The people of Sudan have a long history extending from antiquity, which is intertwined with the history of Egypt, with which it was united politically over several periods. Sudan’s history has also been plagued by civil war stemming from ethnic, religious, and economic conflict between the mostly Muslim and Arab population to the north, and non-Arab Black Africans to the south and west. Christian missionaries arrived in the region in the 6th century and Islamic missionaries in the 7th century. As early as 652 a treaty was signed in which Muslim Egypt would provide goods to Christian Nubia in exchange for Nubian slaves. Slave raids in southern Sudan continued almost without a break for the next 1300 years, no matter who ruled the region: Egyptians, Turks or local sultans.
The modern history of Sudan begins with Muhammad Ali, the Albanian-born ruler of Egypt who invaded Sudan in 1821, founded the city of Khartoum and initiated sixty years of Turco-Egyptian rule. During this period, which saw the introduction of domestic slavery and the use of slave soldiers, an average of 30,000 southerners a year were seized in slave raids. In 1885, the forces of Mohammad Ahmed al-Mahdi captured Khartoum and overthrew the Turco-Egyptian regime. Al-Mahdi died the same year and was replaced by Khalifa Abdullahi. The Mahdists expanded the practice of slavery, driving millions from their homes. They also set an unfortunate precedent by demanding that citizens take a personal, religious oath of loyalty to the Mahdi and the Khalifa and condemning non-followers, even fellow Muslims, as “unbelievers.” When British and Egyptian troops invaded Sudan, these rejected Muslims were glad to help overthrow the Mahdists.
The Anglo-Egyptian forces, led by General Horatio Herbert Kitchener, defeated the Mahdist army at the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898, and the Sudan became a possession of the British Empire. The British abolished slavery, outraging the Arabs in northern Sudan. The British also halted the spread of Islam to new areas and encouraged an influx of Christian missionaries, including Americans who distinguished themselves by their unusual obsession with clothing the natives.
The Mahdists had never established control over southern Sudan, and it took the British a long time to deal with it as well. In 1930, the British declared a Southern Policy that the region was African rather than Arab, and ruled the area as a separate region thereafter. In the north, meanwhile, tensions developed between the British and their junior partners, the Egyptians. After World War II, as a way to stem the threat of Egyptian power in Sudan, the British proposed that Sudan be granted independence. When formal negotiations for independence began in 1952, Egypt was included, but the black Sudanese in the south were not.
Sudan’s first election, held in 1953, was generally fair, although women were not allowed to vote. (Women’s suffrage finally occurred in1967.) Great Britain practically forced Sudan to declare independence on January 1, 1956, before a constitution had been written and before the achievement of anything that could be even remotely considered a national consensus. The southern Sudanese were understandably wary of the northerners’ intentions toward them. Southern leaders pushed for a federal system that would allow them some regional control, but the northerners took the position that giving the south any power at all would lead eventually to secession or that it would, at the very least, threaten the master-servant relationship that they considered part of their “traditional culture.”
The first post-independence election, in 1958, exposed Sudan’s deep divisions, as the ruling alliance fractured and the southerners established their own party. A nationwide strike, led by labor unions, a tenant farmers’ union, students and the Communist Party, brought the country to a standstill. On November 17, 1958, the military, led by General Ibrahim Abbud, seized power and declared a state of emergency. This came as a relief to both the Western powers and the
USSR, who found a democratic Sudan difficult to deal with. The new government set out to Arabize and Islamicize the south, using Arab traders and Muslim missionaries as a vanguard and then sending in the army to burn villages and to arrest and torture civilians.
THE FIRST CIVIL WAR—In 1962, southern Sudanese living in exile formed the Sudan African Nationalist Union (SANU), which eventually included a guerrilla wing named Anyanya, after a type of poison. The first major rebel attacks started in September 1963. Both sides were ruthless in their tactics, but Anyanya eventually embraced the Maoist strategy that guerrillas can survive by befriending the locals and becoming “fish in a sea of people.”
Meanwhile, back in Khartoum, student protests, street demonstrations and a general strike finally led to a popular uprising that overthrew Abboud in October 1964. A transitional government was formed by Communists and unions of tenants, workers and farmers, which granted women some political rights. Six months later, an election was held, but only in the north. The newly-elected government clarified its intentions in the south by approving the first large-scale massacres of civilians. As the war in the south grew to eat up one-third of the national budget, Sudan’s foreign debt doubled between 1964 and 1969, putting great pressure on the northern poor.
