Sudan: Social Inequality, the Fight for NaturalResources, Civil War
Ethics of Development in a Global Environment: War& Peace
Luis Guillermo Arteaga
Michael L. Bolden
December 6, 2002
Fighting between the Muslim government in Khartoumand Christian rebel forces located in southern Sudan has long been ignored.This struggle has caused nothing but devastation and depravation for in theregion. More than two millionpeople have died as a result of the conflict, including many innocent civilians. In addition, extremely valuableresources that would surely benefit the entire global economy, are beingneglected and the with the minimized benefits only helping a few . As is the case in most if not all civilwars power is what each side is struggling over. .The north and south werejoined for no good reason and their religious and cultural differences haveadded fuel to their dispute.
Since the conflict began in 1983, the ! re-appearanceof war between Northern and Southern Sudan has generally been interpreted as atypical ethno-religious conflict deriving from differences between Muslims andChristians, or Arabs and Africans. While this categorization had served as anaccurate description of the earlier manifestation of this conflict in the 1950s,it is widely believed that the nature of the conflict has evolved. Though classifying this war as anethno-religious one still has some bearing on how the war is being conductedand perceived, the main reasons for fighting definitely transcend race andreligion to a certain extent.
Conflicts are processes, not static events,and over the last three decades the developments in the Sudan have graduallyand consistently changed the nature of the conflict from ! being a classicethno-religious conflict. This warnow mainly focuses on the seizure of the areas resources, with the economic andresource crisis in the North emerging as a main factor behind this Sudanesecivil war. It is obvious that the money associated with oil as a natural resource located in Sudan hasbeen fueling the struggle much longer than necessary. In addition, this oil present in Sudan has contributed tothe war becoming a much more delicate matter. Since oil is such a valuable international resource, manynations share apprehensions about getting involved. In fact, accusations havebeen made saying that Oil Companies with interests in Sudan have been directlyfunding certain factions, and are thus perpetuating the conflict.
Sudan, the largest country in Africa, was ruled jointly byBritain and Egypt from 1899. Thisended once Sudan gained independence as a parliamentary republic in 1956[1].Since their independence, Sudan has been governed by a succession of volatilecivilian and military governments. The war in Sudan was engaged by alongstanding conflict between the Arab Muslims from the north of Sudan, whogenerally controlled the governmental institutions, and the black Africans ofthe south of Sudan, who follow mainly Christian beliefs. This conflict wasintensified following the imposition of strict Muslim Shari'a law in 1983 underthe th! en President Nimeri. Two years later President Nimeri was removed througha peaceful coup and the new government decided that it was in the best interestof Sudan to relax of the usage of Shari'a law pertaining to non-Muslims[2].
The civil war in Sudan has claimed millionsof lives and forced millions more from their homes. The war has forcedresidents of the Nuba region of Southern Kordofan, or the south central regionof Sudan, to flee from fertile plains conducive to agriculturalprosperity. As a result people areforced into more mountainous regions, where they must live in famine and almostcomplete econo! mic isolation. The Sudanese economy has been devastated and amajority of those in southern Sudan live in poverty with very inhumaneconditions. It is believed that it costs the Sudanese government an estimated$1.5 million a day to fund this civil war[3].The people of southern Sudan have endured repeated aerial bombing strikes andunpredictable tactics, ultimately forcing them from their homes located infertile plain regions; the one place where they are able to engage inagricultural practices. Society inSudan cannot flourish in the mountainous territories where it is notoriouslydifficult for them to provide for themselves. The Sudan's People's Liberation Army (SPLA) is the faction! responsible for fighting the cause of southern Sudan against the forces of theNorth and of the government of Sudan.
There have been numerous attempts over theyears to achieve a sense of peace in Sudan. However, the civil war has becomeso ingrained and has in many ways extended into Sudans culture, that ithas become nearly impossible to end. Disputes involving deep-rooted religiousand cultural beliefs are usually extremely difficult to overcome, even withintervention from military and or political factions. In addition, specialinterests associated with the presence of oil have contributed to thecontinuation of the war.
Peace negotiations have been conducted by thewarring factions of Sudan and by international autho! rities. These negotiationshave produced temporary peace treaties yet have been ineffective in generatinganything successful and long-lasting. Tension between the authorities in theNorthern region and those in the Southern region, as well as divisions betweendifferent groups of southerners, have consistently led to further outbreaks ofviolence. As a direct result of continuous war, Sudan faces the chance ofdisintegration. The government has frequently removed itself from peace-relatedtalks after non-Muslim regional states were accused of sponsoring talks againstthe Islamic regime. The opposition in Sudan is so divided that some oppositionleaders talk of a complete disintegration of Sudan, similar to the processesthat were employed in Somalia. The disintegration of Sudan would presentserious consequences for Africa as a whole when considering that Sudan bordersnine other countries.
