Syrian Upring and what it means for the Region.

The event of the Arabs Spring in Syria has sharply divided the Syrian people. Since uprising began in Tunisia almost nine months ago, Syria has been experiencing violence and there is a potential fear that Syria would descent into more chaos or sectarian civil war should the current government in Damascus fall. Beyond this internal concern, there are regional consequences to the demise of President Basher Assad particularly in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan where there are historical issues related to minority Kurds in both countries. In this paper, I addressed who the winners and losers of the potential fall of the Assad’s regime are as well as regional potential implications of the Assad’s regime demise in case protesters in Syria get their wish.


Analysis of Syrian’s Uprising and Regional Impacts

As we studied in this class [Middle East and Politics], Syrian is seriously a divided nation. The present of different sectarian groups e.g. like Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Alawites complicated Syrian politics. Politically, the current situation in Syria is making many states in the region concern and wondering what this might mean to them. Internally, Syrian opposition wants to see Assad’s regime gone which is the reason why support among the protesters has survived this long. The opposition sees this as a political opportunity that those who don’t like Assad’s regime can use to push their agenda of overthrowing President Assad and his government. This too explains why Syrian uprising spread evenly to all the major cities in the country. The oppositions are using their infrastructures to facilitating the spread of protest and protesters in areas they see would likely weaken the government resolve and hope that those who are supporting the government join the opposition and the protesters and isolate Assad to accept resignation from power.

President Assad and his supporters on the other hand wanted to maintain the status quo. Assad particularly understands the nature of the Syrian politics and how current situation in Syria threatens his political survival. In my opinion, I believed that President Assad finally recognized the needs to accept political transformation to some extent. However, the current situation is not conducive to allow such political transformation that protesters and opposition are pushing for to happen at this time. First, the situation is very volatile and needs to be defused at little bit more which is what exactly President Assad is doing by using military to suppress protesters such that political steam that protesters and opposition have is neutralized. Second, Assad understands that if he accepts Protesters’ demands at this stage, there is a great danger that protesters will not accept whatever concession(s) that he makes. Instead, they may likely place more demands on Assad’s regime and that would be a political suicide for the Assad’s regime and he understands that clearly.

Therefore, because of this, President Assad only way out of this situation is doing four things which he is already doing. First, suppress the rebellion and inflict fear among people and force them to accept the current status quo. Second, while suppressing and inflicting fear in people, keep door opens to create a possibility of dialogue on his terms. Third, makes the other side appears as the one which is not interested in dialogue while you make himself the champion of peace. Fourth, reduce the political situation into an internal problem by downplaying its regional consequences.

Assad’s regime is doing well by executing all these brilliant moves. The regime is almost succeeding in crushing the rebellion. It has managed to keep the dialogue door opened and has made itself appeared as interested in finding political solution to the current situation. With respect to internalizing the Syrian rebellion, he has managed to downplay the implications that this crisis has on Syrian neighbors while at the same time made it known to its to them that it is in the best interest why his regime may be their best friend that they have when it comes to regional stability and security concerns of those nations

No doubt, I believed President Assad has used his political skills to contain the situation both internally and regionally. Internally, I think the rebellion/protesters strength has been weakened. It is a matter of time before protesters give in their demands and go back to their homes. I don’t believe protesters will ever gain further strength to energize their campaign against the Assad’s regime. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the opposition and protesters to accept the little concessions that President Assad is willing to offer them. If they accepted Assad’s regime offer, protesters and political opposition can spin that as a success and may strengthen their future position in dealing with Assad’s regime. However, if they forgo this opportunity, Assad’s regime is going to emerge victorious and would toughen its position in its future dealing with the opposition.

Regionally, I think he has made his case known to some of Syrian neighbors particularly Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey both which can be directly or in-directly affected by the civil unrest in Syria. Thus, it is up to these states to decide whether to stand with Assad’s regime or stand with opposition and protesters who their goal is to cause Assad’s regime to collapse.

Personally, It makes sense for governments in these three countries to be much interested in seeing the Assad’s regime survives the Arabs Spring in Syrian for political and security reasons. In respect to Lebanon government which is threatened by Hezbollah popularity and its influence inside Lebanon, I think there is wishful thinking among some Lebanese government officials to see Syrian regime collapse. These people think that if Assad’s regime collapses, there is a possibility that Hezbollah would lose one of its strong support bases hence would lose its influence in Lebanon. For Hezbollah, regime in change in Syria would mean losing one of its supporters and it this could have a damaging effects to Hezbollah link to Iran because most of the Hezbollah financial assistances and weapons seem to pass through Damascus.

For some Lebanese government officials particularly Christians ruling coalition which are threatened by the possibility of a Shiites dominant Lebanon, talking of regime change in Syria threatens their political survival. In simplistic term, regime change in Syria may embolden Hezbollah and its Shiite majority to run down the Lebanese ruling coalition and replaces it with a Shiite dominated government. This would also mean that Shiites takeover in Lebanon may create two dangerous situations. As Hezbollah in the past has threatened to create an Islamic Republic in Lebanon, there is a potential that Hezbollah would finally achieve this goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic Republic adding another theocratic regime in the region already experiencing a radical transformation. In addition, if Shiites and Hezbollah ascend to power in Lebanon, it may force its Shiites’ Islamic values on Christians and Sunnis who may not necessary agree with those values and this could take Lebanon back into a brutal civil war as well as causing humanitarian crisis in form of refugees influx to other countries in the region which are already dealing with refugee crisis created by continuous conflict in Iraq and in the Palestinian’s territory.

In Turkey, current situation is a compounded dilemma. Turkey as a moderate state courting to join the European Union is willing to criticize Assad and would like to see Assad carries out some political transformations in Syria. At the same time, Turkey needs Syria regime to help Turkey deals with some of its regional problems. For instance, the current situation in Syria already caused refugees influx into unstable Turkey territory. Politically, if current situation in Syria continues to force more refugees into this volatile Turkish territory particularly in Kurdistan region where Turkey outlawed Kurdistan Worker Party (PKK) has been engaged in activities that are aimed at destabilizing the Turkish government.

If this Kurdistan region of Turkey becomes more unstable, there is a potential danger that conflict may escalate and spread to other Turkish territories which Turkey does not want to happen. Moreover, I think Turkey fears regional reorganization that may emerge after the demise of the Assad’s regime. In Syria for example, Sunnis are becoming very vocal and should Assad’s regime be replaced by a Sunni dominated regime, there is a potential that new Syrian regime may give Sunnis monarchy in Saudi Arabia to exert more political and economic influences in Syria which would be threatening to Turkey desire to keep Syria as a close ally and route to its expanding market to the rest of the Middle East.

Not only is Turkey disturbed by the prospect of losing Assad as an ally, Turkey concern is bigger than that. The present deterioration of a political climate in Syria is a recipe for a political instability in Turkey. If Syria becomes embroiled in a civil war and with Assad regime that has helped to maintain stability in Syria gone, Kurds in Syria may try to take advantage of a power vacuum inside Syria to create their own state which could create a domino effects for Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and may create precedent among the rest of the Arabs countries in the region to do the same thing. Therefore, Turkey best political interest regarding Syrian current situation is to see Assad’s regime survives because current Syrian uprising creates a dilemma for Turkey government. If Turkey wants to avoid the potential of a domino effect, it would require Turkey to cooperate, and help President Assad to quell down the situation in order to preserve the current Syrian status quo which helps Turkey to control its Kurds problem in its own territory.

Regarding Jordan, there seems to be a mixed ways to explain the Syrian current political situation. First, relationship between Assad and the Jordanian ruling family is not cordial because of Syrian government past support to Palestinians groups that didn’t like King Abdullah and his monarchy. For this reason, I think Jordanian’s ruling family might be happy to see President Assad and his regime replaced by a different regime.

While this might be true, Jordanian ruling family should be keenly aware of the consequence that comes with Assad’s regime collapse. If the protesters and opposition succeeded in toppling President Assad and his regime, there is a likelihood that moderate Jordanians and opposition that want to establish a non-monarchic government in Jordan to take the mantle of “uprising” and stage a nationwide protest to seek a political and democratic reforms in Jordan which if it happens could bring an end to the Jordanian’s monarchy.

Moreover, civil war in Syria could turn in a war between Syria and Jordan given bad political relationship between the two countries. Syrian government has already begun pointing fingers toward Jordanian government and blames it for supporting Syrian rebellion around cities bordering Jordan. If situation in Syria worsens to where rebellion becomes more threatening to Assad’s regime. I am afraid that if Assad finds enough credible evident that directly linked Jordan and Syrian rebellion together, there is a prospect that Assad and his regime would take their anger and frustration on Jordan by declaring war on Jordanian’s monarch which if it happens may have implication beyond Syrian-Jordanian borders.

