majority of the member states. - ( 203.211.70.207 ( talk) 12:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

Just received confirmation from the Danish MFA that they did recognize South Sudan on July 9.-- Avala ( talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Botswana MFA sent me a press release in pdf that shows that they recognized South Sudan on July 15 but unfortunately no one picked up and published this press release online so I am not sure what we can do.-- Avala ( talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If you uploaded it to Commons, would it be usable as a source? I am sure there is no doubt over its veracity, so I would not object at all. Bazonka ( talk) 16:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What license do you think should apply?-- Avala ( talk) 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, now there's a good question. I guess if it's a press release, then they do not object to it being distributed. I reckon a Free Art licence seems best, but I really don't know. Bazonka ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

They may not care about it but it is fully copyrighted unless otherwise verified by OTRS. The said document can be referenced as an offline source. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... I suppose you're right, but it really annoys me how Wikimedia is so risk-averse when it comes to third-party rights. The risk is zero, so why all the fuss? Bazonka ( talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

But how do I reference what is still in my inbox? It's unverifiable and thus against the rules. It needs to be available to anyone who reads the article. I will ask at Commons helpdesk.-- Avala ( talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

OK I have received a reply at the Helpdesk - press release from the Botswana Govt cannot be uploaded to Commons under no circumstances.-- Avala ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I just know how people will eventually react. I want material to stay on wikipedia forever, not until an admin realizes the copyright problem. I just know how things will end up. What is this document? Does it have a name? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 09:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are good reasons why we can not use such sources. Although this one might well be correct: we have no way to verify it (and on wikipedia, verifiability thrumps truth, it seems). It is thinkable that the press release was made, but never published as the government decided not to follow through. So unless we have an official way of publication, we can not add it. There might be options however: IF they released it, then they have probably done so through AP or a similar agency, which will just place it on "telex" for people to pick up. Maybe someone with an AP subscription can check? L.tak ( talk) 14:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Offline documents by governments qualify as verifiable though I too would prefer something that is available online. But if online availability is unlikely then offline is certainly OK. Did you just get a response from Botswanaian government as email? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 19:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no emails here ;-). But offline is perfect. Unpublished however is a real different thing (for the reasons at WP:RS. So if it is published anywhere, we can add it without any problems. L.tak ( talk) 20:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I uploaded it here - http://www.2shared.com/document/yqVV022S/South_Sudan.html - so you can see it. The email read "Kindly look at the press statement by the Government of the Republic of Botswana and recognizing South Sudan as an independent Nation." -- Avala ( talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

OK I think I finally found it - [1]-- Avala ( talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks for all the efforts! L.tak ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

WHY ARE YOU NOT UPDATING THE LIST????

It is; at nr 56! L.tak ( talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why are you so aggressive,unknown user???? Why are you shouting like "WHY ARE YOU NOT UPDATING?" This is unfriendly. It´s indeed updated. The problem is,that Somalia and Cape Verde have the same number,therefore the list is still numbered 100 and not 101! Brian,USA

Recognition-problems for South Sudan!

It looks like the South Sudan has large recognition problems in Central America and Oceania! In Africa,Asia and Europe many small states refuse recognition so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.77 ( talk) 10:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

91 STATES STILL MISSING

Ok guys 91 states are still missing in the list. Let´s talk about them! Any more news and infos??? Brian,USA

These are the 91 states:What do you know about their recognition?? Let´s talk and discuss!

Europe:

Iceland,Monaco,Andorra,Liechtenstein,San Marino,Georgia,Moldova,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Lithuania Serbia,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Macedonia

America:

Venezuela,Cuba,Argentina,Paraguay,Bolivia,Surinam,Ecuador,Belize,Honduras,Guatemala,Nicaragua, El Salvador,Panama,Trinidad and Tobago,Grenada,Antigua and Barbuda,St.Lucia,Barbados,Haiti,Bahamas,Jamaica, Dominica,Dominican Republic,St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,

Africa:

Niger,Chad,Marocco,Tunisia,Camerun,Sao Tome and Principe,Lesotho,Swaziland,Madagascar,Comores, Seychelles,Mauritius,Burundi,Gambia,Equatorial Guinea,Ivory Coast,Sierra Leone,Malawi,Benin,Sambia, Kongo,Guinea-Bissau

Asia:

Uzbekistan,Afghanistan,Iraq,Tadjikistan,Turkmenistan,Syria,Yemen,Oman,Mongolia,Sri Lanka,East Timor, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar,Brunei,Papua-Neuginea,Malaysia,Bhutan,Nepal

Oceania:

New Zealand,Palau,Tonga,Vanuatu,Nauru,Micronesia,Fiji Islands, Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands, Samoa,Tuvalu,Kiribati

There's nothing to discuss unless anyone can find sources. It is quite likely that many of these countries have already de facto recognised, but either haven't announced it because it is not their policy to do so (i.e. New Zealand), or their media infrastructure is too small. And for some small or poor countries outside Africa, South Sudan really isn't a priority.

