Integration and Fragmentation of the Sudan: An African Renaissance

Despite numerous attempts by internal and external organizations to find a concrete explanation for the root causes of the Sudanese conflict, no single definitive answer can thus far be offered. This is because there is not one reason to explain the case. The conflict, which has lasted for more than a century, is fueled by many factors. Dr. Garang, the founding father and long-time leader of the Sudanese People Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) acknowledged that reality numerous times in his speeches to SPLA gallant fighters, the Sudanese people, and the international community. “There was no reason for going to war; there were reasons for going to war,” the chairman elucidated to a group of Sudanese Americans in 2003. As South Sudan President Salva Kiir once said, “War involves death; no one can choose to die if the reason is not so compelling.” All of those factors have to be addressed jointly because some of them overlap and cannot be separately addressed without touching on the others. That is why it was so difficult for the SPLA to consider any approach other than military confrontation to pressure the government. Almost all of the issues can be traced to the colonial period; with that said, Khartoum inherited them from Anglo-Egyptian influences. However, three reasons top the list and explain the decision to take up arms. Considering recent exploration of the root causes of conflict, we can determine that race and ethnicity, economic marginalization, and the political system of governance are the major factors responsible for the nationwide armed conflicts. The Arabs came to Sudan with the determination to build a Sudanese nation-state based on ethnicity, religion, cultural and linguistic ethnocentrism. That government did not work for the vast majority of Sudanese people in South Sudan, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, Darfur, Eastern Sudan, and the far North of the country. Thus the combination of ethnocentrism and the hijacking of government by the Arab merchants led to economic marginalization in the so-called peripheral sections of the Sudan. …The causes of economic imbalance and unequal development in the country cannot be comprehended without a closer look at the colonial period. The modern state of Sudan came into being in the late 19th century with the help of the Mahdist Revolution and the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. Prior to that, there were several leaders who based the economy on animal husbandry, crop production, and selling of manually manufactured goods on the one hand. The Arabs on the other hand learned the ways of colonialism and marginalization from the Europeans, the British to be specific. Their colonial system of government harmed African nationalities and drained national wealth from other parts of the country in order to build the North. The Northern region around Khartoum was built at the expense of South Sudan, the Nuba Mountain, and Blue Nile. Because the North is desert and infertile, it depended and continues to depend on labor, raw material, animal produce, commercial and subsistence crops from South Sudan. Almost all the money which the North collects comes from other regions: cotton, the only commercial crop in…Sudan; the focal points of tourism and the national parks are almost entirely located in Southern and Eastern Sudan. After more than a century, the full history of Sudanese nationhood, its economic development, and the root causes of regional, tribal, racial, and religious conflicts remain obscure. Students of Sudanese politics, economic experts, and international politicians from the developed world have yet to learn the truth in the other side of the story. Some politicians and public administrators in Sudan—both in the South and in the North—blame each other for the unequal development in the nation. The international community that has been directly involved in helping the varying Sudanese governments has insufficient data to make the right decision about how to direct monetary assistance where it is needed. Additionally, the international community, especially the United Nations and donor countries, are fed incorrect information that has affected their trust; so it is hard to expect anything from those deceived until some degree of trust is restored. Sudan cannot be held solely to blame for that situation because it has never experienced a consistent government since its inception. Each group that came to power through coup d’état has worked to benefit itself, so it is fair to say that every actor involved in Sudanese affairs has a share in this dilemma… Every time a new government is installed, it abolishes the parliament, the national constitution, and almost every legal system of government that ever existed. Many unelected officials have come and gone, leaving government offices without public accountability due to the unstable rule of law. Employment came to be based on loyalty and/or blood relationships rather than on competency… Having talked about misinformation and the lack of information…the Arabs wanted to change the history of Sudan once and for all in their favor. So far in history, more than three-quarters of published books and other compiled works on Sudanese economy, politics, and history are intended to give a permanent place to the Arab aliens; the distortion of facts is the only way to achieve that goal. While Arabs distort the history of Sudan, Africans on their part did not contribute to the writing of the Sudanese history for four reasons. First, only a very small minority of African Sudanese were literate. Second, the minority who could read and write were not educated to comprehend the complex history of Sudan beyond their tribal line. The Anglo-Egyptian government graduated African Sudanese from “primary four,” the equivalent of fourth grade in the elementary school in the United States. Out of elementary four, it is impossible to comprehend, let alone contribute to, and build the, history of the Sudan. Third, those Sudanese who made it through high school or attended college in foreign countries like Uganda and Britain were too poor and lacked the resources to get involved in such activities…The Arabs discouraged Africans from getting involved in Sudanese politics.