In summary, the Syrian’s uprising has more serious regional implications that Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian uprisings didn’t have on the region. The dynamic nature of the Syrian rebellion has direct implications to some of its neighbors. For this reason, states like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are caught up in a political dilemma that Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors did not experienced. For Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors, the challenge was how to deal with refugee crises and there was no imminent fear of a war breaking out between different countries. The Syrian uprising and prospect of Syrian civil war as discussed above has the potential of turning into a regional civil war. Thus, the regional best hope at this time is to see Assad’s regime survives otherwise short of this; there is a risk that instability in Syria would spread beyond Syrian’s borders.

Looking beyond the Grave Yard: Wipe off your tears and look into the Future

On July 9th 2011, this year, we witnessed the raising of a yellow-guarding stared flag. We sang the Republic of South Sudan National Anthem for the first time and above all, we heard the proclamation of independence for South Sudan and the tears of sorrow we shed six years earlier were replaced by tears of joys as each of us saw our flag flying high over the grave site of our founding father. What a day that was, a day on which our suffering gave birth to a bright future. What began sixty one plus years ago became reality as South Sudanese witnessing history unfolding in their eyes. To many, it still seems like an exciting dream in the middle of the night which ends every moment one opens their eyes. To others, this is a day that they never thought would happen in their lives time.

So I wonder, what our brothers and sisters, the generation Deng Nhial, Ajang Duot, Leek Deng Malual, Ngundeng, and many others are saying in their graves. What is Deng Nhial saying? Is he saying my premature death was not in vain? Is he saying good job my children and grandchildren; you will never die by proxy? Surely, there must be some kind of celebration or debate going on in the afterlife. How can we hear Deng Nhial Message? How about prophet Ngundeng? What is he saying? What is Deng Nhial generation telling the new arrivals of Nyuon Beny, Kuanyin Bol, Nyanchingak, Majier Gai, Arok Thon Arok, and the top general Dr. Garang De Mabior? How will we ever know what these people are telling us?

Hypothetically, this sounds like a fairy tale right? No, I don’t think so…. The answer is with us. When Deng Nhial went to the bush, he was tired of exclusion. He did not want to be a second class citizen. When Ngundeng prophesized one hundred years ago, he foresaw what to come and he believed that one day his people will be freed from the bondage of humiliation. So what is the message that these forefathers are telling us? Perhaps, they are saying, “we started the journey and you finished it. We shown you the road and you traveled it. We lid the fire, and you kept it alive. We started with Anya Nya I and Anya Nya II finished the job.” It sounds to me that the narrative is it was a joint effort of the dead and the livings.

To this I say, yes, indeed it was a joint effort and thanks you for starting it. Thank you for showing us the road to travel. Thank you Anya Nya I for starting and Thank you SPLM/A for finishing the job. With these words, I say, the hard work begins. The work to build a sustainable South Sudan has begun and it will require children, women, and men, young and old to transcend individual averageness. It will require our excellence, steadfastness, hospitality, resilience, creativity, endurance, and strong leadership. We all know our aspiration and hopes are so high. To achieve them, we each needs to chip in whatever each of us thinks to build us up and not tearing us apart. It’s a better tomorrow that killed Deng Nhial generation, and it is unquestionably that it is the better future that took the lives of our two millions beloved citizens including Dr. Garang De Mabior.

As we reflect every year, I hope we all gather not to mourn Dr. Garang again, but to celebrate his life and lives of those who have sacrificed their bloods to culminate into the birth of our Republic, The Republic of South Sudan. I hope, we don't to look into the graves of Dr. John Garang or any grave of our gone heroes; but instead, we thrive to look beyond their graves yards. If this is true to each of you, then you need to ask yourself this question, what would be my contribution to the nation building? What am I going to be bringing back home? Of course, this would require sacrifices, new thinking and self determination. This means, we need to bury our laziness and get to work. If you have a job and you have time, don’t waste your time on video games, board games or table games. Instead, use most of your free time to educate yourself with some skills that will be valuable when you go back home.

If you don’t have a job, don’t get discourage, keeping looking and if you don’t get one, it is better to go back to school instead of wasting your valuable time. If we get discouraged, then we have let down those who fought to give us a nation we now call our own. If you have resentment against someone your brother, sister, neighbor, or against the other tribe, the time for holding on to such resentments is gone. Let your grudges and resentment die with the Old Republic. The Republic of South Sudan needs everybody to treat each other with compassion and love for this will be our way forward. Let tribalism dies with the Old Republic. In fact, I encourage young and old to live the Lost Boys life. Among the Lost Boys as you some of you may know, there is no Dinka, no Nuer, no Bari, and no Acholi.

To young people who went to Pinyudo, Itang, and Dimo, you may understand what I am talking about. To some of us who never lived the Lost Boys life, I say, stop spreading hate message that would tear up our new government. It fragile and needs our protection. If you have something you don’t like about our leaders, don’t start gossips and rumors, rumors and tribal politics are reasons why it took us this long to be a nation. So let not repeat the same old mistake again. If you have something you don’t like, seek clarification and understanding before you logon to your facebook, MySpace or other blogs to spread negative and destructive rumors. Finally, to make all our martyrs including Dr. Garang, whom we dearly missed proud, don’t be blinded by the excitement of the present, walk and sleep with one eye opens for the enemy of peace is still working hard to hold us back from moving forward. May God Almighty, guide President Kiir to lead our country into the right direction of peace, harmony and prosperity.

African Political Bombshell: The case of South Sudan Independence

Southern Sudan is set for a divorce with the rest of Sudan in 36 hours time. For South Sudanese, this is what they have been fighting for the last half of the century. However, the split of the African’s largest country also creates uncertainty about the future of Sudan and Africa in general. With Sudan being a fragmented and failed state with no state government, there is a great fear that South Sudan independence would a precedent that many regions like Darfur, and Southern Kordofan not mention Abyei which its fade is still to be determined.

Regionally, there is uncertainty about what South Sudan independence means to regions like Somaliland of Somalia, Katanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sahara of Morocco and many other regions which wanted to become their own countries. As scholars and students of conflict Resolution, the question that South Sudan’s independence poses is, did the world committed a big mistake by creating a precedent that would likely set the continent of Africa on a different trajectory since the end of the Scramble for Africa? Or should South Sudan independence be considered as a special case in which if the case, do we need to discourage other regions from following the same path?

What does the International Criminal Courts indictment means to Gaddafi?

Now that ICC has formally indicted Gaddafi for crimes against humanity. He officially has become a wanted man. So what does this mean to the UN led coalition in Libya against Gaddafi regime? Before ICC rendered it indictment, there was hope that French led coalition may break Gaddafi will and forces him to step down or leave the country. Now that he is a criminal, that hope is completely gone. It appears that there will be least countries in the region to take him in should he decides to relinquish power.

This left Gaddafi with no other choice except to try hold to power as long as he breathes. It also means, the hope to bring the campaign to an end soon is also gone. And with no coalition troops on the ground in Libya, I am afraid that ICC indictment of Col. Gaddafi has complicated the Libyan’s conflict by it decision to indict Gaddafi at this critical time in the coalition.

General Salva Kiir X-Factor

When Dr. John Garang died mysteriously only three weeks in the office as the vice president of the government of national unity, and as the president of the South Sudan autonomous government, there were lot of nervous people in South Sudan about what the future holds. Some Southerners who have known Garang thought nobody will match the Bashiir cunningness. They feared that Garang demise would put the country fragile peace in limbo. The only people who cheered Garang death were the Northerners and the Khartoum regime who banked that Garang absent in the political discourse would give them an edge.

Well, both Khartoum and South Sudan doubted Thomas were all wrong. General Kiir Mayardit has presented himself to be a wild card at all fronts. First and foremost, he has surprised Khartoum regime which thought and hoped that Garang death was going to be a blessing to them. They were dead wrong, while we dearly missed Dr. Garang, we praised him every single day for his wisdom to have chosen capable leaders like General Kiir Mayardit who happened to have filled Garang’s big shoe at such a critical time in our history. Kiir being a disciplined and shrew general who knows how to juggle with turbulent times has kept the boat from being rocked over by the enemies of South Sudan. He has learned from his predecessor with whom he has fought side by side since the first Sudan war after its independent.

I guessed it is safe to say, these two men know how to lay down mines, how to dodge bullets and how to lead guerilla soldiers. So it should not be a surprise to South Sudanese about Kiir unwavering determination to stand his ground in face of many challenges that are facing the CPA. On many fronts, he maneuvered the difficult political terrains including making tough decisions of which many have left Khartoum speechless e.g. with drawing MPs from the government of national unity in protest of non compliance with CPA and many other difficult decisions like offering amnesty to all different rebels leaders who have made bad choices. Such decision to offer political amnesty to people like General Dau and General Athor was unpopular but necessary to maintain the unity of southerners.