NIMEIRI AND THE INTERLUDE OF PEACE—On May 24, 1969, Colonel Jaafar Nimeiri overthrew the elected government of Sudan by bringing together the military and the Communist and Socialist parties. Nimeiri staged a phony election in 1971 in which he won 99% of the votes. Not surprisingly, the traditional political parties turned against him, so he countered their strength by reaching out to the southern rebels, with whom he signed a truce in 1972, ending the civil war. Although the agreement provided for the gradual absorption of the Anyanya guerrillas into the national army, northern troops did not leave the south and many guerrillas chose to go into exile in Ethiopia. Economically and politically, the promises of the Addis Ababa Agreement would turn out to be illusory.
Nimeiri then forced through a new constitution in 1973 that created a one-party state, and proceeded to co-opt the Islamists, religious radicals led by Hassan al-Turabi, whom Nimeiri released from a seven year imprisonment. Nimeiri began incorporating the Islamist agenda, and in September 1983 imposed Shari’a law on Sudan. He also sold out the southern rebels, supporting the 1978 Camp David Accords so that Israel would stop supplying the southern guerrillas. In 1983 he abolished the system of regional councils that had provided the southern Sudanese a modicum of power, at which point the rebellion began anew.
Aware that US president Ronald Reagan would support any government that claimed to be “anti-Communist,” Nimeiri convinced the Reagan Administration that the southern rebel forces were Communists. However, in 1985 a popular uprising after a government-imposed rise in food prices led to a coup that overthrew him. It was little realized at the time, but the most horrible aspect of Nimeiri’s legacy was his creation of the practice of supplying tribal militias to fight as surrogates so that he could deny that the Sudanese army was fighting anti-government forces. The current Sudanese government is still employing the same tactic in Darfur.
In 1987, four years after the resumption of civil war, the SPLA scored a stunning defeat over the pro-government Murahalin militia and the Sudanese army. As the military situation deteriorated, the army forced Sadiq al-Mahdi, Nimeiri’s successor, to try to negotiate a ceasefire. This decision infuriated the Islamist National Islamic Front (NIF), which withdrew from Sadiq’s coalition. On June 30, 1989, a group of Muslim army officers, led by Brigadier Omar al-Bashir and supported by the NIF, staged a coup.
Bashir pursued policies that were typical of newly installed military dictators. He suspended the constitution, banned all political parties and trade unions, closed down the formerly free press, banned the Sudanese Bar Association, took charge of the appointment of judges and imposed an Islamic judicial system on the entire country. In 1991, Bashir’s government imposed an Islamic Penal Code that restored flogging and amputation and formalized the death penalty for a wide range of offenses. Emergency courts were authorized to seize illegal vendors and flog them in public on the spot. The new laws were not kind to women, prohibiting social gatherings where men and women danced together or mixed freely, excluding women from public life and imposing strict dress codes on them. Women who defied the rules were flogged, arrested, jailed and tortured. Needless to say, Bashir’s government banned alcohol. But in February 1995, the ministry of health took this restriction even further, forbidding the importation of medicines containing alcohol, including the anti-malarial drug chloroquine, which led to a widespread epidemic of malaria. Eighty percent of pharmacies shut their doors and so many doctors left the country that the government banned all travel by medical personnel.
The SPLA was growing in strength, and in late 1991 the war spread to the Nuba Mountains, home to 1.5 million people who were largely Muslims following Sufi Islam, of which Bashir and the Islamists disapproved. Thus people who had, for generations, identified themselves as Muslims found themselves redefined as the mortal enemies of Islam. Bashir ordered the destruction of mosques in the Nuba Mountains and the prohibition of the use of local languages. The government seized land, sold it to Arab businessmen and forced the local people into camps, which they called “peace villages.” Almost one third of the population was displaced. Non-Muslim men were circumcised and their children were forced to attend Quranic schools. According to Amnesty International, government troops used civilians as human shields. Bashir also turned his wrath against Christians. Television commentators warned non-Muslims that they would go to hell. In February 1992, the government nationalized all Christian schools.
PEACE AS A TACTIC IN THE ENDLESS WAR—The immensity of the carnage in the Sudanese civil wars has been so great that periodically the international community has tried to interfere and promote a negotiated settlement to the fighting. For Bashir, ceasefires have proven useful as a means to resupply and reposition troops, plan future offensives, pit rebel groups against one another and impress foreign governments with his moderation. This manipulation of the peace process reached its peak in 2005, when Bashir signed a peace agreement with SPLA leader John Garang that gave Garang the position of vice-president of Sudan. Although the agreement did grant the south considerable autonomy in the form of a provisional regional government, and some viewed the agreement as a great step forward, the text of the agreement between Bashir and Garang revealed that it was as flawed as the one that ended the first civil war in 1973. It made no provision for the removal of northern troops from the south, and though it promises the southerners a referendum on secession, it is set for 2011. Given Bashir’s record, the chances for such an election actually taking place seem slim. What’s more, the agreement was signed only with Garang and did not include other southern rebel groups, much less groups fighting Bashir’s government in the east and the west.
DARFUR—Bashir’s pledge to end the civil war in the south appeared particularly insincere considering the horrific atrocities that his troops and allied militia were committing in the western state of Darfur, a region of more than 3.5 million people inhabited by non-Arab Muslims.
For hundreds of years, from the 15th century until World War I, the region was ruled by the Fur Sultanate, but was finally incorporated into Sudan in 1916. The Fur and other tribes may have been followers of Islam, but to the Arab rulers of independent Sudan, they were black, just like the traditionalists and Christians in the south, and were thus subject in the best of times to disregard and in the worst of times to slavery and slaughter. A long drought that stretched from the mid-1970s into the early 1980s forced Arab cattle-herding tribes into the traditional territory of non-Arab tribes. Rather than mediate this problem, the Sudanese government sided completely with their fellow Arabs, refused to acknowledge the ensuing famine and did nothing to halt a rising slave-trade in black Darfurians. Thousands of Fur were killed, while the government labeled those who resisted government troops and allied militia as “bandits” and “outlaws.”
By 2003, two major rebel movements were operating in Darfur. To counter them, Bashir launched a ghastly campaign of destruction and ethnic cleansing. Government fighter jets and helicopters bombed villages, followed immediately by government-supported militia, known as the Janjaweed, who murdered, tortured and raped the remaining villagers. The bombers targeted hospitals and schools, and the Janjaweed burned crops and threw corpses into wells to contaminate the water. By the end of 2005, human rights groups estimated that 180,000 people had died and two million people were left homeless, while not a single Janjaweed member had been arrested for his crimes.
The United States has a hapless history of dealing with such Sudanese atrocities. On November 3, 1996, President Bill Clinton announced a ban on the importation of goods and services from Sudan. However he made an exception for gum Arabic, of which Darfur is a major source, because it was considered vital to the manufacture of soft drinks, adhesives and other products. On July 23, 2004, the US Congress passed a joint resolution declaring the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed guilty of genocide in Darfur, but by then the invasion and occupation of Iraq had led to the loss of US credibility and the US was unable to find allies for action. In a sad commentary on the Darfur catastrophes, in July 2005 Andrew Natsios of the US Agency for International Development
declared that the burning of villages in Darfur had all but ended…because there were no more
villages left to burn. A 2005 peace agreement with only one of several rebel factions failed to stem the fighting or the dislocation and deaths of civilians.
More recently, a March 2007
UN report said the situation in Darfur is “characterized by gross and systematic violations of human rights and grave breaches of international law.” It called for the UN Security Council to take “urgent” action to protect Darfur’s civilians, including the deployment of a joint UN/African Union force and the freezing of funds and assets owned by officials complicit in the attacks. Nevertheless, the Bashir government has repeatedly reneged on promises to protect civilians or allow others to do so.
Jan Pronk, a Dutch statesman who was the head of the UN mission in Sudan until Bashir expelled him, recently wrote that the Sudanese authorities have continued to “disregard Security Council resolutions, to break international agreements, to violate human rights and to feed and allow attacks on their own citizens. They could do all this without having to fear consequences. On the contrary, the Council and its members and the rest of the international community have been taken for a ride.”
Criminal prosecution has recently entered into the mix. On July 14, 2008, prosecutors at the
International Criminal Court (ICC) filed
ten charges of war crimes against al-Bashir, including three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. The ICC’s prosecutors alleged that Bashir “masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part” three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. A panel of ICC judges issued an
arrest warrant for Bashir on March 4, 2009. Bashir has responded with a statement denying any involvement and with an
order expelling international emergency aid groups, despite the fact that their presence in Darfur is the only reason thousands more have not died.
Comments