Today, the Republic of South Sudan will be born to become the 54th member of the African Union (AU) and 194th member of the United Nations.

The birth of the newest State has been an arduous journey and its very emergence comprises the promise of hope for a people raped, pillaged and dispossessed for centuries, but also demonstrates the phenomenon of State failure in post-colonial Africa.

The direct meaning of what has happened is that as millions of South Sudanese and their backers celebrate their independence through an act of separation, clouds of a new conflict are gathering between the two newly divorced neighbours.

Apologists of the separation argue the South cannot be blamed for breaking up Africa’s largest country: that the oppressive regimes in Khartoum are ultimately responsible because they never really tried to make unity attractive to South Sudan and other parts of the now disintegrating monolith.

But scholars and others still stuck to the sanctity of African borders of yore can be forgiven for arguing that today’s act kills the most important dream of Pan Africanism and opens a Pandora’s box in the remaining part of North Sudan and in the continent.

Evidently, the dream of a united, just, diverse and democratic Sudan which the late John Garang and other intellectuals from the North and South dreamt prior to and during the most recent civil war has died forever. It could become a nightmare if the poor new states disintegrate further.

In the wake of Dr Garang’s dream lies two hostile nations, divided not just by a bitter history and un-demarcated borders but also the threats of disintegration from within the new nations, with devastating effects to the people of neighbouring countries.

Kenya’s interest in South Sudan is due to historical, cultural, economic and political reasons. Kenya midwifed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that has resulted in this day. It would now want to see peace prevail on its Northern border where gory tales of war and insecurity have traumatised its conscience for decades.

Kenya, too, desires to see a stable nation emerge where instability has thrived. Thankfully, unlike its neighbours, Kenya did not engage its military in the 1983-2005 conflict and thus its choice to mediate the conflict symbolised the often uncelebrated policy of passive equidistance.

South Sudan’s new neighbours should not turn the new nation into a playground to loot resources and pursue proxy wars. They should pursue economic and security interest in the new country with the utilitarian interest of South Sudanese at heart.

The challenge for the new state is to forge it into a viable country with the economic, diplomatic and physical wherewithal to take care of its citizens. From recent events in South Sudan, there are reasonable fears of disintegration of the new country unless the rulers in Juba address the problems of tribalism, poverty and corruption that have blighted South Sudan since 2005.

South Sudan should lead the international community in making this happen through bilateral aid and technical support and refrain from petty imperial designs.

The Juba authorities make some sense when they blame the Khartoum regime for sowing instability in the South but also must realise that the future of the new nation ultimately lies in their willingness and capacity to address the immense development challenges through peaceful means that include transparency and inclusiveness.

The Juba regime must realise that there can be no excuse for lack of democracy, torture and plunder of its immense natural resources for when left to thrive, these ills will instigate a new conflict within the new state and cause it to go the way of most post-colonial African states.

Extremists on both sides ought to be restrained by guarantors to the CPA through eternal vigilance so that they do not incite a new war through the transformation of the two states into viable democracies. The international community should assist the new country with the economic means and expertise to fend for itself.