Although many people saw General Kiir as an opportunist whom Garang death has brought him into power, Kiir is a giant of his own, he understands his generals and his generals understand him and together, they have out witted the cunningness of the Khartoum regime. When he decided not to run for president of the national government last year but instead announced his candidacy for the presidency of the South Sudan, southerners including me were convinced that South Sudan will reach it destiny. There was no doubt with him being the captain of the boat, there was a feeling that we were going to approach the Promised Land. That’s Southerners gave him their seal of approval by voting almost 96 percent for his candidacy. With such blessing, General Kiir has kept his promise that he made almost fifty years ago to free his people from the bondage of the Arabs and their Islamized and oppressive governments.

Since Kiir became a president, he has managed to hold together Southerners with exception of few power greedy generals who have lost the cause of the Southern Sudanese people. Let us all image, without Kiir as a captain of this boat, finding other unifying figure to lead Southerners in this tumultuous time would have been like asking Chol Mong to throw away his fish.
I don’t agree with some of his decisions leadership ability particularly how he is handling the issue of corruption. However, I gave General Kiir a thumb up for bringing us this close to our long awaited destiny. Just exactly 78 days left till South Sudan becomes the Republic of South Sudan. I still have the faith in Kiir to finish the race and to finally usher in a new era in our Republic.

Democratic Election Challenges in Africa

When the first of wave of democratic transformation reached Africa during the 1990s, there was a great hope for change among the first few African countries which embraced it. From Kenya, Zambia, Tanzania and South Africa, people thought that democracy would replace old colonial pessimistic governments. Some even thought that democracy would bring a new era of peace and stability to Africa. However, what many regular Africans never knew back then is that democracy is a messy process which sometimes appears worse than authoritative and authoritarian regimes that African countries have experimented several decades earlier.

Take the case of Zambia and Zimbabwe where leaders during the 1990s used the democratic institutions to solidify their regimes. In Zambia for example, president Fredrick Chiluba promised democratic transformation by promising good governance while at the same time used the same institutions to slowly eradicate most political oppositions particularly one he saw where threats to his dictatorial styled democracy. The same story is true in the case of Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Uganda and with mild exception to Tanzania where democracy was somehow prospering.

After almost 20 years of experimentation with democracy in Africa, little is understood about the role of democracy in Africa and how it works. The continent is in worse shape than what it was before the introduction of democracy with many countries plagued by civil wars and ethnic tensions as a result of falsified democratic elections. From the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Liberia, and recently event in Post Ivory Coast election echoed the messiness of the so called democratic election in Africa.

It is becoming self evident that Africa has not either understood how the democracy work or that the government institutions among African countries are not ripe to sustain the kind of democracy that we see in the western countries. If the first case is true that Africans have not understood how democracy works, then there is a need to educate people on how the democratic processes work to ensure that people understand the work of this messy governing mechanism. And if it is true that institutions in Africa are not strong enough to sustain the nature of the democratic transformation, then there is a choice to be made whether to develop institutions that foster the kind of the democratic transformation that we see in the western countries. However, if it is impossible at this time for Africa to develop such institutions to deal with post election issues, then it is about time for Africans to push the pause button on the democratic pendulum to evaluate why the democratic processes have not work well on the continent of Africa since its introduction to the continent.

International response to Libya: Lessons of Genocide in Rwanda and Massacre in Sarajevo

Almost two decades ago, the world saw thousands of people massacre in a cold blood bath in Rwanda. In matter of months, 800,000 Hutus and Moderate Tutsi were murdered while the world was watching. Just a year later after the Rwandan massacre, international opinions began to take shape. The outcry and condemnation of the barbaric massacre in Rwanda spread across capitals of the world, from Paris to London, Washington DC to Berlin, Rome to Kigali. Every civilized nation vehemently denounced Rwandan massacre and labeled it as genocide. Some influential people like former U.S. President Bill Clinton said, such massacre should have happened in 21st century.

Unfortunately, history repeated itself. In 1998, hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Yugoslavia while the same international community was debating the language of the UN mandate regarding the United Nations and NATO intervention in the Balkan. However, because the conflict in the Balkan took place in the European Community backyards, Europe was quick to intervene and NATO took the lead to enforce UN mandate to prevent what would have been the largest European massacre second to holocaust in which millions of innocent Jews were murdered.

So when Colonel Gaddafi said a month ago that, “he would have no mercy on his people.” I was personally afraid thinking that Rwandan like massacre was going to repeat itself again in Libya. It might be too soon to say that the world has averted blood bath in Libya. However it is safe to say that something an extraordinary has happened. It hard to assess how this quick response was coordinated but one this is certain to me. The images and scope of Rwandan genocide have made it hard for people like the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to sit back and watched the Libyan dictator slaughtering his own people.


Regardless of the outcome of this international operation, credit has to been given to the French, British, Italy and United States for taking the lead and diverted a blood bath in Libya. The question that I am wrestling with is this, what kind of Libya is the world expecting after the departure of Gaddafi? Would it be a stable Libya or unstable one? With Libya being a nation state made up of tribes, I am concerned that 42 years of Gaddafi dictatorial rule will be replaced by instability and civil wars. It likely that the international community may succeed in getting rid of Gaddafi regime, however, international community is nervous of Libyan future. The world knows little about the Libyan rebels and that is troubling by itself. What if the very rebel that the world may bring to power in Libya will turn out to be like Taliban?

United Nations and Challenges in the 21st Century

The end of the Cold War for the United Nations was a time for revitalization with in the United Nations. There was a strong belief that cooperation among United Nations member states would help the ill-United Nations gains international leverage on issues related to world’s peace and security. And with the blessing of the United Nations success in the first Gulf war. United Nations credibility which was lost during the Cold War became reborn as UN was able to bring consensus within the Security Council on how to deal with the Saddam Hussein aggression on Kuwait. The principle of collective security finally brought United Nations’ member states together for the first time since the beginning of the Cold War. However, it was not long before such cooperation faded away. The scope of civil wars in the 1990s again brought many political differences among the United Nations members to resurface again. All these complicating the efforts of the United Nations to deal with challenges of the century, there was a great deal unpreparedness on the part of the UN to deal with issues of Unilateralism, peacekeeping, nuclear weapons proliferations, human rights abuses, poverty, illiteracy, climate changes, and terrorism. It immediately became clear that the United Nations and its member states were faced with many challenges then before in the United Nations’ history. For better understanding of these enormous challenges, each of them will be addressed separately to enhance how each affects the United Nations capability to maintain peace and security of the world (Puchala, 2007, p. 1-2).

A) Disagreements among member states (unilateralism & multilateralism)

Political differences, national sovereignty and prevalence of national interest to pursue within the United Nations put most states at odd with each other at the UN and in real essence; it complicates the organization efforts to build a consensus within the Security Council which the United Nations needs to function effectively as required by its Charter. For UN as an organization built to function on consensual basis, political differences and states’ interests always causes member states to put their national interest first, thus putting the UN interest at odd and as a result, United Nations looses it way as well as it ability to hold up to it principles of maintaining the world peace and security. The recent experience of United States invasion of Iraq with out UN authorization is a real example on how it is so true to say that there is no UN with out member states; and because membership of the UN is composed of sovereign nations. It is however instrumental to bring national interests and UN interests together which is not easy thing to come about, and which was really what happened with regard to the United States unilateral decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to world’s security or whether it was a desire within the Bush administration to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime (Puchala, 2007, p. 93-96). It was clear that disagreement within the UN member states on definition of threat that President Saddam Hussein posed to world peace. The other UN member states never saw Saddam Hussein the way he was viewed by the United States government. Therefore, there was a complete divergent views between UN as an organization and United States government whose it interest was to pursue it political interest despite what UN reluctance to Iraq invasion by the United States led coalition. Out the United States unilateral decision to invade Iraq without backing of the UN brought the old theory of collective security into question. In a layman understanding, the refusal of the United States to seek consensus from other UN member states was a contradiction to the notion of collective security which calls all member states to act collectively to protect world peace and security. Whatever anybody may say, it is clear that other states have their own political and strategic interests which they would like to pursue out side the UN and when this becomes the norms, UN relevance would be brought to nothing as individual states will start to operate in pursuit of their own national interests and disregarding the UN forum (Puchala, 2007, p. 5-6).

B) nuclear weapons and their proliferations

Although there have been fewer occasions in which nuclear weapons have been used in human history. The challenge and threats posed by nuclear weapons are becoming a main concern for the United Nations and it member states. Since the end of the Cold War, stock files of chemical, biological and other components of deadly weapons are at large. Without proper storage, the real prospect of these deadly weapons and their parts to end up in the hands of terrorists is real. For UN and member states, the issue of nuclear weapons and their prospects to be used by radical terrorist groups like Aqaeda and other groups put the issue among the challenges that UN would have to deal with in this technological century where technology and skills that comes with it could easily fester the ability of terrorists to manufacture these deadly nuclear weapons from already available stock files.

