Sudan why war

That being so, each nation should focus on its own unique political identity, and should have self determination Simpson, This could either be as having its own governing units within a larger nation or having a state of its own ruling over its demarcated territory ibid. Nationalism is a cultural ideal held by states, that claims whilst people tend to describe their identity in many different ways it is being part of a particular nation that provides them with their primary form of belonging to that nation Evera and Snyder, Joseph Nye elucidates that the concept of nationalism is not merely a descriptive term, it is also prescriptive and as such is a political word used in struggles for power.

Since national communities embody their traditions, values and memories, in this manner state elites become inevitably involved in recognising and reproducing particular ethnoculutural groups, and so the politisation of cultural identities is to some extent inevitable Kymlicka, Therefore nationalism can be state strengthening or state subverting, and a major force behind the breakup of states and creation of new ones. People who value their autonomy also value their national culture, since their national culture provides the most important context within which people develop and exercise their autonomy.

Therefore promoting integration into a societal culture is not only part of national cohesion but also a state identity-building project. A state in its simplest meaning is a legal entity, which possesses a sovereign collectively determined social convention that varies over time, Biersteker and Weber ; Wendt power both internally and externally. In a spatial form refers to territory which is a central aspect of statehood and represents the physical underpinning of the state and at a social level over its members.

Based on this notion Krancberg explains that Karl Marx defined the state as the institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.

Alternatively, according to Max Weber , the state is an organisation with an effective monopoly on the use of legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Therefore metaphorically speaking for a state to acquire an identity requires it to have a sense of self-definition and identification, which distinguishes it from other states.

However, sovereign states while they differ economically militarily politically and in territorial and population terms they are legally equal.

The state identity tends to be determined by the state government. The government is an important political institution designed to make decisions for the populace as a whole and administer policy processes, and is one of the key executors of sovereignty domestically Simpson, Governments differ as each state has a different history, territorial size and location. In the case of Sudan it could be argued that it combines two types of government; the official one, which in principle relies on the democratic model presidential or parliamentary and the totalitarian reality in which is the prevailing one in which the government seeks to penetrate and totally change society by attempting to build a nation state based on ideological criteria which do not necessary meet the needs of the Sudanese nation as a whole.

The concept of a nation state combines both of what has been written on nationalism and state identity. Archie Simpson , in Nations and States explains that the concept of the nation state encompasses the nationalist idea of a marriage between the nation and the state. Not a theory in itself, the concept of nation state promoted the idea of an integrated political community such integrated communities were seen as both ends and means as both a precondition for the development of modern democratic polities and as its outcome Kook, However if each separate national and ethnic group however defined were to obtain self-determination and build their own nation state, there would uncountable numbers of nation states in the international system.

Therefore minority issues regarding their different culture, languages, religion, traditions, questions of tolerance, assimilation, education and their representation within the state has become an important political issue, and if not considered by the government could lead to civil conflict. Therefore building a nation state based on the nation identity is seen to be not merely integrative but assimilating in as much as minority identities would eventually become obsolete and blend almost naturally into the new identity Kook, however this is never the case when minorities resist.

The building of a nation state occurs in a variety of ways. The one to be considered in relation to this paper is how nationalist political elites attempt to nationalise regional, ethnic and religious minorities by the use of state institutions and other means to incorporate minorities in the larger majority national identity. The most repressive way to create a nation state is through repressing minorities groups by killing them, coercing them into changing their religions, language etcetera.

Whilst a more progressive way would be thinning out the majority identity for example by de- emphasising its ethnic roots, or by decoupling it from the majority religion, language etcetera so that it could be willingly embraced by members of the national minority alongside their existing national identity Norman, In attempt to build a nation state however, Sudan became what is referred to as a Quasi state.

While such states maintain the Westphalian sovereignty they are internationally recognised. However they lack the corresponding domestic sovereignty and established institutions capable of constraining and outlasting the individuals who occupy their offices.

Consequently, they do not enjoy many of the advantages traditionally associated with independent statehood Jackson, Therefore understanding the perspective, from which the North and South identities are defined, helps explain and understand how these groups different identities clashed leading to ongoing civil were in Sudan. While the Arab Muslim Northern believed that their superior ethnic and religious identity is predetermined by the conduct of Islam and by being Arab, it is essential to understand however that polarised identities of the North and South are constructed.

However dealing with identity at a political level, it is those who hold the power within a state that determine what identity the nation should acquire. For this reason, the separate identities of the North and South were bound to clash when the Northern government, holding the power to forge the nations sentiments sough to ethnically and religiously purify the nation creating an Arab Muslim nation state.

