Sudan and Its Civil War

Sudan and Its Civil War

Sudan is a country in northern Africa with a population of around 40,000,000 people (Sudan 2). Following its independence from United Kingdom-Egyptian control in 1956, Sudan has experienced the devastation caused by incessant civil war, a crumbling infrastructure and the vagaries of climate that have caused widespread famine and poverty. Indeed, even the discovery of oil in Sudan was turned against the best interests of the people of Sudan to the benefit of a few elite, and the country remains one of the poorest in the world today. Despite these constraints to development, though, there have been some positive signs in recent years that things may be changing for the better in substantive ways, but virtually all observers suggest that much more remains to be done. To this end, this paper provides a historical overview of Sudan, including its ethnic divisions between the north and south, as well as a discussion of the impact of the discovery of oil on the nation's economy and people. An analysis of current and future trends is followed by a summary of the research in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Historical Overview of Sudan. In 1899, an Anglo-Egyptian condominium was establish over Sudan; while Egypt enjoyed equal status with Britain in theory, in practice it was the British alone that administered Sudan until it became independent in 1956 (Petterson 7). On January 1, 1956, the independent sovereign Republic of Sudan was formed following the replacement of the colonial office of governor-general by a five-man Supreme Commission, comprised of four northern Sudanese and one southerner, Siricio Iro, who represented southern Sudan; the new government was headed by Ahmad Yasin, speaker of the Senate (O'ballance 1). At the time, "Parades and other ceremonies were held to mark the occasion, and the new flag of Sudan was unfurled for the first time -- a horizontal tricolour of blue to symbolise the two Nile rivers, yellow the deserts and green for agriculture" (O'ballance 1). The years that followed, though, quickly diminished the celebratory nature of the nation's independence from the United Kingdom in 1956, and various Islamic-oriented governments have dominated the country's political process for much of the 20th century (Sudan 1).

In fact, there has scarcely been a year go by when Sudan did not experience some type of crisis that has created a sense of "donor fatigue" among some Western nations today. According to Moeller (1999), "People worldwide must have the feeling of 'African famine again. Donors are tired of repetitious events, and Sudan and Ethiopia are repetitious," said a CARE official in Nairobi. "Every time there's a famine in Africa...you can always count on somebody asking, 'Hey didn't they just do that last year?'" (8). Unfortunately, the events in Sudan have in fact been violently repetitious. In fact, since its creation, Sudan has been wracked by two prolonged civil wars that persisted throughout much of the remainder of the 20th century; these civil wars were the result of various problems concerning the northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese (Sudan 1-2). According to U.S. government analysts, "The first civil war ended in 1972 but broke out again in 1983. The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades" (Sudan 2). Another and separate conflict erupted in the western region of Darfur in 2003; the impact of this conflict displaced almost 2 million people and resulted in an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths (Sudan 1).

The U.S. foreign policy concerning Sudan has varied over the years following the country's independence from the UK. According to Petterson (1999), the Khartoum government was initially suspicious of the United States, Egypt and the Soviet Union alike. This author reports that, "Because Sudan would not take the U.S. side in its Cold War struggle with the U.S.S.R., Washington was cool toward Khartoum. The military regime led by General Ibrahim Abboud, which seized power in 1958, presented the United States with additional reasons to be uneasy. For example, Abboud formed closer ties with Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egyptian government, expelled 300 foreign missionaries in 1964, and continued to carry on the war in the South" (Petterson 9). In 1967, more tightrope walking took place within the international community as Sudan broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S., along with other Arab countries, during the Arab-Israeli war; however, in 1971, the nation's leadership became increasingly wary of the intentions of the Soviets, broke off relations with the Communists and aligned Sudan with the West (Petterson 9). By 1972, Sudan had restored diplomatic relations with the United States and in 1974, the growing Cold War placed the Sudan in a particularly strategic position because U.S. leaders considered the country to be particularly important to U.S. national interests in the area; with the introduction of a pro-Soviet military regime in Ethiopia, President Gerald Ford sought out even closer relations with the Khartoum government (Petterson 9). According to this author, this strategic importance directly translated into hundreds of millions of dollars worth of foreign aid and by 1982, Sudan was receiving more U.S. aid than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa: $160 million in annual economic assistance and $100 million in military aid (Petterson 9).

Peace negotiations appeared to be gaining momentum during the period between 2002 and 2004, with the signing of several accords; for example, the final North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in January 2005, granted the rebels in southern Sudan autonomy for six years (Sudan 2). If the past is any indication, though, there will much more such accords required before substantive progress can be achieved in the future. According to El-Tigani (2001), "The case of the Sudan indicates that over time authoritarian regimes were excessively suppressive at the time democratic governments became more tolerant and willing to reconcile national disputes peacefully. Sudan governments, especially the existing rule of the National Islamic Front have been involved in a large number of gross human rights violations such as genocide and extrajudicial killing, tortures, acts of slavery and ethnic cleansing, confiscation of private property, arbitrary arrest, etc." (41). Following the execution of the North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement, another referendum for independence was scheduled to be conducted but has not been accomplished to date (Sudan 3).

Arbitrary geopolitical lines drawn on a map have been cited as the source of much of the conflict that erupted around the world during the 20th century, and here again, the Sudan is no exception. For instance, Gatkuoth (1995) emphasizes that:

Like many emerging nations in Africa and elsewhere, Sudan is faced with the problem of nation-building and the definition of a national identity. The heritage of ethnic diversity which the Sudan encapsulates has been mobilized in political, national, racial and religious actions by the dominant cultural group. The disparities between the North and the South do not in themselves lead to war. But when one group pursues policies and practices perceived to be hostile by the other, some degree of conflict may ensue. (206)

While the experts may not agree on the precise causes of the historic conflicts that have characterized life in Sudan, these disparities among the country's people and the resources they share clearly represent one of the major sources. For example, Durpaz (2002) reports that, "The seeds of the civil conflict were planted when Sudan was first colonized in 1898. The southern part of what is currently Sudan, then controlled jointly by Britain and Egypt, was arbitrarily added to the northern portion by the British. Culturally very different from the north, the peoples of the south are mostly black African -- Christian and animist by religion -- while the north is predominantly Muslim" (10).

The conflict in the Sudan, though, has not been restricted to clashes between these two culturally diverse populations; for instance, in central Sudan, another group of people, the Nubans, are also involved (Durpaz 11). Likewise, unlike their counterparts in other parts of the country, organized religion is unimportant to the Nubans, and within one family, one may commonly find Muslims, Christians, and animists who follow traditional African religions; because the Sudanese government has been headed by Islamic fundamentalists in recent years that have felt threatened by cultures that do not follow their strict rules, the racial diversity in the Sudan remains the primary cause of conflict (Dupraz 11). According to Fisher (1998), in the Sudan, Islamic extremists "have destroyed the civil society that was emerging from 1985 to 1989 [and the] National Islamic Front regime has made it hard to restore a wide range of social, religious, political and economic institutions" (17). In this environment, it is surprising that any level of recovery has been possible, but some progress has been made.

As of late 2006, international peacekeeping forces were attempting to introduce and maintain some stability in the country, but the situation in Sudan has crystallized into regional conflicts, thereby creating additional instability in eastern Chad, and U.S. government analysts report that the Sudanese have violated the border with the Central African Republic during various military expeditions (Sudan 2). Furthermore, although millions of Sudanese have been displaced by these civil wars, so too has it been forced to deal with large numbers of refugees from neighboring countries, primarily Ethiopia and Chad, seeking refuge from their respective conflicts as well (Sudan 3). According to these analysts, "Armed conflict, poor transport infrastructure, and lack of government support have chronically obstructed the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected populations" (Sudan 2).

The Aftermath of the Discovery of Oil.

In their book, Africa's Thirty Years War: Libya, Chad, and the Sudan, 1963-1993, Burr and Collins (1999) report that on the on hand, the Sudan is blessed with abundant natural resources, but on the other hand, the nation has been unable to exploit these to their maximum advantage for a variety of reasons, none of which are unique to it: "The same themes that have determined the course of their hostilities have characterized the violence in other regions of Africa during the generation since independence. These themes are, unfortunately, a familiar litany of confrontation between leaders, tribes, regions, races, and religions, of nomad against farmer, of cultivator against city dweller" (Burr and Collins 1). Unlike other areas of the African continent, though, the Sudan has historically been more susceptible to drought, insect infestation, and indigenous famine (Burr and Collins 1). According to these authors:

This vast region of three million square miles forms a right triangle anchored by three capitals: Ndjamena south of Lake Chad on the Chari River, Khartoum at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, and Tripoli on the Mediterranean. Throughout time, however, these hostile lands have been crossed by their inhabitants, who have fashioned complex and historic relationships that since 1963 have commanded the attention and consumed the energies of African and Arab politicians, regional and international institutions, and the leaders of the West and the Third World. (Burr and Collins 1)

Human misery is a compelling issue and the international community has responded in various ways to the crises in the Sudan, but some observers question whether even these levels of assistance have been based on humanitarian considerations or the fact that there is much to be gained by currying favor with whoever was in control of the Sudan at the time. "At first blush, this seems counterintuitive. How is it possible that natural resources like oil and gold, which have fueled empires and contributed to great wealth in places like the Persian Gulf and Houston, Texas, are actually making poor countries poorer? Since the economies of nearly half of the world's poorest countries depend on these sectors, developing a coherent answer to the question is crucial for addressing the problem of global poverty more effectively" (Slack. 48).

The impact of the "resource curse" on the Sudan is no exception, and absent such wealth, it is reasonable to assume that the country would have long ago attempted alternatives approaches to development than those that have historically been used. According Cyper and Dietz (1997), "A large natural resource base actually hinders the transition to the more optimal path of export substitution; an apparent resource blessing turned into its opposite, a so-called 'resource curse.' The availability of ample natural resources and/or foreign capital can thus be viewed as permitting the system to continue on its old tracks, thus avoiding the political and, at least short-term, economic pain of having to move to a different policy package" (312). Indeed, these very processes have played out in textbook fashion in the Sudan. For example, Suliman (1994) reports that, "It is a deeply disturbing indicator of the devastation of the social fabric and the natural environment that Sudan's relatively small population is increasingly unable to sustain a livelihood in a huge and resource-rich country. The discovery of oil in commercial quantities at the beginning of the 1980s raised hopes of salvation of the country's economic crisis. But the oil was found mainly in the South, and as with the prospect of saving water with the Jonglei Canal, success depended on control of the area" (3).