A part from nuclear weapons being used by terrorists, the number of countries with nuclear weapons has increased exponentially than what it was during the last fifty years, and making it scary, is the fact that most of these nations, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and possibly Iran are located in the volatile part of the world where conflict could erupt at any time. The effort of IAEA to combat the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation has by far made different. However, there is no universal protocol on how to enforce the technology related to nuclear weapons and this make it difficult for IAEA to monitor how member states could use nuclear technology exclusively for civilian purposes. Secondly, for those nations with nuclear weapons, few have adhered to None Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which also makes it so hard for IAEA to standardize the enforcement of nuclear weapons protocol especially for those nations that have them (Barash, 2002, P. 85-109).

C) Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction

The issue of sustainable development and security especially in the developing world is a major concern for the UN. The wide spread level of poverty in Africa, South American and other remote parts of the world is believed as part of a root cause of conflict that plague these regions of the world. In Africa for instance, most conflicts are premeditated by issues related to land, economic imbalance, bad governance and illiteracy which are all issues related to lack of an economic sustainability. Over the last decade, the UN Commission on Human Security has identified global poverty as one of the major challenges to the international community (Barash, 2002, P. 492- 500).

The affinity of people in these impoverished regions creates sense of vulnerability and susceptibility to violence and makes them easy targets for diseases. Of course people who are living in dire living conditions could be easy targets for terrorists’ recruits. For UN, the prevalent of many failed states which are unable to provide adequate security and economic opportunities for their citizens requires the United Nations and other affluent nations to provide people in these areas with minimum acceptable living conditions e.g. basics food supplies, health cares, education and other living conditions which fosters security and economic sustainability capable to bring millions of people out of poverty. The challenges are multifaceted, poverty breeds instability and instability breeds conflict and conflict causes death, mass migration of people, war related diseases. The point is that for UN to create stability and peace, there have to be greater efforts by it member states to initiate ambitious sustainable goals aim at eliminating or reducing the level of global poverty in the developing world. To the UN credit, there have been greater attempts to combat poverty world wide, the problem is that there are millions of people that are living in poverty and the efforts of the UN and other international organizations are overwhelmed by the number of impoverished people living in worst living conditions in the world (Puchala, 2007, p. 44-50).
.

D) Terrorism

The increase in the number of terrorist’s groups world wide and terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 has made terrorism a global challenge that the UN and its member states have to confront. Since September 11th 2001, a lot of efforts have been made to deter terrorists from orchestrating such attack both by the United States government as well as by other nations. However, sovereign states as well as the United Nations have to do more to combat terrorism. There are no doubts; efforts have been made to prevent catastrophic terrorist attack. What is remaining as a bigger challenge for UN and its member states is to identifying and eradicating the core root causes of terrorism. As mentioned earlier, a lot of people in the world have nothing and those who have nothing to loose would risk anything including life to earn living. To deny terrorists access to these vulnerable populations, UN and member states have an obligation to provide conditions that can improve their living conditions e.g. fair trade, Foreign Direct Investment in poorest regions of the world, Debt Relief as well as increasing Aid Flows to poorest nations of the world. Of course these are ambitious and expensive goals and must require unwavering commitments from UN and its wealthy member states.

Moreover, peace as a condition for development holds key to curb the frequency and intensity of terrorism. In Africa and Middle East for example, unsecured borders encourage drug trafficking networks which provide terrorists with money to fund their operations. There is no doubt, as long as certain regions or countries remain hot spots, they will remain fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. As a way to counter this prospect, UN and other concerned member states have to develop policies that support political institutions that would sustain and consolidate peace.

E) Peacekeeping operations

The efforts of UN peacekeeping operations in the last forty years were simple. They were based on supervising cease fire between the belligerents. However, since the demise of the Cold War, UN peacekeeping operations have changed. They are no longer confined to traditional peacekeeping of interposition peacekeepers between the two sides. It now expanded to involve critical humanitarian relief operations around the globe. In most cases, peacekeepers are called to intervene for humanitarian reasons in the midst of civil war as it was the case in 1990s in Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda and currently province of Darfur in Western Sudan. As conflicts in the world intensify, the demands for peacekeeping are becoming increasing. This means that UN has to increase soliciting more member states to contribute troops, logistical supports as well as funds to pay for these complex operations. The challenges for UN are so complex and difficult to anticipate. First, when a conflict breaks out, coming up with a proposal to create peacekeeping mission requires consensus at the Security Council. Sometimes political differences among the Big Five could delay UN to respond to a crisis in real time. And as a result, war can rage on for months before any meaningful intervention could be reached by the Security Council members to remedy the situation.

If this becomes the case, peacekeepers can start arriving at time when desire for peace has been overshadowed by the desire to fight and this end up putting the very peacekeepers in a hostile environment where their efforts can not rescue the situation either. The other challenge that UN faces is that, sometimes, UN peacekeepers could be ordered to intervene in situation where there is no peace to keep. In Somalia and Haiti for example, UNOSOM and UNMIH were ordered to intervene without cease fires declaration in both cases. In such instances, UN member states become reluctant to risk to put their troops and personnel in harm ways. Finally, as mentioned earlier, there are many peacekeeping operations going on over the world and UN resources are stretched to their limits. The question that the United Nations struggles with now is whether it would be capable to meet future peacekeeping operations with these limited resources given the reluctance of member states to contribute more resources to finance the peacekeeping operations (Puchala, 2007, p. 146-158).
.

F) Human Rights

The issue of human rights is not new, human history has been of violence and domination. A man over a woman, parent over children, race over race, nation over nation, and man over nature; and today, the world is no different. We are standing at a crossroad eyeing two different paths. One path leads man to equality, equal civil rights, prosperity, protection, rule of law (democratic path). The second path leads man to oppression, inequality, poverty, illiteracy, war and destruction, isolation, injustice and instability that lead to human sufferings (Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Tyranny). Do all these sound familiar? Of course, this is the world man lives in. The first path represents democratic countries where basic human rights are protected, in these societies’ basic and stereotypical challenges have been overcome by establishing institutions that guarantee human freedoms whereas in the later path, the very institutions that are supposed to protect people freedoms are engineered in such a way that hinder and oppress people from enjoying their God’s given rights.

Well, when talking of human rights issues. People refer to the governments and institutions that hinder or oppress people especially in undemocratic part of the world. Of course, UN and democratic countries are very concern with the living conditions that fellow human beings are being exposed to by their governments. Although, the issue of Human Rights was not the prime concern of the framers of the UN Charter, there has been an evolution over the years to incorporate issues regarding human rights in the UN agenda. In the last 20 years, UN has been relentlessly involved in pursuing ultimate goal to secure human freedom around the world starting with 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and followed by 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child both which were crucial to vulnerable part of the population. Well, contemporary human rights issues are more than the ones mentioned above. They take forms of torture, enslavements, rapes, beating, and murder, hindering individuals to access to education, food, healthcare and worshipping.

Given attrocities in Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Burma, and recently worsening of situation in Tunisia, Egypt, and the current Gaddafi madness in Libya,UN needs to enhance human rights campaigns. United Nations needs not to wait to see another Rwandan to happen again. Whatever it takes to ensure mad men like Gaddafi are held accountable, people need to embrace it. The cause of those oppressed in Libya is our cause here in the west. It either we confront such attrocities before they materialize or else we will later be forced to regret and still have to intervene humanitarianly to prevent starvation and hunger.

Thus, the question becomes, how can we prevent madness of folks like Gaddafi and Bashir to cause human sufferings? How can the United Nations face it? First and foremost, it would have to encourage the spread of liberal democracy to undemocratic parts of the world where governments are believed to be involved in human rights violations. Secondly, global media is saturated by violent imageries. There has to be global efforts possibly through UNESCO to create initiatives that would teach people to be sensitive to pain and human rights. It has to be global efforts to pressure mass media to engage in non violent and human international relations. Things like educating regular people to recognize that human rights issues at interpersonal levels between a man and woman as for example. Finally, UN and its concern member states need to start enforcing serious sanctions on governments and regimes that practice human rights abuses. As of today, UN has not taken serious actions against governments that oppress their people. That needs to change, if UN believes in improving human rights issues across the globe (Puchala, 2007, p. 117-136).


References
Puchala, J.D., Laatikainen, K. V., & Coate, A. R. (2007). United Nations Politics. International Organization in a Divided World. (Ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall
Barash, P.D, & Webel, P. C. (2002). Peace Conflict Studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
United Nations General Assembly. (2002). United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from United Nations Drugs and Crimes Website: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/terrorism/Index/60-288en.pdf

Talk from the Graves: What are they saying?

July 9th 2011 is only six months away, and it is when South Sudan will raise it yellowish flag as it becomes youngest nation on the continent of Africa. What began sixty one years ago has become promising to South Sudanese who are witnessing history unfolding in their eyes. To many, it still seems like an exciting dream in the middle of the night which ends every moment one opens their eyes. To others, this is a day that they never thought would happen in their lives time.