North-Versus South: The Background. The multiplicity of causes of the civil war in Sudan makes it peculiarly intractable. However whilst ethnic and religious identity remains of great significance, there still remain many other underlying causes to the war. The North has racially and religiously subjugated the South for centuries.

This exacerbated, in the South, pre existing fears of centuries of inferior ethnic and religious relations with the North. Sharkey captures this notion well by explaining that British Major-General Charles George Gordon, might have abolished the slave trade in , but the British colonial administration did not promote egalitarianism thereafter. Based on this premise the South had all the right to fear its fate under the North, which now held the power to regenerate history ibid.

Muhammad al-Makki Ibrahim provided an elegant and precise description of those who inherited independent Sudan, he explained that they were the product of…. The mutiny was an eye opener to the serious problems and the distrust prevailing, but the new governing elite failed to address themselves in a constructive way to these issues involved. In , the Northern government attempted to build a Sudanese nation state on a cornerstone of Northern Arab Muslim identity, deliberately ignoring the religious and ethnic diversity of Sudan and led the country into civil war.

He perceived that the way to achieving national cohesion was by clearing the Sudan from any colonial footprints and creating a homogeneous Arab nation; a nation with one language Arabic , one religion Islam , one culture Arab-Moslem culture , and most importantly, one race Arab. For the South however, their fears before independence have certainly been made manifest. This in return led the Southern Sudanese to rise against non-foreign colonisers for their independence.

Therefore, what followed was great sense of nationalism in the South as well as the desire for self determination and the only way that was to be recognised was through a federal structure, a right that the Northern ruling elite had long been reluctant to grant the South.

Principally fearing perceived future Northern domination; Southerners demand for federation was expressed as early as in the Juba conference during the run-up to independence, as a structure of future relations between the North and South. In spite the fact that members of the Legislative Assembly promised the South that newly elected members of the GGOS would consider federal system post independence; shortly after independence Northern politicians led by Ismail al-Azhari, reneged on this guarantee seeing a federal structure as secession in disguise Johnson, ; Albino, Based on what Daniel Elazar outlines the GGOS failed to see that a federal government would be a sufficient device by which the federal qualities of a society are articulated and protected.

However the essence of federalism in Sudan lies not in institutional or constitutional structures that could be granted to the Southerners as a symbol of recognition but rather this recognition has to come from within the Sudanese society itself in order for a federal structure to work.

In principle self-determination of the South should have been recognised as a right rather than a political reward for armed struggle. Colonel Numeri embarked on the federal question and took steps towards recognising a regional autonomy under the AAPA within a united Sudan, where the South could practise their ethnic and religious rights but it was not long until he infringed this agreement.

Furthermore, with the oil discovery in the South and owing to the fact that the Southern government was entitled to revenues received from its natural resources under the Addis Agreement, they were enthusiastic in wooing oil companies to explore the region. Indeed United States oil company Chevron Incorporated agreed to explore Southern Sudan in and in and discovered significant oil reserves that would generate high revenues for the development of the Southern region Amnesty International, and maybe forge a threat to the prosperity of the North.

The North considered oil to be a national resource instead of a southern one. Therefore the war began with, and has been sustained by, violence towards the Southerners, seizing assets, particularly land, and gaining control of a labour force, all as a deliberate attempt by the Northern ruling elite to subjugate communities by destroying their capacity for independent organisation and, ultimately, their distinct ethnic identities Sharkey, However it could be argued that while the North saw great opportunities to use oil revenues to suppress the South, this was not their sole reason behind their desire to take control of the oil fields.

This claim remains valid; it still however does not eliminate the North deliberate strategies to subjugate the South while attempting to take control of oil fields. Non the less it draws attention to another prevailing issues behind the war and that is the weakness of the Northern governance in managing the state affairs, and maintaining security and order within the country.

Alex De Waal particularly agrees on this notion, arguing that since Sudan acquired a state system the new Sudanese government was unable to develop its own enforceable rules for political bargains. Therefore by going back to the Mahdist revivalist perspective of ruling the state according the Prophetic model as embodied in the Medina state, imposing Islam on Sudan seemed to have the attraction of providing a set of preordained and blessed rules with which the North could govern the Sudan.

Such policies where therefore merely despite the ideological claims state-centred rather than nation centred, as means to enhancing political legitimacy and power at the centre and drawing support from other Muslim states, while supplanting local languages with Arabic and quashing claims to peripheral autonomy Sharkey, Furthermore, all the aspects highlighted from the start projects the inability of the Northern government to take effective control of the State.