P.S. please remember to sign and date your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Bazonka ( talk) 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Sascha from Germany:

I personally think,that the recognition-process for the South Sudan is now exhausted. Most of the remaining countries will not recognize the South Sudan in the coming years. States like Serbia,Georgia,Azerbaijan,Marocco,Yemen and many others with similar seccession-problems in their own countries will not grant recognition. In addition we have the Ultra-group of the many small island nations in the Pacific,Caribbean and Indian Ocean,who are not recognizing new states today,because they are in a fundamental opposition to the big UN-countries,who decide everything on their own without asking the small countries. Then we have a third group of disappointed nations like Venezuela,Iraq,Syria,Niger,Chad etc.... who were not granted access to the oil in South Sudan,because South Sudan has only made contracts with the most powerful countries and it´s direct neighbours. So as a result i don´t think,that the South Sudan will reach the psychologically important two-third majority of 130 states soon. Even here in Germany many politicians are skeptical about the South Sudan and disagreed with Germany´s recognition on july 9!

Don't forget to sign your posts Sascha and Brian. Writing your name at the top doesn't count as signing - you must use four tildes at the end. Also (I am slightly guilty of this myself, but...) please note that this talk page is not for general discussions about the topic, but for discussions about the article's content. Thanks, Bazonka ( talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

CUBA

Cuba has recognized South Sudan,but i cannot find the official recognition-statement, Brian,USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.77 ( talk) 09:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

He Brian, do you remember where you heard that, so I can help you find a source? L.tak ( talk) 10:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

According to my info Cuba,Monaco,Tunisia and Myanmar also recognized South Sudan. But there are no official documents in the Internet so far!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.77 ( talk) 11:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Some weeks ago i read somewhere,that Prince Albert of Monaco stated,that he will follow into the footsteps of France and also recognize South Sudan!! But no official document so far! Sascha,Germany

Cuba has "saluted and welcomed" the independence of South Sudan many times in july!

Tunisia also "welcomed" South Sudan.

And the military junta in Myanmar also congratulated the South Sudan. But these are only ordinary statements,maybe no recognition

In my opinion the South Sudan has recognition-trouble with many small counttries. There are two reasons:

1) Many small states are not very interested in the South Sudan-topic. Far away island-states in the three oceans have different priorities 2) Many small states want to oppose the "big countries" in the UN,because they feel themselves unfairly treated by the "Big Ones". For example Burundi lamented some weeks ago,that "South Sudan has not conctacted our government so far concerning a possible oil-treaty" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.77 ( talk) 11:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Is the number field really necessary? The order based on the dates should be sufficient IMHO. Do we really know which one is before the other? Particularly for the first 5 days of recognition? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 03:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's not needed unless the dates of recognition are really spread out, which they're not. It also makes it harder to add new countries into the middle of the list, and it implies that we have a full list of recognisers, whereas in reality there are quite probably countries that recognised a while ago that we don't know about. Bazonka ( talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Even so, a sort-able list would be able to chronologically order them. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 05:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked the WP:Helpdesk if they had an easier way of numbering, which would solve at least the practical problems... L.tak ( talk) 15:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why are we numbering though? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 10:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For no compelling reason indeed... It makes it easier to know for how many countries we have confirmation, but that's really all... L.tak ( talk) 10:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I've removed the numbers. We have the number of recognisers at the top of the article, so they really weren't needed. Bazonka ( talk) 12:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I do not agree with your decision,Bazonka!!! The numbers were a good thing for orientation!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.77 ( talk) 13:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

