SUDAN CRISIS

Civil wars in Sudan and the existing conflict between

South and North Sudan
 THE PROBLEM
RISE OF CONFLICT SOON AFTER
INDEPENDENCE

Sudan became independent in 1956.

The colonial state was replaced by the very
northern tribes who enslaved South Sudanese
in the past. The South remained
underdeveloped in terms of education;
economy and infrastructure; nor were there
any steps to develop them due to the fear that
Southerners would challenge the cultural
dominance of the North in the long run. The
policy of “Sudanization” or “northernization”
was introduced. Rather than promoting
federal structure of governance, the post-
independent state, which was mainly
dominated by North Sudanese, embarked on
civilization project of promoting Islam in the
South. Independent Sudan was seen as an
opportunity for the Northern Arabs to
continue dominating and enslaving Africans in
the south.
 THE FIRST CIVIL WAR,
During 1955-72, South Sudanese revolted on the basis that the successive Khartoum regimes rejected federal
structure of governance which could have given the South autonomy to safeguard its cultures from Islamization
and Arabization. The resentment led to the widespread killings of Northerners in the South when Anyanya
Guerrillas embarked on armed struggle. This war ended with the Peace Agreement of 1972, known as “Addis
Ababa Accord”

FALIURE OF THE PEACE AGREEMENT

The regime of JaafarNimeiri abrogated the agreement in 1983 and imposed Sharia on South Sudanese and
declaring Arabic the official language, dividing the South into three regions, Upper Nile, Bahr el Gazal and
Equatoria. The military Junta of JaafarNimeiri also gave Chevron Oil Company the right to explore oil in the South.
This was seen as a political act sought to deprive the Southern Region of its resources and  led to the formation of
the Sudan’s People Liberation Army (SPLM/A) in 1983 which was led by John Garang de Mabior.

SECOND CIVIL WAR

This war started in 1983, because of reasons mentioned above. SPLM/A visioned a “New Sudan” directed towards
Socialism, which, they believed would create unity of Sudan without the possibility of secession. Initially, his views
were rejected by the Southerners. But, over time, it inspired more support across the North-South division.
However, successive governments in North Sudan saw this as a threat to their establishment or “Arab-Islamic
Identity of their country”. After the National Islamic Front (NIF) took power through coup in 1989 with an agenda
of Islamization, the vision of New Sudan and the views were directed towards Socialism was seen by the Islamists as
worse than separation of the country. This war ended with the 2005 when the Government of Sudan (GoS) signed
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) with the SPLM/A in Kenya, giving autonomy to South Sudan.
 FALIURE OF CPA
(and consequent separation of South Sudan)
Despite the CPA, the idea of Secularism was rejected by the
Government of Sudan. The continuous rejection culminated
into the adoption of self-determination as an option to resolve
the conflict. Also, the CPA left Sharia law intact in the North
and most South Sudanese did not want to experience what
JaafarNimeiri did in 1983 when he decided to annul the
autonomous structure of the South with a stroke of a pen and
imposed Sharia on South Sudanese. The existence of Sharia
law in the North is an indication that the Northern political
establishment is not interested in the unity of the country.
South Sudanese were scared with the repeat of 1983 and
decided towards separation in 2005. That vote was held in
January 2011 and passed overwhelmingly, with nearly 99% of
South Sudanese voting in favor of independence.

CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH SUDAN

(failure of the newly formed South Sudan)
There were 60 different ethnic groups in South Sudan — and
particularly the two largest ethnic groups, the Dinka and the
Nuer — were set aside without being resolved. The underlying
ethnic tensions never actually went away. Salva Kiir, the
President, represented Dinkas, had conflicts with the second highest ranking officer, Machar, who was Nuer. Their
conflicts escalated much more adter kiir dismissed Machar for “attempted coup”. in the middle of all this, Kiir
decided to basically pick a fight with yet another ethnic group, the Equatorians, when he issued an order to redraw
the countries internal boundaries.
 IMPACT OF THE WARS
Many lives have been lost; innocent people have been displaced inside and outside the Sudan; over two million of
the displaced have crossed to the neighbouring countries, many have already left and more are leaving for
resettlement areas in countries such as U.S.A, Canada, Australia and the Scandinavian countries. This increases the
economic stress on other countries.
NORTH SUDAN
•The war has changed its priorities from rebel hunting to genocide operations meted on the civilian population
under the NIF government. Islamic religious zealots known as "Nujahidin" were flown in large numbers. Their
mission is specifically to torture, kill and subdue the population in the South in general. There has been has been
engaged in systematic bombardment of the villages and displaced camps
•In Khartoum, Southerners are rounded up and damped in the sprawling desert. They live in miserable conditions
with no basic requirements of life
•Children are abducted and damped in hidden centres where they are forcefully circumcised, made to recite the
Koran and given Muslim names.
•The Southern women who are forced by conditions to brew local beers for survival are rounded up, whipped,
fined heavily and imprisoned frequently, they are also cramped in small crowded places in the hot weather.
•The Southern politicians are under continuous harassment, arrested and tortured sometimes to death.