The outside world continues to sendhumanitarian aid and apparently realizes the severity and horrific nature ofthe situation in Sudan. However,it is unlikely that there will be any outside military intervention to stop theconflict. The United Nations organization will not step in because it has notreceived the necessary consent from the warring parties in order to dispatch apeacekeeping force. Also, amilitary intervention under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter isconsidered to be indefensible in military and logistical terms. The experience ofthe United Nations in the Somalian conflict has contributed to increasedapprehensions about how effective such a mission can actually be[4].Steps have been taken that could be beneficial towards peace, such as theimposition of an embargo on the supply of weapons, ammunition, spare parts, andother military equipment to Sudan by the United Nations. However, the majorcontributors to the battle, Russia and China, oppose a global arms embargo andwill continue to furnish the Sudanese government with weapons.
When the colonial powers that controlledSudan decided to grant independence to Sudan and introduced a market economysystem towards the end of the last century, they correspondingly restricteddevelopment and expansion to the indigenous Sudanese in order to maintainpolitical and economic control. Essentially, by developing a market economy forthe Sudanese people, the colonial powers could dominate and reap the benefitsof Sudan! s economy without actually exerting any force: rather, by justkeeping the Sudanese people uninformed and uninvolved. After independence,however, a Sudanese national bourgeoisie began to evolve from a primarilymercantile social class, now ostensibly freed from colonial control.
There were, nonetheless, several strongbarriers to the development and progress of a middle class whose Europeanequivalents had brought about the industrial revolution. In Sudan they lackedthe major prerequisites for industrialization. The Sudanese obviously lackedcapital, technical and scientific knowledge, and the existence of economicmarkets. In order to compensate for these economic deficiencies, the so-calledSudanese middle-class shifted their focus from attempts at manufacturing andproduction to the extraction of natural resources. The collapse of attempts atindu! strialization led to the excessive exploitation of accessible naturalresources in a manner so thoughtless and unscrupulous that it soon endangeredthe lower-class societies in Northern Sudan. During the 1960s and 1970sSouthern Sudan remained relatively unscathed, as a result of its isolationduring colonial rule and the earlier civil war, and its severely underdevelopedtransportation infrastructure[5].
However, southern Sudan began to feel theeffects of Northern Sudans control and greed, especially since there wasa civil war being waged in order to basically steal their natural resources andexploit Southern Sudan for personal profit. Just as! other poor developingnations were exporting more and buying less, so the rural peasants were forcedto produce more and buy less in the local market. In Sudan, this meant a newexpansion drive toward the exploitation of less accessible resources, mainly inSouthern Sudan. A number ofschemes were started, based on the exploitation of oil, water, and land; alldescribed as being beneficial to southern Sudans overall development,while in reality all the profits were going mainly to the Northern Sudaneseelites. The situation for theSouthern Sudanese was becoming increasingly worse.
The most significant natural resource beingexploited in southern Sudan is oil, which in turn is mainly responsible for thecontinuation of the civil war. In a global sense, oil! is one of the most soughtafter and controversial natural resources available. In fact, oil has been thecause of several international disputes that have often involved violence. Oilrepresents a great deal of profit for those who are lucky enough to gaincontrol of this precious commodity. Oil companies in Sudan decided to boosttheir own luck by indirectly funding and perpetuating the Sudanese civil war.International oil corporations have the resources necessary to obtain the oilin Southern Sudan, and, by continuing this civil war, the Southern Sudanesewere forced from the areas where the majority of the oil was present, thusmaking it easier for these companies to acquire the oil. Oil companies operating in Sudan arethus also involved in the systematic depopulating of large areas of the countrythrough atrocities against civilians. Tens of thousands of people have been killed a! nd displaced from theareas around the oilfields. Therehave been eyewitness reports claiming that military helicopters and othermilitias have been involved in these efforts. Christian Aid, in a searing report on theconsequences of Sudan's oil bonanza, accuses oil companies of deep involvementin the Government's war machine against southern civilians. Thecompanies are protected by corrupt government forces who allow their roads tobe used by the military, while the oil revenues are funding the ultimateexpansion of the war. There have been dozens of accounts from villages wherepeople have been driven out by bombing and ground attacks, and, that the Oilcompanies are responsible for this. "Oil has brought death," and "When the pumping began, thewar beganare some statements that can be heard concerning! the dreadfulsituation in Southern Sudan[6].
The United States hasbeen particularly important in the Sudanese state of affairs, because theUnited States is a major player in the United Nations and generally in foreignpolicy. The United States is known for its humanitarian and militaryintervention in significant foreign conflicts. However, the U.S. has been veryhesitant to get involved in the dispute in Sudan, most likely because of theresults of the United Statesparticipation in the Somalia conflict. Thussituation was very similar to the current situation in Sudan because of theinvolvment of oi! l. The United States is the highest consumer of oil as anatural resource, and will essentially benefit more from the continuation ofthe civil war, since the United States will still be able to obtain the oil atreasonable prices. In addition, since 1993, Sudan has been considered by the USas a terrorism-sponsoring nation. This issue has become increasingly importantin light of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Eversince this incident the United States has adopted a zero-tolerance policytowards any form of terrorism, even if the involvement is indirect.
Because of the apparent internal problems anda heightened presence of hatred and violence, Sudan has become a desiredassociate for various terrorist organizations. Sudan's instability has made itattractive to militants, including Osama bin Laden, the main suspect in ! theSeptember 11th terror attacks on the United States, and resident ofSudan from 1991 until being expelled in 1996[7].Also, recently, the United States has classified certain Sudanese factions asterrorist groups. The Lords Resistance Army (LRA), which has killed andkidnapped tens of thousands of people, many of them children, is one of theidentified groups. The LRA is abrutal and despicable terrorist group in the eyes of the United States. Sinceit was listed as a terrorist group by the United States, the Sudanesegovernment has been moving to distance itself from the LRA. The internationalcommunity realizes that since the September 11th events, the UnitedStates is dead serious about terrorism a! nd it would definitely be in the bestinterest of other nations to avoid engaging in any terrorist affiliations.
The United States had previously suspendeddiscussions with the Sudanese Government over ending the civil war, mainlybecause the Sudanese government had continually ignored the UnitedStateswarnings to discontinue their attacks and violent activity. Thismove followed a Sudanese air force attack on a humanitarian relief center inthe rebel-held south, in which 17 civilians died. The State Department announced that This attack is anintolerable affront to human life and humanitarian work. This attack hadbeen the second of its kind within a two week period and would not be toleratedby the United States government. Secretary of Sta! te Colin Powell stated that the US administrationhad clearly spelled out to the Khartoum Government that a repeat of attackslike that was unacceptable[8] The Sudanese Government agreed todiscontinue bombing civilian targets in southern Sudan for at least four weeks,in order to allow humanitarian organizations entry to aid the afflicted .
Another divisive issue between the U.S. andthe Khartoum government had been terrorism. The Islamic North had become a hotbed for the training andrecruiting of terroristscells. However, in the wake of9/11 the Khartoum government has made a concerted to crack down onterrorism. Their effort has beenmatched with the U.S. now offering Sudan assistance in the peace process. In mid November of this year theKhartoum government and rebel leaders made significant progress in their lastround of talks. They agreed tocontinue the truce and formed a plan temporary transitional government thatwill be in place for around 100 days. Peace is still a long way away as the two sides must resolvepower-sharingissue. Hopefully more progress can be made in their next round of talks inJanuary for which The U.S. has invited both Su! danese government officials aswell as rebel leaders to come to.
With Sudan representing a relatively recent and severehumanitarian crisis, opinions on what the best plan of action have been a topicof discussion within the U.S. Tom Bearden, of the Online NewsHour, provides adeplorable description of Sudan that is lies in sharp contrast with theAmerican way of life.
The Islamic government in Sudan's North is fightingrebels in the South - most of them Christian or adherents of indigenous tribalreligions. While the Sudanese government denies it, most human rights observerssay independent militias fighting on behalf of the government have beenencouraged to capture slaves during their raids among the Dinka people ofsouth! ern Sudan. Yet slavery has been only a part of the staggering human costsof the war: nearly two million lives lost -- more than four million people displaced[9]
Further media coverage on Sudan is verylimited in the US and lack national attention. The ultimate question is the degree of involvement theUnited States should partake in this struggle. It is clear that the freedoms Am! ericans hold so dear arecontradictory to the suffering in that region. However, the oil Sudan possesses has been and still remainsa very valuable resource, especially to the country that uses more oil then anyother country. Can the UnitedStates be financially involved with the oil trade in Sudan and at the same timeturn its shoulder to the humanitarian crisis there. It is appalling that the war has led to the enslavement ofhundreds and the deaths of over two million. If the U.S. wants to get to the oil it is imperative theydeal with the humanitarian crisis and avoid the foreign policy mistakes theyhave made in the past.
[1] SudanA Political And Military History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/84927.stm
[2] Ibid
[3] Sudan A Political And Military History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/84927.stm!
[4] Why Doesnt The World Act?:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/84985.stm
[5] Suliman, Mohamed. Civil War In Sudan: The Impact OfEcological Degradation.
[6] Bussiness and Human Rights:http://www.business-humanrights.org/Sudan.htm
[7] U.S. Warns Khartoum over attacks:http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/africa/1859987.stm
[8] U.S. Warns Khartoum over attacks:http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/africa/1859987.stm
[9]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june99/sudan.html