instead of removing the numbers you should search for countries,who also recognized South Sudan,Bazonka. Numbers are important for orientation. The Kosovo-article and Montenegro (foreign relations) also have numbers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascha30 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "orientation"? The dates tell you when the countries recognised, although since we cannot be sure what order the recognitions took place each date, so the numbering could be misleading (e.g. perhaps Norway actually recognised before Canada on 9 July - we just don't know). Also, it is possible that some countries have recognised already, but aren't on the list because we don't know about them - this also makes the numbers incorrect. Just showing the dates of recognition is correct and leaves scope for gaps and different orders for each date. Please remember to sign your posts. Bazonka ( talk) 13:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

the date is not important,it´s completely uninteresting. But we should see the numbers to know the numbers of countries,who recognized the South Sudan. We also can see it in the case of Montenegro-foreign relations. It´s about the numbers,not about the date. Who cares about the date? No one!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascha30 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The number of recognisers is right at the top of the article. (And you're still forgetting to sign your posts - this is becoming annoying.) Bazonka ( talk) 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In the absence of a serious objection (one has a rationale anyways) I am going to remove the numbers soon. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 11:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Someone beat me to it... -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 12:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the future of this "article"? At the moment all it is a repository of dates attributed to online news reports. This is probably all it will ever be. After all, what else can be said? That nobody actively denies the existence of the state of South Sudan? It was de facto recognised by every member state in the United Nations when the General Assembly unanimously voted to admit it as a state. So, what is the logic behind having this as its own article?

Proposal: merge the content into Foreign relations of South Sudan and redirect the page. And display it differently. Possibilities that are much less messy:

Country	Date of recognition	Relations established	Other columns
Angola	10 July 2011	8 August 2011	Note: the second date is made up for demonstration.

A date of recognition is the most tiny piece of information and it doesn't need its own article, just like we don't need an article on Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with South Sudan. Nightw 09:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

With which right you arrogant jerk want to close this topic???? The topic around the recognition of Montenegro is on wikipedia since 2006 and no one cares about it!! This group will remain,basta!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.36.214 ( talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with NightW. This kind of article works for controversial recognitions but not for South Sudan which is unanimously recognised anyway. I think it should be merged. Sascha being rude and pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does nothing to give a reason for keeping this as a stand-alone article. Delusion23 ( talk) 14:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I also agree. South Sudan made it unanimously into the UN, this page could be summed up as "South Sudan is internationally recognised". As for Sascha, there is no International recognition of Montenegro or Recognition of Montenegro page. There's instead a similarly misleading list at Foreign relations of Montenegro#States that have explicitly recognized Montenegro and/ or establishment of diplomatic relations, which would be the best setup for any important information on this page. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh lord, there's even a map there too! Nightw 01:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

With controversial declarations of independence, e.g. Kosovo or Abkhazia, what's important is the countries that have recognised; with non-controversial declarations, e.g. South Sudan or Montenegro, what's important is the countries that haven't recognised. If countries were to actively oppose the new state, then that would certainly be notable. But here (and probably with Montenegro also) there is no such opposition - the countries that haven't recognised either a) actually have recognised but we don't know about it, or b) just haven't got round to it yet because it's not a high priority for them. I'm not sure if a) or b) are really notable enough for their own article, but all non-recognisers could be listed in the Foreign Relations article. Bazonka ( talk) 06:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The thing is, all countries have recognised it. It entered the UN with a unanimous vote, which means every state in the UN accepts it as an equal sovereign state. I reckon option b) is probably the case for many of these, there's not much point making a big fuss unless you're gonna establish diplomatic relations. It's also possible there are many countries who published some obscure document that was archived somewhere. We don't have any source saying that these countries don't recognisie it, and it's disingenuous to say they haven't recognised because we don't have a source saying they do. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Waiting for any objections... Nightw 00:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