SOUTH SUDAN
SPLM/ A and SSIM/A have been accused of :
•arbitrary arrests and imprisonment;
• summary executions of civilians and officers
• mass killings of certain ethnic groups
• rampant sexual violation of women
• looting of cattle and other kinds of property
•forced recruitment of civilians and minors into the movement
• intertribal wars
•The soldiers too, usually take the law into their hands
RESOLUTIONS
 UNITED NATION’s MILITARY DEPLOYMENT
•In late December 2013, the UN Security Council authorized a rapid deployment of about 6,000 security forces, in
addition to 7,600 peacekeepers already in the country, to aid in nation-building efforts.
•In May 2014, the Security Council voted in a rare move to shift the mission’s mandate from nation-building to
civilian protection, authorizing UN troops to use force. Since reprioritizing protection, the UN Mission in the
Republic of South Sudan has faced extreme challenges due to the deterioration of the security situation and its
complex relationship with the government of the Republic of South Sudan.
•The UN authorized the deployment of an additional four thousand peacekeepers as part of a regional protection
force in 2016, although their arrival was delayed until August 2017.

STEPS TAKEN BY THE CONFLICTING PARTIES

•Under the threat of international sanctions and following several rounds of negotiations supported by the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development(IGAD), Kiir signed a peace agreement with Machar in August
2015. As the first step toward ending the civil war. In 2017 and 2018, a series of cease-fires were negotiated and
subsequently violated between the two sides and other factions.
•The military and protesters have reached several agreements fleshing out the details of a power-sharing
arrangement, with each side trying to overcome suspicion and build a working relationship.
•On 4 August they signed a constitutional declaration which will pave the way for the formation of a transitional
government. A formal signing ceremony is due to take place on 17 August

OTHER PROBLEMS
(that led to worsening of conflict)
•In July 2014, the UN Security Council declared South Sudan’s food crisis the “worst in the world.” Famine
was declared in South Sudan during the first few months of 2017, with nearly five million people at risk from food
insecurity. The country again faced critical food shortages in early 2018.
 CURRENT SCENARIO
STAND OF OTHER COUNTRIES
•Most African and Western countries have backed the protesters. But Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates are seen to be allies of the junta. They perhaps fear the protests in Sudan could inspire similar events to
take place in their countries.
•The TMC's vice-president, Mohamed HamdanDagolo, also known as Hemeti, flew to Saudi Arabia in June to meet
the crown prince Mohamed Bin Salman, promising to stand with the kingdom against threats and continue sending
Sudanese troops to help the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
•The African Union suspended Sudan as a member of the pan-African body after the 3 June crackdown, saying it
will be reinstated only after a civilian-led transitional authority is established.
•The US, which lifted economic sanctions in 2017, continued counter-terrorism cooperation and granted visas to
the current and former heads of Sudan’s draconian national security agency, responsible for torture and other
abuses. 
•The EU continued to support controversial migration programs, widely criticized for encouraging abuses by
security forces.
 
NON-MILITARY STEPS OF UN
•In July, the UN Security Council adopted plans to dramatically downsize UNAMID and limit the area of operations to
the Jebel Mara region. The downsizing limits the mission’s operational area, but does not extinguish its responsibility
for human rights monitoring and protection of civilians in the whole of Darfur. The mission is expected to draw down
its presence and has yet to test the Sudanese government’s willingness to allow it to return to its former areas of
operation to try to fulfill these duties.
•In September, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution to continue the work of the Independent Expert on
human rights in Sudan for another year, or until a country office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights is operational. 
• The UN Security Council failed to press Sudan to cooperate with the ICC in the surrender of the five fugitives sought
on alleged Darfur crimes, despite having referred the situation to the ICC in 2005. The ICC first announced charges in
2007.
 Complexity of the conflict
An ethnic conflict is a conflict between two or more contending ethnic
groups. While the source of the conflict may be political, social, economic or
religious, the individuals in conflict must expressly fight for their ethnic
group's position within society. This final criterion differentiates ethnic
conflict from other forms of struggle. Ethnic conflict is one of the major
threats to international peace and security. Conflicts in the Balkans, Rwanda,
Chechnya, Iraq, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Darfur, as well as in Israel,
the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, are among the best-known and deadliest
examples from the late 20th and early 21st centuries