Non of the ruling elites that took over the government managed to consolidate their rule over the government, and so in return this rendered Sudan chronically unstable and prone to intractable conflict. The Islamic political groups that later emerged drew their membership from each of the above groups, and so followed the already founded structure of power struggles. Most Northern leaders, who took the states leadership, gained their positions through military coups Appendix 7 rather than democratic elections or agreements of power transfer.

Nevertheless, Nimeiri is considered the motivational and spiritual leader of those military dictators who came after him particularly the government of President Al-Bashier that has been in control since and re-elected once again in April President Al-Bashier, who led the coup in an attempt to overcome this elite fragmentation, was the basic co-operator with Nimeiri during the s to produce what they call the Sharia laws.

However just like his predecessors President Al-Bashier failed to consolidate the state and his rule over the government. De Waal exaplains that once Nimiri has taken a step towards adopting political Islam to govern the state it is remarkably difficult for any of his successors to reverse it, even if it such an action was perceived as essential for the state stability. Islamic ideology is what holds the North intact and so any compromise could not only lead to upheaval in the North and instability, but could also anger other leading Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, who are supportive of the Northern regime.

According to this framework, President Al-Bashier and selected members of his inner circle most of them generals and security officers but including some civilians too long ago hatched a plan for the ruthless consolidation of power and the waging of war on all who stood in their way. The succeeding Sudanese generations, who had inherited the war, have a test before them, and they will have to choose whether to continue falling into the abyss, to continue following suit with the previous practises of injustice done by the previous regimes that led to the failure of the Sudanese state, or to take an alternative route which might be better for the future of their country …..

Yet many questions regarding the efficient implementations of the CPA are still to be answered in order to comprehend if future peaceful relations are to exist between the North and the South. The superior nature of the Northern identity is not only embedded by the conduct of Islamic religion and Arab race, but also history played a major role in widening this gap between the North and the South.

Upon granting independence to the North the South feared a new form of neo colonisation by the North, and these anxieties eventually led the civil war to escalate. Despite the prevailing distrust between the South and North, the Northern government yet went ahead and imposed its identity on the South by attempting to create of Sudan a nation state and eliminate all traces of British colonialism.

Sudan has for so long experienced civil strife and so war has become a norm within Sudanese political society. So far this paper has provided the reader with the essential empirical background knowledge to understanding the issues of the Sudan civil war and how it came to existence. It further provided a theoretical background of the concept of identity that further aides the reader understanding of the proceeding chapter that fully addressed the question at hand.

Sudan at present however faces insuperable challenges in its attempt to break free from its conflictual tradition and achieve peace, democracy and fair distribution of national wealth and power.

However the agreed upon elections and the referendum are both the central pillars around which a form of democratic governance in Sudan could be built. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The differences between the artificially constructed groups in Sudan were not addressed in order to devise solutions or the reconstruction of a national identity and the creation of a more pluralistic system.

Instead, it has recognised these differences by giving the leaders of the North the right to continue an Arab-Islamic agenda, and giving the South in the interim its own virtual independence but with the option to secede.

When one asks people, what was the war all about in the South and now in Darfur and possibly in the East, one word summarises it all: marginalisation by the Arab centre of the non-Arab periphery!. The negotiating parties did not internalise the importance of reaching an implementable agreement, instead focused on easier and often ambiguous and imprecise compromises, which could be explained with the relative complacency as favouring the status quo. So neither side was able or willing to actually put the agreements into practice.

Donald explained that Khartoum would not want to relinquish authority over the oil regions, and the weak governmental institutions and the lack of technical capacity in the South has resulted in its oversight of oil sharing, which therefore allows the North to access and continue exploiting the oil regions in the South and focus on investment in Northern infrastructure whilst the South remains unable to ensure the protection of their share in the oil wealth.

Therefore the likelihood of a military resolution to disputes over these areas remains high, ultimately leading to a return to war driven by their reflection on the failure of the Addis Agreement. It marked the first democratic elections in Sudan since and despite the delays in the election process, it was nonetheless a peaceful event unlike what many have previously predicted. Sudan, therefore for the very first time in years, managed to project itself to the outside world as being more than capable of holding democratic elections.

However Alex De Waal argues that the outcome of the elections projects that the most likely scenario is that the structure of the centralised political power in Sudan remains unchanged, and one must face the probability of continued turbulence and paralysis in Sudan — a political process marked by constant motion but no forward movement. With the elections now over the future of Sudan hinges on the answers to a number of thorny questions, which although not unfamiliar to Sudanese and their international sponsors, have been made even trickier by the outcome of the April polls.