None from my side. I agree about the merge and about a way to condense the info. I doubt however if the second table (with date of establishment of deplomatic relations) is something which is very useful (as we will have also only very limited info...) L.tak ( talk) 11:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree. It's much better to leave it as it is now. 79.243.203.226 ( talk) 14:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Why? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless sourced it isn't assumed that these countries recognized it. I propose my template structure above. It is unfinished yet as I am all alone working on it. The template structure can be extended to include the proposal above. Feel free to help. I see no reason to remove this article as plenty of countries refused the recognition of this new country and also even if everyone recognizes it the list still holds. It is the chronology of the recognition. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Who refused to recognise, and what sources do you have? Bazonka ( talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That is not how citation works. Unless you can source it, you cannot make a claim such as "recognition by all UN Countries" unless such a statement is made by the UN. Formal recognition of a country and UN membership is completely different issues. Also as mentioned, even if every country recognizing South Sudan is not a reason enough for us to remove this article. The article however could be renamed to broaden it's scope. Or it could be merged as proposed provided the table structure is kept intact. This article has MORE content than the target article and I find the dates of recognition and the relationship of these countries to South Sudan and each other to be very relevant and encyclopedic in essence. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 11:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean that's not how citation works? We know that the vote to accept South Sudan into the UN was unanimous, in both the UNSC and the UNGA. That means that every single UN member state voted to accept South Sudan as a full sovereign state with full membership in the UN. We don't have a single source, not even a hint of one, that any country is withholding recognition from South Sudan for any reason. Suggesting, as we do, that any country does not recognise South Sudan, is misleading the reader to something we don't know. What is the purpose of this article if every country recognises it exactly? It would serve much better merged with foreign relations. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And unless you can source it, you cannot make a claim such as "plenty of countries refused the recognition of this new country". Not having formally recognised yet (or probably more correctly: not being known to have formally recognised yet) is not the same as refusal. And as Chipmunkdavis says, the unanimous UN membership vote is a sort of recognition anyway. Bazonka ( talk) 07:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Arguably yes. I wonder if there were any abstain votes. I am just not sure how unanimous the vote was. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is what it means to be recognised/unrecognised. This article is based on the idea that recognition is when a government writes a nice letter to South Sudan or some politician says in a speech about his high hopes for the new country and how he or she wishes it well. However, recognition between states is about how states relate to one another. If a state is not recognised by another, they will formally not officially talk to that states politicians, not implement bilateral relations, and generally officially ignore/deny its existence (although obviously secret talks and channels of unofficial communication are found everywhere). Of course, sometimes the existence is very hard to ignore (think Israel), yet countries still deny its right to statehood. This is different than not having produced a piece of paper or made a statement, which this article is based on. That flaw in this article is further compounded because basically its inclusion criteria is not just "countries that have made a statement of recognition", but "countries that have made a statement of recognition which a wikipedian can find on the internet". Basing the article on this implies that a country that is not on the article does not recognise South Sudan, implying all the baggage that comes with it. It's a great disservice to the readers. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hear hear. Bazonka ( talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This article should definately be merged with South Sudan foreign relations until it can be shown that other countries are withholding recognition. South Sudan's independence is not contoversial. Heck, even Sudan recognises it. It's not like the split of Serbia and Kosovo. It should be merged like the Montenegro article where a precedent has been set for recently independent uncontroversial states. Delusion23 ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Alright, I think we have a consensus here. Who's up for doing the moving work? Nightw 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As I stated before, I propose my template structure - now in archives - for this rather than the wikitable structure. Could we please do that? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1) How would that be significantly different from the current structure. 2) How does that at all affect what to do with this article? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm confused also. Your issue appears to be with formatting and style, which is a separate issue. Are you for the merge or not? Nightw 10:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Where info is presented isn't too important for me as long as information is preserved. Indeed my main worrying is formatting. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead with it. Don't know what to do with this stuff though:

Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) do not themselves diplomatically recognise any state; their member states do so individually. However, depending on the intergovernmental organisation's rules of internal governance and the positions of their member states, they may express positive or negative opinions as to declarations of independence, or choose to offer or withhold membership to a partially recognised state. International organisation Position   Arab League Member states (15 / 22) Observers (3/4) Algeria † • Bahrain † • Comoros • Djibouti † • Egypt † • Iraq • Jordan † • Kuwait † • Lebanon † • Libya † • Mauritania † • Morocco • Oman • State of Palestine † • Qatar † • Saudi Arabia † • Somalia † • Sudan † • Syria • Tunisia • United Arab Emirates † • Yemen Observers: Brazil † • Eritrea † • India † • Venezuela  † – Have recognised South Sudan.   East African Community (EAC) Member states (4 / 5) Burundi • Kenya † • Rwanda † • Tanzania † • Uganda †  † – Have recognised South Sudan.   European Union (EU) The majority of member states have recognised South Sudan. A "Declaration by the EU and its Member States" issued by the European External Action Service stated "On this historic day, the EU and its Member States welcome the Republic of South Sudan as a new independent state. [...] The EU commends the Government of Sudan on its decision to recognise the new Republic of South Sudan with immediate effect." [1] Member states (26 / 27) Candidates (3 / 5) Austria † • Belgium † • Bulgaria † • Cyprus † • Czech Republic † • Denmark † • Estonia † • Finland † • France † • Germany † • Greece † • Hungary † • Ireland † • Italy † • Latvia † • Lithuania • Luxembourg † • Malta † • Netherlands † • Poland † • Portugal † • Romania † • Slovakia † • Slovenia † • Spain † • Sweden † • United Kingdom † Candidates: Croatia †• Iceland • Macedonia • Montenegro † • Turkey †  † – Have recognised South Sudan.   International Olympic Committee (IOC) The IOC accepts National Olympic Committees, rather than that it accepts countries as such. Any new NOC should represent a "State recognized by the international community". [2]   Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) The Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, welcomed the birth of the Republic of South Sudan in implementation of the results of the referendum on self-determination of South Sudan which took place on 9 January 2011. [3] Member states (34 / 57) Observers (2/5) Afghanistan • Albania † • Algeria † • Azerbaijan • Bahrain † • Bangladesh † • Benin • Brunei • Burkina Faso † • Cameroon • Chad • Comoros • Cote d'Ivoire • Djibouti † • Egypt † • Gabon † • Gambia • Guinea † • Guinea-Bissau • Guyana † • Indonesia † • Iran † • Iraq • Jordan † • Kazakhstan † • Kuwait † • Kyrgyzstan † • Lebanon † • Libya † • Malaysia • Maldives † • Mali † • Mauritania † • Morocco • Mozambique † • Niger • Nigeria † • Oman • Pakistan † • State of Palestine † • Qatar † • Saudi Arabia † • Senegal † • Sierra Leone • Somalia † • Sudan † • Suriname • Syria • Tajikistan • Togo † • Tunisia • Turkey † • Turkmenistan • Uganda † • United Arab Emirates † • Uzbekistan • Yemen Observers: Bosnia and Herzegovina • Central African Republic † • North Cyprus • Thailand • Russia †  † – Have recognised South Sudan.   World Bank The World Bank congratulated South Sudan upon independence. [4]

Nightw 10:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

International participation should be included in the foreign relations article. Just put it in a new section. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Done, but the rest is all about recognition and which member states have "recognised" etc. Nightw 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

http://mire.gob.pa/noticias/comunicado-oficial-la-republica-de-panama-reconoce-al-nuevo-estado-de-sudan-del-sur-como-es 69.203.217.91 ( talk) 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Added. Bazonka ( talk) 07:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

CUBA AND EAST TIMOR ARE STILL NOT MARKED "GREEN" ON THE MAP! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.16.226 ( talk) 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear Sascha, please respect that wikipedia depends on volunteers like you for changes, and that no-one likes to be addressed in CAPITALS (which is seen as shouting). L.tak ( talk) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

SYRIA AND YEMEN

I think,that Syria and Yemen will not recognize South Sudan in the coming weeks,because Assad and Saleh have different problems at the moment and no time to care about the South-Sudan-topic, Alex,USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.16.226 ( talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree,that states like Syria,Yemen,Iraq,Afghanistan and many others have quite other problems at the moment and do not care about the recognition of South Sudan. Syria´s dictator Assad is surely not thinking about South Sudan at all at the moment!!! Bryan,UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.16.226 ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I wish all you lot would learn how to sign your posts properly. Bazonka ( talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And I wish I could get invited to the party at Sascha in Germany's place. Aside from User:Sascha30 ( [2], [3]), we've got Brian from the USA ( [4] vs [5], [6], [7] at 79.233.2.77), Alex from the USA ( [8] vs [9] at 79.233.16.226) and Bryan from the UK ( [10] vs [11] at 79.233.16.226). Someone needs to explain to Sascha how IPs work. TDL ( talk) 08:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Haha, yeah that's quite a multinational party happening at that house! And they all seem to have similar opinions about South Sudan's foreign relations. They must get on very well. Delusion23 ( talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Someone needs to correct Botswana's details, as Botswana is a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations. - ( 203.211.70.207 ( talk) 12:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

Done. Bazonka ( talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What should be the target article of this redirect? Japinderum ( talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

There is a disagreement between CMD and me about the redirect target. The last version of the page before becoming a redirect is [12] (Aug2011). Afterwards it was merged into and redirected to Foreign relations of South Sudan until Nov2011, when the content was subject to repetitious deletions from Foreign relations of South Sudan (my opinion is that there wasn't consensus for such deletions). A related page was recently established, Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan, combining the incorrectly deleted content with additional relevant data from Foreign relations of South Sudan, gone trough AfD with the result "keep or merge".