Cultural differences and ethnic conflicts are important issues shaping

international politics. Because cultural affiliations and ethnic identity are
particularly strong factors shaping group relations, these conflicts have led
to tremendous human suffering and are a significant threat to international
security. Instability, refugee flows, spillover effects, and other international
consequences guarantee that ethnic conflict remains an issue on the
international political agenda. However, it is not the cultural differences per
se that lead to conflict but the political, ideological, and economic goals of
international actors, regardless of whether these actors are states or ethnic
groups. Given the complexity of ethnic and cultural conflicts, there is no
easy solution to related issues.
 PROBABLE SOLUTIONS
There are several options that may be exploited to reach a truly genuine settlement or resolution of the
conflict in Sudan.
Communication
•It is important so that the world knows what is
going on in those dark parts of Africa. When
they know the problem then they will act
accordingly
•Communication can in fact play a more
significant role than this. For example,
programmes involving educating and
enlightening the victims of war about their
Human Rights, so that they know what those
rights are and how important it is to respect
them.
•Such programmes could be extended to
sensitizing soldiers themselves to know how
dangerous the Human Rights abuses can be
since they have seen that the abuses can also
apply to themselves anytime by the hand of the
bad leadership .
Conflict management actors (official and
non official)
•Both the Church and the state organs should be
involved one way or another in finding lasting
solutions to the conflict in the Sudan.
•Although many steps have already been taken as
we have already stated, still this conflict is taking
too long to resolve it is probably because the
Sudan conflict is complex in nature as it was
stated earlier.
•Such a situation demands multi-level
undertakings which call for serious commitment
and consistency of the negotiators. But much
cannot be done by such external actors if the
negotiating parties are not much interested in
settling the disputes.
•Formal and informal inter ethnic engagements
will also play a huge role in reducing the ethnic
tension and bringing the communities closer.
The parties involved.
There have been many peace talks held among the conflicting parties. But, for several times parties have
walked away from the negotiation table; many a times, Senior officer don’t take part in these talks directly.
Personal gains are kept in forefront instead of paying attention of obtaining peace outside. Thus, serious efforts
should be made by the parties if the seriously want to combat the issue.

They can work towards:

• Consociationalism: Consociationalism is a power sharing agreement which co-opts the leaders of ethnic
groups into the central state's government. Each nation or ethnic group is represented in the government
through a supposed spokesman for the group. each group has veto powers to varying degrees, dependent on
the particular state.  government must be composed of a "grand coalition" of the ethnic group leaders which
supposes a top-down approach to conflict resolution. a single transferable vote system could prevent the
ethnification of political parties because voters cast their ballots in order of preference
•Federalism: self-governance for local matters in order to satisfy some of the grievances which might cause
ethnic conflict among the masses. some goods such as language of education and bureaucracy must be
provided as local goods, instead of statewide, in order to satisfy more people and ethnic groups
•Non territorial /cultural autonomy : which allows ethnic groups to self rule on limited matters like
education, language, culture, internal affairs, religion. It is a bit different from federalism in the sense that the
ethnic groups are not assigned a titular sub-state, but rather the ethnic groups are dispersed throughout the
state unit.

There can also be use of intercultural communication and cultural-rights based negotiations as tools with
which to effectively and sustainably address inter-ethnic strife. Intercultural knowledge and skill is essential to
tackle the problem efficiently

If all else fails, military victory option can not be ruled out either.
 SUGGESTIONS
One of the suggestions to make Is that Bashir should be pressurized by the
neighbouring countries and the United States to come back to IGAD Talks of
1994, where he left. He should accept and implement the Declaration of
Principles of IGAD, namely:
(i) Self determination for the South through referendum after an Interim
period of 2-4 years. The terms of reference for the vote will be two:
unity with the North or separation and only Southerners will be entitled
to vote. During the interim period all the government army shall move
to the North to ensure security, free and fair atmosphere for the
referendum. I
(ii) The question of the relationship between state and religion must be
dealt with. Thus Sudan should be a secular state since it is multiracial,
multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-linguistic.

The second suggestion is that the SPLM/A and the NDA remove Bashir
militarily. After that the South will carry out referendum in the given interim
period while the NDA heads the government in Khartoum.