So I wonder, what our brothers and sisters, the generation Deng Nhial, Ajang Duot, Deng Malual, Ngundeng, and many others are saying in their graves. What is Deng Nhial saying? Is he saying my premature death was not in vain? Is he saying good job my children and grandchildren; you will never die by proxy? Surely, there must be some kind of celebration or debate going on in the afterlife. How can we hear Deng Nhial Message? How about prophet Ngundeng? What is he saying? What is Deng Nhial generation telling the new arrivals of Nyuon Beny, Kuanyin Bol, Nyanchingak, Majier Gai, Arok Thon Arok, and the top general Dr. Garang De Mabior? How will we ever know what these people are telling us?

Hypothetically, this sounds like a fairy tale right? No, I don’t think so…. The answer is with us. When Deng Nhial went to the bush, he was tired of exclusion. He did not want to be a second class citizen. When Ngundeng prophesized one hundred years ago, he foresaw what to come and he believed that one day his people will be freed from the bondage of humiliation. So what is the message that these forefathers are telling us?
Perhaps, they are saying, “we started the journey and you finished it. We shown you the road and you traveled it. We lid the fire, and you kept it alive. We started with Anya Nya I and Anya Nya II finished the job.” It sounds to me that the narrative is it was a joint effort of the dead and the livings.

To this I say, yes, indeed it was a joint effort and thanks you for starting it. Thank you for showing us the road to travel. Thank you Anya Nya I for starting and Thank you SPLM/A for finishing the job.
With these words, I say, the hard work begins. The work to build a sustainable South Sudan has begun and it will require children, women, and men, young and old to transcend individual averageness. It will require our excellence, steadfastness, hospitality, resilience, creativity, endurance, and strong leadership. We all know our aspiration and hopes are so high. To achieve them, we each needs to chip in whatever each of us thinks to build us up and not tearing us apart. It’s a better tomorrow that killed Deng Nhial generation, and it is unquestionably what took the lives of our two millions beloved citizens including Dr. Garang De Mabior.

So wherever you might this February 7th 2011 when the referendum results were announced, you heard the call of Deng Nhial, you heard Nyanchingak call from the top of mountain Boma, you heard Nyuon Beny summon to action, you heard Kuanyin Bol call to action, you heard Majier Gai intellect calling young men and women to educate themselves, you heard Ngundeng prophesying the future, you heard Arok Thon wit call to invigorate our creativity, you heard Ajang Duot and Deng Malual leadership-ability summoning us to transcend tribalism and clanism, and you definitely heard Dr. Garang visionary call to look into the future of the South Sudan.

African's Political Renaissance

At the turn of the Second World War, Africa experiences with the European’s imperialism on the African’s continent transformed how Africans thought about the European colonial governments. From Cape Town in South Africa to Alexandria in Egypt, from Kumasi in Ghana to Mombasa Kenya, Africans chose to see a new dawn as the memories of the World War II began to sink in. The people of Africa revolted against foreign government demanding the self rule.

The results were formation of different liberation movements with goal to liberate the African’s continent from the European’s colonial governments. Because these movements were people were the result of the people uprisings, they became very successful; several countries became independent with the promise of the better future for the continent of Africa.

Forward this to the 21st Century; Africa is still struggling to realize its potentials. The economic, political and social institutions of the continent are still under developed. African’s people are suffering each day without hope for tomorrow. Their promises of a better future are fading away and frustrations against the governments that people’s future depended on are growing louder. Imminently, Southern Sudan is potentially going to part with the rest of Sudan, recent Tunisian uprising, Somalia failing into a complete failed state, unresolved civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo to volatile situation in Nigeria. African’s tomorrow is uncertain, this time no Europeans to blame for what war plague that befallen the African’s continent. This time, the problem is a home-grown by Africans themselves. It is the work of heartless, corrupted, ego-self serving, and tyrannical Africans who called themselves leaders who their works are ruining the Africans lives.

As uncertainty spreads across the continent, it makes sense for Africans to pause for a moment. Uprising seems as the best way to rid ourselves of these worthless dictators who care less about their fellow Africans. The problem is, as we revolt, we also destroy the little development we on the continent. So as we Africans channel our frustrations, angers, concerns, and dislike of our governments to the street, let us demonstrate in civility, let not destroy buildings, let not set them on fire, and let not set ourselves on fire. The change will not come from violence, it will come from changing the way we think, the way we act, and the way we treat each other with dignity.

The Nile Republic

As Southern Sudan is on the verge of becoming a new nation, there have been talked about the future of Southern Sudan including what the newest state's name would be. Suggested names range from Cush/Kush, and Southern Sudan.

The truth is, those who stoodby these name suggestions are all in-tuned with history. They are comrades with whom I have respect for their suggestions. As a Southerner, I personally have no problem with either name for our new nation. However, I rather want whatever name the stakeholders in South Sudan finally agreed to have history richness, and pride that all people of the region should be proud of from, and many years to come.

So let people examine these names' suggestions carefully. First of, Cush was a great historical empire that has roots in ancient time dated back to 11th BC to 4AD. It's flourisness was truimphant of that time, its bounders were widely respected. There is no dispute about the historical richness of Cush to be a burner for a new nation. The problem is, Cush for those who are conversed in Sudan's history, Cush was empire that encompassed larger territories from Egypt to Aswan in Ethipia to Lake Chad in what is today the Republic of Chad, and of course to Nubian region of Merowe where it headquarter flourished. The problem I see here is, Cush does not have any historical connection to far end of Southern Sudan namely the greater Equatoria, Jonglei, Lake, Great Bahr El Ghazal and others southern regions. By calling the new nation Cush, we are robbing these regions of their rights to historical representation. It with this in mind that I see name Cush not fit for our to be born nation.

Southern Sudan on the other hand has been floated around. The truth is, we are already Southern Sudanese even before separation talk begun. In my understanding, Southern Sudan is just a region like other region in Sudan which basically means that, it okay for a new nation to carries the name of Southern Sudan. However, what would this mean to historical connotation of the region? I don't like the idea that the to be born nation carries negativity of being a nation born of separatism. I would like when my children and grandchildren study the history of this to be nation, they can read and study something positive from it past. For this reason, I declined to accept Southern Sudan as a name for the to be born nation.

As I am sitting here thinking about what I can embrace as naming of the new nation is concerned. I wounder about the Nile River. A river that has been the symbol of wealth, pride, hope, and aspirations for nearly millions of years since the inception of time. What about The Nile Repubic? Why are there no talks about naming the to be born nation, The Nile Repubic? It sounds good, it has historical connenctions that satisfied aspirations of all people in Southern Sudan.

I think I have found a name that I would be proud of as a Nilean forever. I am in favor of calling the to be born nation, The Nile Republic? What about you?

Darfur, Land, Oil, and Identity Struggle: The Case of Darfur's Conflict

Water, Land, Oil, and Identity Struggle: The case of Darfur’s Conflict

Authorship: Phillip Manyok, NSU Graduate Student of Conflict Analysis and Resolution

-Abstract-
This paper explores Sudan’s complex history. The attention is focused on colonial history and how it has affected the present situation. The issue addresses in this paper include historical state failure/local law and order, power struggle between President Bashir’s regime, and an Islamic ideologue, Dr. Turabi, discover of oil in Darfur, marginalization/oppression, environmental changes, and identity confusion between an African’s tribes and the so call Arab’s tribes as well global factors like China oil connection in Sudan. In this paper, conflict multifaceted world view or theory is used as the framework of analysis. The paper concludes with personal assessment of the Darfur situation.

-Darfur conflict background-

Before 2003, people knew little about Darfur, only those who might have read Sudan history knew about it. For the sake of those who are not familiar with Darfur history. It is however important to revisit Sudan’s colonial history. At the dawn of 19th century, British ruled Sudan including the western region. At the time, this region was inhabited by African tribes (Sebastian, 2006). After Sudan officially became British colony, British colonial government established policies that resulted into an economic and political marginalization of the region. Among these policies included the use of Arabs to govern different parts of the country. In return, the Arabs were promised certain privileges. They were given access to education, economic and even some political freedoms. As a result of the British’s indirect rule, many parts of the country including Darfur became neglected or isolated from the central authority in Khartoum (Sebastian, 2006).

After independence, things barely changed, Khartoum continued with the British policies to further isolate Darfur. The political and socio-economic institutions remained in the hands of Arabs’ government in Khartoum (Sebastian, 2006). Since then, political relation between the central government and people of Darfur grew apart. In 2003, the situation got worse when African’s tribes formed two rebel groups Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) to fight against central government in Khartoum (Sebastian, 2006).

However, the formation of these movements was just a part of conflict which started way back in 1985. During the 1980s, Libyan Dictator Gaddafi sent Libyan’s troops to Darfur region to deliver aid to some nomadic tribes. It was Gaddafi’s government which complicated ethnic relations among the Darfur people. Gaddafi armed the nomadic tribes and encouraged some to embrace Islam. As a result, relations among the Darfur people got radically changed. Those who identified with new Arab’s identity began to identify themselves as Arabs (Sebastian, 2006). For those who are familiar with Sudanese politics, Darfur has never been divided by religion or ethnicity. They are from mosaic tribes, most of them Muslims and Black Africans.