Although clinging to their respective presidencies, President Al-Bashier and Salva Kiir have emerged from the elections with deeply prided polities. Therefore avoiding prejudiced policies that could hinder peace in Sudan becoming key to ensuring stability in the country, particularly mutual agreements between the two parties on issues concerning the referendum.

While secession is the ideal scenario, it is however the most unlikely. If achieved without implementable agreements regarding oil lands, violence could escalate between the North and South, exacerbate violence elsewhere, and leave the newly independent South with a weak governmental economic base.

Therefore what remains open for conjecture is whether, President Al-Bashier and Salva Kiir, with the help of their international sponsors, can bring forth the tact and political will necessary to overcome the obstacles on the path to the referendum, and heal the poisons of their respective polities thereafter. However whatever the ultimate result of the referendum, and however the parties choose to resolve current disputes on particular components of the agreement, the more fundamental need is to establish more effective and sustainable working relationships between leaders, both North and South.

As Jobbins framed it:. Africa Briefing No Accessed: July 2, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Encyclopedia of the Nations — Sudan. Accessed: August 10, Operation World The take over has drawn global condemnation.

UN chief Antonio Guterres said Sudan was among an "epidemic of coups d'etats" affecting Africa and Asia, and he urged the world's "big powers" to band together for "effective deterrence" through the UN Security Council. Both are demanding the restoration of the civilian government without preconditions. Since Monday, troops are reported to have been going house to house in Khartoum arresting local protest organisers. Our correspondent says thousands more people have joined the protests in the capital, mainly in residential neighbourhoods near the city centre.

The city's airport is closed and all flights are cancelled until Saturday. Staff at the country's central bank have reportedly gone on strike, and doctors across Sudan are said to be refusing to work in military-run hospitals except in emergencies.

Civilian leaders and their military counterparts have been at odds since long-time ruler Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in This will "impose heavy costs on Kenya," he said, adding it could trigger a humanitarian situation that Kenya isn't prepared for. The large numbers of refugees in northern Kenya have stressed local resources in the region, and are fueling tensions with local communities. Two million people are currently facing food insecurity in Kenya's north, where the United Nations has described the situation as "particularly drastic" because of poor rainfall.

Trade between the two countries has also fallen because of the Tigray conflict, according to Kenyan authorities. Earlier this year, Kenya and Ethiopia set up the Moyale Ones Stop Border Post, a free trade area to make cross-border business dealings easier. The conflict in Ethiopia seems to have indirectly weakened the implementation of a peace deal in neighboring South Sudan. Ethiopia, in recent years, has played a mediating role between the rival factions of President Salva Kiir and the former opposition leader Riek Machar.

In addition, the international community is diverting more time and energy on Ethiopia, says political analyst Boboya James from the Juba-based Institute for Social Policy and Research. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing South Sudan's war have taken refuge in Ethiopia's Gambela region on Sudan's western border with Ethiopia.

The communities living on both sides of the border have great cultural affinity and there is a brisk flow of goods across the border there, mainly from Ethiopia into South Sudan. So if Ethiopia's war continues, it will "definitely bring economic destabilization to the border between South Sudan and Ethiopia," he said.

US and African Union envoys have been holding urgent talks in Ethiopia in search of a cease-fire. The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths, visited the Tigray region on Sunday, using the occasion to plead for greater access for aid to civilians.

The UN is warning that some 7 million people in Ethiopia, including 5 million in Tigray, are facing famine-like conditions because of the war. In the United States, the median age is 36 years, and life expectancy is 77 years. It is about the size of Texas and has a population of 6 million; the majority are Muslim and have African features.

Generally speaking, most people of African descent in Darfur are farmers, and most people of Arab descent in Darfur are nomadic herders. There is fierce competition for land between herders and farmers, including violent battles between Fur farmers and Arab herders from to This competition has fueled the present conflict in Darfur. Even as Sudan achieved independence from Britain in , civil war was already brewing between the north and the south. Army coups in and plus civil war impeded attempts to build a parliamentary democracy.

In , the Addis Ababa Agreement enforced a peace agreement between the government and separatist southern rebels. Civil war was sparked in when the military regime tried to impose sharia law as part of its overall policy to "Islamicize" all of Sudan.

In , compromise between the ruling government and southern opposition groups seemed imminent, but Omar al-Bashir, a politically and religiously extreme military leader, led a successful coup and became chief of state, prime minister and chief of the armed forces. Al-Bashir has been elected only once, in Al-Bashir continues to lead a government run by an alliance between the military junta and the National Congress Party, which pushes an Islamist agenda. Sudan's government imposed a penal code in that instituted amputations and stoning as punishments.

The Sudanese government harbored Osama bin Laden in the s until the Clinton administration successfully pressured the government to expel him in