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.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 17, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)