However, with the introduction of Arab identity, Khartoum over time forged a new relationship with nomadic tribes. During the civil war between North and South Sudan, Khartoum was able to recruit the nomadic people of Darfur to fight alongside it troops against the Southern Sudanese in a war which just ended five years ago. At the same time, Khartoum managed to supply the Janjaweeds with firearms against the Darfur’s African tribes. As a result, an ethnic polarization was erected where none had existed (Sebastian, 2996).

In 2003, resentment against Khartoum and the nomadic tribes supported by Khartoum’s regime became explosive. The two main rebel groups Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) attacked government troops and killed several of them. In an act of retaliation, Khartoum responded by unleashing its Arabs militias known as the Janjaweeds which it armed with modern weapons to against the African tribes (Sebastian, 2006). The unleashing of the Janjaweeds against rebel groups started what is today known as the Darfur conflict in which over 400,000 have died as of today, and millions of people displaced, several homes destroyed, gross human rights abuses committed such as women and young girls being raped, people limbs and arms cut off, crops cut down and animal slaughtered (Sebastian, 2006).
Framework of analysis

To better understand the nature of Darfur’s conflict. There has to be a unit of analysis or framework to help people understand what happened and how it happened. In this paper, conflict multifaceted theory is used as the framework of analysis. According to Docherty (2001, p. 23), conflict experts and educators through their researches theorized that conflicts are caused by different factors. These factors according to Docherty (2001, p. 22-23), range from incompatibility of interest and position, resources unbalanced, poor communication, and lack of governing institutions. The belief that conflicts are caused by different variables constituted what Docherty (2001) calls conflict worldview. This paper defines multifaceted conflict theory as, “a theory that explains the occurrence of conflict as a result of different factors.” Put it differently, according to multifaceted framework, there is no single cause of conflict. Each conflict situation has different set of factors that cause it. Hence, addressing each conflict requires people to approach each situation differently.


Using this framework, it is arguable to say that Darfur’s conflict is characterized by different factors. However, this paper addresses them as conflict narratives because their meanings depend on who tells the story. There are seven broad narratives that are related to the situation in Darfur namely, colonial unresolved legacies, collapse of regional/local institutions, power struggle between President Bashir’s regime, and an Islamic ideologue, Dr. Turabi, discovery of oil in Darfur, marginalization/oppression, environmental changes, and identity confusion between African’s tribes and the so call Arab’s tribes (Janjaweeds).

Starting with the nature of state, Sudan since its independent has been a failed state. For the most part of its existence, Sudan has never had any stable government that effectively governed the whole country (Sebastian, 2006). It has been fragmented into several autonomous regions. For examples, South Sudan and Northern Sudan have been ruled by separate governments. Adding to what was already a fractured country, Darfur has started to identify itself as a separate region from the rest of the country. This new political reality in Darfur has been exacerbated by underdevelopment and lack of social institutions that hold people together. Due to systematic marginalization of the region, there have been strong beliefs among the people of Darfur that Khartoum’s regime has failed to treat its citizens equally. This over time has caused a sense of frustration and anger among the regional tribes. Because of this, many people in the region felt like they are entitled to their own self government, a political reality that Khartoum’s authority does not want to recognize (Wax, 2006).

For many years, Southern Sudan as well as Darfur viewed central government in Khartoum as lacking legitimacy well as having lost its obligation to fulfill its duties of protecting and keeping regions together. Each region recognized that successive Khartoum’s governments to have turned against its people. This created political opposition against central government in Khartoum particularly from Southern Sudan and Darfur where people have lost faith in Khartoum ability to treat people equally (Sebastian, 2006).
Put it differently, competition for political power have put regions at odd with Khartoum as well against each other. For example, Southern Sudan and Darfur identify themselves differently. The Southern Sudanese identify themselves more with African cultures and African religions. For Darfur, there is a mixed identity, some people identify themselves as Africans while others identify themselves as Arabs whereas others combine African heritage with Islamic cultures (Verney, 2004).


In recent years, relationship between nomadic and farming communities in Darfur got exacerbated by three factors. First, there is a problem with the tradition system of land, and water resource. Before the British ventured into Sudan, the land ownership was based on kinship in which tribes oversaw the distribution of resources particularly land and water resources Verney, 2004). After independence, the old system of land ownership became discredited or abandoned in most parts in the region. The decision to abandon traditional land ownership system, and failure by the central government in Khartoum to establish effective mechanisms of land management encouraged some people to scramble for all the land they can get. Without policies on how to use or share the land and water, each community has been forced to to claim the right to the use of these resources resulted into constant struggle between farming communities and animals’ herders (Suleiman, 2005).

Secondly, the fight over land and water in Darfur has been made worst by a drastic ecological change in the environment in the recent years (An-Naim, 2004). Over the last 20 years, there have been signs that land is eroding, lakes, and local rivers are drying up putting burden on the limited usable land and water resources. This in particular has made it hard for communities who their livelihoods depend on rain water (An-Naim, 2004). In most areas in the region, there have been irregularities in the amount of rainfall as well as shorter rainfall seasons compared to decade before 1980 (Milani, 2006). This has resulted into disruption of farming activities in the region.

Moreover, environmental climate change has increased the magnitude of desertification of the farming land resulting into collapse of farming activities and internal migration. For example, before 1980, both farming and nomadic tribes used to depend on each other. Those from Northern Darfur used to travel southwest with their animals during the dried seasons and were always accommodated by the farming tribes. During the last fifteen years, environmental changes have increased competition over usable land and limited water resources (Milani, 2006).

For farming communities, this means, they have to protect water supplies and preserve portion of the fertile land from being tampered with by the cattle, sheep and goats herders. The same is true for animals’ herders. They wanted to have access to the same limited water supplies that the farming communities are trying to protect. As a result of each community thriving to protect these limited resources, and the other wanting to have access to the same limited resources. Relationship between the two became saturated and tension grew resulting into periodic confrontation that some people believed to have caused the current Darfur (Wax, 2006).

Third, there have been systemic collapses of law and order in this region (An-Naim, 2004). As said earlier, Sudan has been in war with itself for the last half of a century. This has left many areas in the country ungovernable including Darfur. For a region big as the size of Western Europe, lack of governing institutions translated into lack of law and order. However, coupling this situation with the availability of guns and automatic rifles, local bandits and anarchists took advantage of lawlessness. They have used it as an opportunity to pursue their own interests without fear from being punished by any authority. In fact, this has been part of what is happening in Darfur. Lawlessness has turned people against themselves as it has been the case between the Janjaweeds and the rebel groups (An-Naim, 2004).

Although some people in Darfur would claim to be ethnically different. People may expect that ethnicity to be the core of the Darfur conflict. Unfortunately, the reality in Darfur is completely the opposite. It is false religious identity which plays a major part (Washington, 2006). Those from Northern Darfur who speak Arabic and who over the years have held close contacts with mainstream Islamic cultures have assumed an Arab identity. They call themselves Arabs while those in Southern Darfur who still speak African’s indigenous languages call themselves Africans (Verney, 2004).

Consequentially, the result has been a primordial identity confusion and ethnic polarization between those who identified themselves as Africans and those who considered themselves as Arabs. Put it differently, identify confusion and ethnic polarization have created a buffered zone between the two communities. A buffered area each group doesn’t want the other one to cross. Moreover importantly, this buffered zone has resulted into political exploitation by those their interests are best served by exploiting peoples’ differences for personal gains (Verney, 2004).

For a region in which lot of people are illiterate or less informed, lack of self awareness or what Lederach calls self conscientization can be easily exploited by those who have hidden motives (Lederach, 1995, p. 19 &26). It also means that people who are ill-informed may not understand the conflict dynamic. In worse cases, ill-informed people are vulnerable to people manipulations. In fact, I would argue that there might be some people in the Darfur who if asked about why they are fighting, who might not provide any good reason except may be to point to broader narratives they hear from others.

As with most conflict situations, without correct conflict identification, efforts to explore potential remedies become impossible. The conflict in Darfur seems to have been characterized by the lack of the conflict identification (Wax, 2006). Some people for example defined Darfur conflict as an ethnic conflict, others called it a religious conflict and some people called it a struggle over political and economic institutions. The point is, without common conflict definition in Darfur. It hard for parties involved in the conflict as well as third parties who are interested to find remedies to the Darfur’s conflict.

Moreover, Darfur is being used as a battleground by different factions. For those who are familiar with Sudanese’ internal politics, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) have different positions or interests (Verney, 2004). SLM and JEM blamed Khartoum’s government for it support for the Janjaweeds. They claimed that Sudanese government armed the Janjaweeds to attack and kill black Africans (Amnesty International, n.d.). The rebel groups alleged that Khartoum supports for the Janjaweeds or its failure to stop Janjaweeds from attacking African’s tribes is what caused them to rebel against the government. To the rebels, Khartoum’s government is viewed as an aggressor who is responsible for the suffering of the Darfur’s people. Khartoum’s government on the other hand blamed the rebel groups for the deterioration of the situation. It blamed both rebel groups for their not willing to work collaboratively with central government to address the Darfur’s situation (Verney, 2004).