Comparing [13] with the two redirect targets:

1. Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan
2. Foreign relations of South Sudan

Option1 is much closer to the version of this page before the redirect. Also, the topic "chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations" is much closer to "international recognition" than to "foreign relations". Japinderum ( talk) 09:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Threaded discussion

You insisted throughout that "obvious recognition" was different from "diplomatic recognition", and that you accept South Sudan is fully 'obviously' recognised. Thus there isn't a question of international recognition. There's no reason to direct an overview article topic to a chronology page. CMD ( talk) 10:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Whether and how much recognition South Sudan has is irrelevant for the target of the redirect. Also both targets describe that there is "no recognition problem", so this is no reason to redirect to one or the other.

I don't know what do you mean by "overview topic", but obviously the recognitions are currently present here, the same recognitions that were previously moved from the redirect source and then temporary deleted. Japinderum ( talk) 13:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The recognitions presented there are diplomatic overtures. These are not what constitutes international recognition. CMD ( talk) 15:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "overtures"? Please, don't start again with the 'recognitions are not notable', we've just emerged from the AfD about this. As I said - both targets have the "UN admission" remark you seem to stick to, but only one of the targets has the list of diplomatic recognitions. In addition the target you support doesn't include the material of this article (I gave you the link for the state before merging) - the diplomatic recognitions - it's in the other target. So, there is no reason redirecting to the target you want. Japinderum ( talk) 12:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

You've made the case they're notable statements between countries, but not that it has much to do with international recognition, which would have much more to do with "obvious recognition" than diplomatic ones. Given that international recognition isn't an issue, much of what international recognition will mean to South Sudan is its participation in the world systems and its current relationships, which is far more relevant than a chronology, which charts history. CMD ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Both articles reflect "obvious recognition" equally and only one of them reflects "diplomatic recognition". We can argue whether "international recognition" is more about the obvious or the diplomatic kind, but in any case it's better to redirect to the article that has both. Japinderum ( talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

One article is just a list of dates, while the other is a prose about South Sudan's interactions with the world. I notice Lihaas has removed diplomatic relations from the foreign relations page, which complicates things. CMD ( talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I think it would be better if we focused on whether the content should be merged into Foreign relations of South Sudan or kept at Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan first. Obviously if it's merged then the redirect should point to Foreign relations of South Sudan and we can avoid this debate. TDL ( talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, but this seems like a bigger debate (whether to merge or not). I just try to clean up things (restoring the link at Foreign relations and this redirect) until this is decided. Japinderum ( talk) 08:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

option 1 is best. we need such pages for all states as the only place to find collated info with tdates. and its certainly eneyclclopaedic...i would say the best part of WP (at least in IR/politics (along with elections)) Lihaas ( talk) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd also go with option 1, the chronology, as the best fit. Bearian ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree, Option 1 would be best. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

No mainspace articles link to this redirect page, so this is an irrelevant discussion. It really doesn't matter. Bazonka ( talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, option 1 is closer to the subject, but option 2 is more relevant to the subject. At the end, just add Foreign relations of South Sudan link near the top of the Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan, and it will be even more irrelevant where... -- WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Bazonka's point seems right on. After wading through the discussions, AfD, etc., it seems that the long-list is an interesting resource. However, its unclear that it belongs Re: some part of WP:WWIN Aslbsl ( talk) 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

While I don't see the need for a separate article solely for the dates of recognition, if the articles are to remain as they currently do then this redirect should point towards the Chronology page (option 1) as that is the only article which deals with the recognition of SS. Much better options would be to either: re-merge the content into the Foreign relations page and point this page there OR move the Chronology page here and get rid of the content that is already covered on the Foreign relations page. TDL ( talk) 07:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

So consensus appears to be for a merge then? CMD ( talk) 10:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the Chronology page. Don't merge. Nightw 13:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

On this specific question, a redirect to the "Chronology" makes sense in as much as that is the appropriate page (although nothing links to "IR", so it really accomplishes nothing). Re: a merge to "Foreign Policy" as a next step, I would be in favor. Aslbsl ( talk) 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Small 5.47.49.180 ( talk) 10:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply