The Trouble with Sudan

Our purpose

The land where Arabic Africa ends and Black Africa begins, where the Sahara ends and the Blue and White Niles converge has a long history of conflict, continuing into the present.

In the north, Sudan bickers with Egypt over borders. In the west the France-sized region of Darfur is in a state of collapse, exacerbating tensions with neighbouring Chad. The southern region continues to bid for independence after signing a peace agreement dampening the fires of two civil wars lasting a total of thirty nine years. Rebel groups are gaining strength in the east. In the deep south the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army continue to pose a real threat.

After spending a month travelling the length of a country the size of Europe by public transport we are in a position to better understand the political state of the country with the luxury of objectivity. Before arriving our knowledge of Sudan was of the conflict in Darfur and the U.S.’s catergorisation of the country as a rogue state. Speaking to people and seeing how they live painted a far more complex picture, although the constant threat of police intervention precluded free dialogue in many instances. Therefore this has been pieced together from half-finished, half-heard half-truths.

Because the different perspectives on Sudan’s strife are so disparate and complex we can only recount what we saw, heard and read as generalisations. However, we will endeavour to relay them as impartially as possible.


Two hundred and forty three peoples and many perspectives

The Northern perspective is one of Sudan as a Muslim country under sharia law plagued by infidel insurgents in the east, south and west.



The Southern and Nuba Mountains’ perspective is that it is a very different country with very different ideals, rich in resources which the North plunders without the due recompense of improving the infrastructure required to allow them to live within the parameters of their basic human rights.

The Darfurian perspective is that the North is not providing them with what they require to survive, let alone progress.

The Khartoum Press perspective was surprisingly freely voiced. An editorial in one paper described in detail the meddling of China into the Darfur region. A rival paper did however describe how the extent of Sudan’s problems were greatly inflated by the Western media. When we spoke to an individual in the Nuba Mountains about the upcoming referendum where the region will be able to vote for independence, he spoke of the Khartoum based radio propaganda which fills the airwaves. The Sudanese television channels were state controlled and generally featured Arabs in an idyllic country setting discussing how fantastically well Sudan was doing.

The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in conjunction with the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) have the perspective that after the peace treaty with the Khartoum based government – the National Congress Party (NCP), to end the civil war was signed they failed to fulfill their promises of an improved infrastructure in the area. Although the area is providing the North with most of its resources and therefore capital, it continues to drag its heels with regards to investment. The SPLM describes the problem as follows,

…the Sudanese state is essentially an alien political system with a institutional framework that excludes the vast majority of its citizens. The African Sudanese have been excluded from the centre of state power since 1956 while they constitute 69% of the population! How can there be peace? And after the 1989 NIF coup the system further excluded non-fundamentalist moslems, while women have always been excluded at all times. We call this political dispensation the "Old Sudan" based on religion (Islam) and race (Arabism). Some analysts have described the problem of Sudan as "Double Apartheid" or racial and religious apartheid. http://splmtoday.com/

The NGO perspective is that their help is sorely needed but their efforts are regularly thwarted by the National Congress. The UN peacekeeping force of 2006 deployed in an attempt to calm the situation in Darfur was described by the government as ‘foreign invaders’. When collating figures for the death-toll in Darfur the NGOs estimated between 200,000 and 400,000, the UN estimated 200,000 and the National Congress estimated 9000.

The Western media’s perspective, upon which we based our preconceptions, seems to be one of Darfur as the focus of Sudan’s problems and for it to be one of absolute hopelessness, so far down the road to oblivion it is no longer worth the heart-break.


The cradle of conflict

Strategically Sudan has been dealt a bad hand. It nestles amongst warring and unstable nations on all sides. Its main conflicts are with Uganda and Chad. However conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia is causing many people of the Beja tribe to cross the border into Sudan in Kassala where there are huge refugee camps.


Below is an approximate map of the conflicting regions in Sudan




A history of violence

Colonial rule by the British orginally administered the countries as two regions, the Arab North and the Black African South in order to slow the progress of Islam southwards and malaria which was threatening British troops, northwards. After pressure from the North to unite the two regions the Britsh agreed, placing them in charge in 1946. This inevitably led to an exploitation of the South – a wound which runs sore today. After colonial rule ended the country remained with the same administrative structure the British had left it with.

The ‘religious apartheid’ the SPLM refers to is a particular problem as much of the south is Christian due to the work of British missionaries during Colonial rule. This causes conflict with the Muslim South which controlled the entire country under sharia law. It is estimated that Sudan is made up of over two hundred tribes with distinct cultural heritages and practices which are severely impinged upon by strict governmental controls. This also causes problems for many of those in the south who follow animist religions. A long history of slavery is something which the Southerners find hard to forget. It is not that long since the Northerners were systematically snatching young men and women from southern villages.

The first Sudanese civil war (1955-1972), the Anyanya rebellion, ended with the signing of a peace agreement in Addis Ababa costing 500,000 lives. After the then president, Nimeiri, broke the Addis agreement war began again in 1983 and did not end until the death of 1,900,000 people and the displacement of 4,000,000 in 2005.


An uncivil war

The peace agreement which ended Sudan’s second civil war was signed in 2005. It dictated that in 2011 the people of Southern Sudan would be afforded the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to split from the North and become and autonomous region.

Those we spoke to in the South lived in anticipation of the day when they could make this decision but there was a great deal of trepidation. They feared a repeat of Kenya’s recent polling conflicts. They feared that the vote will be rigged, that they would be terrorised, they feared a lack of democracy and they prayed the West will support them by overseeing the proceedings.




Relations remain strained

A contentious point for Southerners is education. As their children are not being educated to a high enough standard there is fear that there will be yet another generation of people unaware of their rights and therefore unwilling to demand them. This lack of education is a concern for the referendum in which the South will be able to make its bid for independence. If people are not educated they will not be able to make a considered decision with an awareness of the North’s techniques to make a united Sudan sound more appealing. Many believe that Arabic is used as a controlling tool. Despite the presence of a few token Southerners in the parliament, the language is Arabic, while the main administrative language is English in the South. This is also the case in the country’s universities. We spoke to a man who was studying theology. One day a government decree dictated that the following day all lectures and writing would be in Arabic, which he did not know.

There is also concern that Khartoum’s focus upon Darfur may be seen by southern and eastern rebels as a point of weakness and may result in a dramatic increase in hostilities. Many Northerners believe too many concessions have been made to the SPLA and many Southerners have never trusted the South to fulfill its promises. There are signs that new fronts in the North / South conflicts are opening up in the Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile and the East. ‘Sudan’s Dual Crisis: refocusing on IGAD’ www.crisisgroup.org

The Sudan we saw

Upon the SPLA controlled Nuba Mountains it felt very much like another country. The area patrolled by a different army, a different flag flew from the governmental buildings and people danced, sang and drank. The soldiers we travelled in a lorry with spoke of their hatred for the war. Many had lost family and livelihood to the conflict yet there was still a strong sense of a want for a united Sudan. ‘We are the same people’ was a repeated theme. Many wanted semi-autonomy in order for the plunder of their natural resources to be abated. They believed their land was rich and they should therefore get a bite of the pie. The north could provide the south with the infrastructure they required, and the south could provide the resources the north required.


Darfur’s dark horizon

The conflict in Darfur began in 2003 but tensions had been increasing long before that. The region is suffering from overpopulation and decades of drought and desertification.

The conflict has arisen mainly between tribal groups with one side being composed of the Sudanese army and the Janjaweed, a militia taken from the Arab Baggara tribes of the Northern Rizeigat. The other side composes various rebel groups including the Sudan Liberation Movement and the justice and equality movement composed of the non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa and Massaleit ethnic groups. The lines are not clearly defined though and there is much infighting among rogue militias out to assert their power without any particular ideology.

The independent advisory body Crisis Group in their 2006 report described the Sudanese government as bearing ‘primary responsibility for the deteriorating situation’ ’To Save Darfur’ www.crisisgroup.org as they unofficially continue a policy of ‘supporting the well-armed Chadian rebels in Western Darfur.’ As the peace keeping troops on the ground are comprised of an ill-equipped African Union force of 7,000 troops there is a desperate need for international involvement. Suggestions as such have been met by Khartoum with threats of Darfur becoming a ‘graveyard’ for multinational forces and that their involvement would be tantamount to an act of colonialism.

A second independent report (2007) describes Khartoum’s purpose in scuppering peace in Darfur as follows:

The NCP [National Congress Party] wants Darfur in chaos to limit the room for an opposition to emerge, while resettling key allies on cleared land and defying Security Council resolutions by integrating its Janjaweed irregulars into official security structures… ’Darfur’s new Security Reality’ www.crisisgroup.org

Tensions have been raised because of the drought forcing the Northern Arab tribes further south to search for water encroaching onto southern land. These tensions escalated into violence that is now being called genocide or ‘acts of genocide’ by members of the international community including George W. Bush.

Calls from the International Criminal Court (ICC) to bring two leading figures in the atrocities in Darfur identified as Janjaweed commander Ali Kushayb and State Minister for Interior, Ahmed Harum are meeting vitriolic defiance. Khartoum responded to the calls with the threat that it would,

cut the throat of any international official…who tries to jail a Sudanese official in order to present him
to the international justice. ’Future of the World Court in Balance’ YaleGlobal

This is of great concern internationally as it is seen as a test case for many more similar cases in the future. Khartoum claims that it can try these war criminals itself, with out international assistance yet it continues to bomb areas where peace talks are planned. There are calls for the international community to back the ICC, forcefully with the use of sanctions if necessary. This is not happening and will result in the ICC becoming an impotent talk shop.

China’s involvement in Sudan is a particular concern. As we saw throughout Sudan there are Chinese constructions and firms everywhere and the influence is extending into Darfur. The Chinese supply the government with arms and then turn a blind eye to Darfur, partially as there are rich uranium resources which they hope to exploit in Darfur.

However, there are signs that China’s approach to the Darfur problem are changing for the better. Chinese President Hu Jintao is said to be pressuring Sudanese President Bashir to accept the UN’s plans for the installation of support in the region.

It is perhaps possible to draw some parallels between the situation in Darfur and that in the south of Sudan. Both are calling out for equality and have been forced into the position of calling up arms and asking for it forcefully. Perhaps the fundamental difference and the reason that the Darfur conflict’s future is so much bleaker is that the region does not have oil. The south’s bargaining chip of black gold has perhaps saved many of its people’s lives. Darfur has come to the table relatively empty handed.


The most generous of peoples

Although Sudan’s lot seems almost hopeless and it seems damned to a future of conflict, its people remain optimistic. It is this optimism and defiance towards Sudan spiralling into the abyss which leaves one with a glimmer of hope. The further troubles associated with a future in which there will be further pressures on the country due to climate change will undoubtedly test the resolve of the Sudanese as well as the international committee to assist them into a state of democracy in which its citizens are able to live in accordance with their human rights. There was consensus amongst the people we met that Sudan’s politics had a rotten core. They were desperate to relay to us that this should not reflect the Sudanese people. They wanted us to know and tell those we knew that despite its problems and as a result of its wonderful people Sudan is both beautiful and life affirming. All the majority of the Sudanese people want is the opportunity to be treated with the dignity and respect they showed us as we passed through their country.