In addition, the war in Darfur is a part of the political struggle between President Bashiir and Dr. Al Turabi. Since relation between president Bashiir and his former mentor, Dr. Turabi restrained in 2000. Bashiir government has arrested Turabi on charges that he has been working with the Darfur’s rebels to destabilize his government (Verney, 2004). Bashiir personally linked Turabi to at least two incidences of coups that occurred in Khartoum in the last seven years. Turabi on the other hand blamed president Bashiir for deterioration of situation in Darfur. He has publicly accused Bashiir of supporting the Janjaweeds in Darfur, an accusation that Bashiir has denied (Verney, 2004).

In 2004, Bashir’s government arrested 30 members of Turabi’ Popular Congress Party (PCP) in Darfur on the charge they have been working with the rebels to overthrow the central government (Suleiman, 2005). Turabi during interview defended that his men were arrested on baseless political allegation. He denied his connection to Darfur and said his men have nothing to do with the rebels in Darfur. During the same interview, Turabi accused Khartoum of purposely neglecting and marginalizing the Darfur people because they were of black Africans. In general, political rivalry between Turabi and Bashiir has made Darfur crisis difficult in sense that ending it depends on whether these two men forged a political understanding.

Interestingly, international groups like International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch have voiced some concerns about the activities of Justice and Equality Movement led by Dr. Khalil is believed to be a close friend of Turabi (Suleiman, 2005). According to Suleiman (2005), Turabi through international financial institutions provides Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) with financial assistance that JEM uses to finance the war (Suleiman, 2005).

Subsequently, the oil discovery in the Darfur plays an important role in the Darfur conflict. With most of the oil located in the South, Khartoum recent discovery of oil in Darfur region intensified power struggle over who’s to control the newly discovered oil in the region (Verney, 2004). With the possible independent of Southern Sudan, Khartoum has been determined to secure the Darfur’s oil. At the same time, the Darfur rebel groups don’t want oil to be by controlled the Khartoum’s authority. The economic reality in Darfur has created a political struggle over who should control the regional resources particularly the oil revenue (Verney, 2004).

Apart from internal fight over who to control the newly discovered oil, there is international connection to the Darfur conflict (Smith, 2006). Surprisingly as it may sound, there are several countries that are engaged in oil exploration in Darfur. This means the search for oil and conflict in Darfur are somehow related. It is arguable to say that here is no difference between Khartoum’s government and those that buy Sudan’s oil. The Khartoum’s government and countries that buy Sudan’s oil are equally responsible for the suffering of people in Darfur. Each barrel that Khartoum sells to China or Britain for example provides Khartoum authority with money to finance the cost of war in Darfur (Smith, 2006).

It unthinkable for countries like China to admit the role it plays in Darfur’s conflict. However, China participation for example in drilling and buying of Sudan’s oil is a reason to be concerned. However, it is clear that Khartoum’s regime uses the money it gets from the sale of oil to fund the war in Darfur as well the twenty two years long civil war between North and South which ended 5 years ago ( Carin, 2006). It’s the oil money that builds roads, and bridges which Khartoum’s government uses to transport its troops to murder innocent people in Darfur. It is unfortunate to see the world blindsided by it thirst for Sudan oil to sponsor a catastrophic human tragedy of a genocidal proportion.

Some people question whether Khartoum’s government and countries that are involved in oil business in Darfur can be blamed for what is happening in Darfur. The question is how people will know the extent of the foreign involvement in Sudan. The answer depends who is asked. There is no doubt that present of China, India, Malaysia, and Britain oil companies in Sudan are not related to what is happening in Darfur. The fact that countries like China invested so much interest in Sudan oil is a sign of how foreign investments have significantly contributed to the magnitude of the conflict (Brian, 2006). It is also self evident in the nature of weaponries that Khartoum government is using. The availability and use of Russian Jets and other Chinese trademark weapons are examples of foreign involvement (Carin, 2006). There is less doubt that countries who buy Sudan’s oil are not partially responsible for death of people, and destruction of properties in Darfur.

In 2007 for example, UN Security Council introduced a resolution to sanction and hold the perpetuators of Darfur war accountable for their actions. And what happened? China and Russia objected the Security Council resolution (Verney, 2004). Of course, their objection was a political decision to protect their own interest in Sudan. Because of China and Russia objection, the UN resolution was watered down to a weak resolution acceptable to both China and Russia, while war criminals are at large with hundreds of lives vanishing each day with little hope for tomorrow (Verney, 2004).

While the world is debating about Darfur, thousands of lives are being lost, homes destroyed, countless innocent children are becoming orphans in the hand of a brutal regime that cares less for human life (UNAMID Update, 2007). The silence left people wondering, what should the people do to bring this human suffering under control? Of course, the burden is on the international community to bring Darfur conflict to end. United Nations and the rest of the international community need to work hard to bring Khartoum’s government and Darfur rebel groups to a negotiating table.

First, the international community needs to start sponsoring meaningful dialogue between Khartoum and Darfur rebel groups. Second, UN has to recognize that Khartoum is a part of the problem and can be a part of the solution if it stops supporting Janjaweed militias (UNAMID Update, 2007). Issuing warrant to arrest president Bashiir needs not to be the immediate concern of the UN. The world needs to worry more about how to stop blood before worrying about bring president Bashiir to justice. The world needs to engage Bashiir and work with him to find a political solution to the Darfur crisis. If Bashiir however does not act in a manner that satisfies the international community, then it should be appropriate for the UN to invoke Chapter VI or VII to force Bashir to comply with the demands of the international community (United Nations, 2008).

International community has to do more than just offering monetary assistance to feed the starving people of Darfur. It should put more emphasis on severe sanctions including military option to bring those behind this disaster to justice. If those individuals who are committing war crimes, crimes of war, and crimes against humanity are held accountable. Other people who share the same view may back off or start behaving humanely. Such action could help to reverse the intensity of conflict as fewer people would be interested in committing such dreadful crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2005).

Moreover, International community have to recognize that African Union (AU) is weak to deal with Darfur conflict and it humanitarian aftermath. AU is understaffed, poorly financed to deal with the scope of this crisis in such large territory (UNAMID Update, 2007). The current level of African Union troops coupled with the lack of logistical supports from African countries should be seen as a great concern and a sign that AU will not deal with the problem by itself. In other words, the conflict is not going to die if United Nations, European Union and the United States don’t step in and assume their global responsibility (United Nations, 2008).

Given the magnitude of the suffering of people in the region, there is nothing wrong with changing the regime in Khartoum. The world has done it in Iraqi. It can be done again in Sudan if that what it takes to save life in Darfur. There is no doubt , changing Khartoum’s regime might be costly, but it would be the right thing to do instead of the world to distance itself from Darfur conflict hoping that Cambodia or Rwandan genocide never repeated itself again (Dziedizic, 2002, p. 69-99). It is not going to be long before the world realizes that the 21st century genocide has already occurred in Sudan. It is better for the world to act soon rather to wait for regretful moments as the world did after the 1994 Rwandan’s genocide.

Internally, all Sudanese have to realize that they can solve their national dispute without using bullets. Sudanese need to come together and recognize their diversities, and religious differences among their societies (Verney, 2004). They have to start thinking about living together as one people. Politically, the future of Sudan is with the country political parties. They are the ones that are ruining the country and they would be the ones that would put the country back together again. Parties like Sudan People Liberation Movement(SPLM) which runs the semi autonomous government of the South Sudan have greater political leverage to bring other parties to work together to implement the Darfur Peace Protocol (Kwaje, 2003). The greater fear is that, if parties like Sudan People Liberation Movement and National Congress Party don’t work together. The situation in Sudan would likely deteriorate, and this could pitch the country back into a bloody war the world has never seen in the 21st Century.

In conclusion, the Darfur conflict can be understood in the context of colonial history of the country. It can be traced back to struggle over farming land, food shortage which led to hunger and made many people so susceptible to politicians’ manipulations (Suleiman, 2005) The British government which ruled Sudan did not help shape the future of the country either. Instead, it encouraged division through it’s polices of indirect rules in which it favored one group over others which sown ethnic hatred among major tribes in the country (Amnesty International n.d.).

Also, Sudan’s government played an important role in orchestrating the Darfur conflict. It’s failed to implement kind of social policies and programs that could have helped to tackle the country’s problems effectively in a peaceful manner. For instance, it should have sought relentless negotiation with different dissatisfied rebel groups as well as seeking international financial assistances to address poverty which has made many people so vulnerable to political manipulations. Instead, it’s instituted unfair policies that have oppressed many people resulting into unfortunate situation in Darfur.


References

Amnesty, International. (n.d.) Darfur history. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from Amnesty International Website: http://www.amnestyusa.org/darfur/darfur-history/page.do?id=1351103
An-Naim, A. (2004). Causes and solutions for Darfur. Retrieved November 2, 2010 from The San Diego Union-Tribune: http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040815/news_lz1e15darfur.html
Carin, Z. (2006). Darfur: Crisis continues. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from Council on Foreign Relations Website: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10600/darfur.html
Docherty, J. (2001). Learning lessons from Waco: When the parties bring their gods to the negotiation table. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2005). African union and Darfur. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from Human Rights Watch Website: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k5/darfur/5.htm
Lederach, J. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Kwaje, S. (2003). SPLM position in development in Darfur. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from Sudan net website: http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/216.shtml
Milani, K. (2006). Inventory of conflict and environment: Darfur case study. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from American University Website: http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/darfur.htm
Dziedizic, J. & Goldberg, E. (Eds.) (2002). Policing the New world disorder: Peace operation and public security. Honolulu HI: University Press of Pacific.
Sebastian, M. (2006).Darfur: Origins of catastrophe: Retrieved November 2, 2010 from Washington Post Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601898.html
Smith, B. (2006).Western concerns at China’s growing involvement in Africa. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from World Socialists Website: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/afri-a10.shtml
Suleiman, G. (2005). The extremists roots of the Darfur rebellion. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from The European Sudanese Affairs Council website: http://www.espac.org/darfur/extremist-roots-of-the-darfur-rebellion.asp
Wax, E. (2006). Five truths about Darfur. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from The Washington Post Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101752.html
UNAMID (2007). UNAMID Update: Time for effective action. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from Amnesty International USA website: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAFR540072008
United Nations (2008). UN delegation to focus on Darfur deployment at African-European summit. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur Website: http://unamid.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=55&ctl=Details&mid=376&ItemID=17
Verney, P. (2004). Darfur’s manmade disaster. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from Global Policy Forum Website: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0722manmade.htm

Peace Advocacy Forum: Then Now What? Southern Sudan and Beyond.

Peace Advocacy Forum: Then Now What? Southern Sudan and Beyond.: "So fifty years of war wrangling is about to be concluded with the idependence of Southern Sudan from what people in the South Sudan lumped t..."

Then Now What? Southern Sudan and Beyond.

So fifty years of war wrangling is about to be concluded with the idependence of Southern Sudan from what people in the South Sudan lumped together has arabicization and Islamicization just to use these two ill-accepted English words.   Where do people begin?  And where can Southern Sudan starts from? What about the North and rest of the country?

The truth, nobody knows what answers to these questions are going to be except to let history places itself. This means, people have to pause and be cognizant of every move they make as such moves can either tip off  the scale in the wrong direction that nobody wants to travel especially after what people in Sudan have gone through.

But three things are clearer, Southern Sudan is going in its own direction. At this point, there is no doubt or debate about whether Southern Sudan is leaving the fragile united Sudan. The question that remained to be  answered  is what does South Sudan departure mean to the whole country and even the whole continent of Africa. To shed light on this matter, I started with Eriteria departure from the Ethiopia. Some historians pointed to Eriteria  and possible Southern Sudan exiting has bad precedents for the rest of the contienent where historical maps were redrawn by the European Imperialists to suit their majestic interests.  The results of course have been  the lumping of people who have no historical ties to one geographical location and called it a  nation. The typical example that I can think of  is Uganda and what would be the newest state on the continent, Southern Sudan. In these two nations, people find one ethnic group scattered beyond legal national boundary. The Acholi and Langu of Uganda happened to have their ancestral relatives scattered all over in Southern Sudan.

But wait, this scattering of ethnic groups is not a major challenge or problem that the continent is facing. The real problem that may come with the precendent that Southern Sudan departure is going to be felt in places like Ogaden in Ethiopia, Somaliland, Western Sahara, Nigeria,  and Ivory Coast where there have been revolutionary activites by various rebel groups who want some kinds autonomies. With the possible departure of Southern Sudan, these regions in Africa are going to be politically affected in a big way. In Nigeria for example, the problem that people are experiencing is exactly what the Sudanese have been experiencing in the last 50 plus years. The people of Northern Nigeria being mostly Muslims and Southern Nigeria predominately inhabited by Christians happened to be exactly a replica of the Sudan  half century struggle. Thus, the possible independent of Southern Sudan is two pronged swords, one with one end to brighter future and the other with an end possibly to stir up political fire burners in some parts of the continent. With this in mind,  there is a greater concern about what people on the continent of Africa would make of the precedent set by Southern Sudan independence.

The second thing that I think is clear is that,  despite unanimous agreement that war is bad thing, I am personally convinced that civil war in Sudan was neccesary. It was a neccessary in seveal ways. First, people in South Sudan were denied their rights as citizens of the same country for almost a 60 plus years. They were treated unfairly, oppressed, marginalized, and more importantly, they were forced to live under laws not of their choosing. All these were seen as provocations by many Southern Sudanese of which no human beings are not supposed to live under such conditions. Second, the people of Southern Sudan gave peace a chance in 1972 when Addis Ababa Peace Agreement was signed to give peace a chance in Sudan . However, peace never materialized with this agreement.  Instead, the North  used this as an opportunity to  restrategize on how to silent Southern Sudan forever. Thus, the only hope for Southern Sudan was to achieve peace by standing up to the North through military means because peaceful means of achieving  it in Sudan were exhausted leaving Southern Sudan with no other mean.

Finally, I am convinced that people of Southern Sudan understood war and its impacts. Therefore, I am more optimistic that Southern Sudan as a new state will be  a nation full with hope and promises because this what many people gave their lives for. Everyone I talked from the South tells how he or she wants to live a life of freedom, prosperity. Sometimes, people can sense attitude from the street of Juba, Torit, Bor, Wau and many other cities were Dinka, Bari, Zande, Toposa  and other ethnic groups of people are mingling and living side by side as one people with a common destiny. This to me is a sign that coexistence, diversity, and tolerance are becoming common destinies for many Southern Sudan.

 As I close my thoughts here about  what I think is going to be a big century for the people of South Sudan. I challenge all Southern Sudanese to two three things, first,  educated yourself because the future of Southern Sudan will require a strong nation building stills. I encourage the diaspora Southerners to reconsider contributing to the development of Southern Sudan. Second, I encourage everyone to work for peace, prosperity by discouraging nepotism, violence and resist temptation to betray your own people. Third,  remember that Southern Sudan referendum vote is just a start and not the end to our dealing with Northern Sudan. Even if Southern Sudan becomes independent, we still have our brothers from Abyei who we still have to figure out how to make them part of the Southern Sudan. This of course would require us to still have a working relationship with Khartoum. Then also be mindful of the neighborhood, we don't want to have  hostile neighbors living on our Northern border. We also have post referendum issues like border demarcation which is not finished as of right now, the oil issue of Abyei, National debt which I completely disagree to have anything to do with it, but still we need to present our disagreement to national debt debate in a constructive manner that shows who truely we are.

Southern Sudan Referendum

Sudan happens to be one of the largest countries in the world. It is also among the oldest countries in the world.  Most importantly, Sudan has been known of it war. Since independent from British in 1956, Sudan has been in war with herself. The Northern Islamic regime that usurped power from British colonial authority imposed it tyrantical and sometimes oppressive Islamic rules on Christian South.   The result has been on and of civil wars between Islamic North and Christian South Sudan.

With blessing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that North and  South Sudan signed in 2005, six years later, Southern Sudanese went to the polls in what seems to result to the birth of the world's youngest nation.

The news is looking good particularly from Southern Sudanese perspectives. The week long voting has ended without major violation. So the fear of Southern's referendum is  lessening. A great relief to millions of people in Southern Sudan and even around the world where there was a greater fear of the out break of a major war.Though Southerners are not out of the wood yet, nerves are getting relieve as millions who have overwhelming casted their votes for secession are awaiting the magic word, "  The Independence of Southern Sudan declaration."

The hope couldn't never been higher, millions of Southerners are pouring back into the region which some abandoned over 30 years ago with hope to start over again when South Sudan becomes an independent nation comes July 9th, 2011.

The challenges are immensely, some of the returnees have lost contacts with their relatives whom they left several decades earlier, the fear of unknown is nerve wrecking, sanitation in ruin, schools destroyed by 22 years civil war, inaccessible roads and lack of transportation are slowing down  what is appearing to be a human exodus of a persecuted people who are longing to start a life in a new nation full with brighter future of freedom, liberties, prosperity, inclusion, diversity without imposition of any one particular religion. So the  people of this pregnant nation are expecting more from it's leaders, communities, and more importantly, they deserve every bit of hope because this what 2 millions of bravest  Southerners sacrficed their lives for.

So, I say, let no past stop Southerners, let no regime stops you general Kiir, let no Bashir stop you SPLM. The shore is near, you have endured the worst Cush people, SPLM/A, you have brought the people of Southern Sudan a new dawn, promise us to cover that bridge to our promise land, a land we will all call our beloved home, the South Sudan where we the people will live in peace and side by side.