The State? Once every two years two people from Khartoum come to our place. One of them is a tax collector who asks us to pay- only Allah knows for what; we don’t have electricity, a school, a health care centre or even a dirt road. The second is an army officer who comes for our sons, recruiting them into the military to fight the SPLA/M. That’s the extent to which the State is interested in us.
- An anonymous South
Sudanese village leader.
This was a reply from a village leader of South Sudan when he was asked by an author about his understanding on ‘state’. He may not know the definitions given by Plato or Aristotle on state but knows the ‘working definition’ that emerged from his own context. I shall not discuss the definition of state but the context of the emergence of the newly born state of South Sudan. There are many explanations on the causes of emergence of South Sudan which evade many important factors like tribal conflicts, religious differences and many inclusive local dimensions. Here I shall try to explore those unearthed areas and explain in a nutshell.
Tribal dynamics from Libya to South Sudan
Sudan gained independence from Egypt and Britain in 1956. It suffered from seventeen years of civil war during the first Sudanese civil war period (1955–1972) followed by ethnic, religious and economic conflicts between the Muslim Arab and Arabized northern Sudanese and the mostly animist and Christian of southern Sudan from 1983 to 2005. In the year of 2005 a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the Sudanese government and the rebellious SPLM/A. This agreement helped the south Sudanese to decide for their independence through plebiscite.
To understand South Sudan we, first and foremost, ought to know the context of Africa. The present day Africa is a much talked about issue in the international arena because of it’s implications with various incidences like toppling of despotic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, continued war in Libya and birth of South Sudan as a newly independent state. This continent has a long history of colonial rules maintained by European powers. Because of different colonial rules and ruling systems, the African continent does not have very much similar systems of government. More importantly, Africa has diverse tribal and ethnic cultures, which were ignored by colonial powers in the past and has been continuing till date. This ignorance was no exception during the past Sudanese government. Here, not to mention that, the disparity between North Sudan and South Sudan had its legacy from British rule. The disparities were drawn across the tribal-cultural and religious fault lines. North and South Sudanese have differences in their tribal-cultural and religious systems. The Northern Sudanese are mainly Arab-Muslims while the Southern Sudanese are Christian-Animists. South Sudan as a nation is for all from majority Dinka and Nuer, Shulluk, Azande, Acholi, Kakwa, Shilifi, Bari, Lotuka and others regardless of their size. Northern Sudan ignored the rights of those tribal groups; rather, oppressed them, which culminated into civil war and finally ended in ‘two states solution’.
Now let me give another example where tribal discriminations worked as the main source of conflict between the government and the rebel groups. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi hails from a relatively small tribe called Gaddafa and maintains oppressive rule over other tribal groups. Members of the Gaddafa tribe have held many high-ranking government positions. Some members of larger tribes such as the Magariha, Misurata, and the Warfalla have sought to advance their broad interests through control of official positions of influence and some of their members have opposed the regime on grounds of tribal discrimination. Some Libyan military and security officials staged limited, unsuccessful coup attempts against Gaddafi in 1993 and 1996 based in part on tribal and familial rivalries. Unsuccessful plotters were sentenced to death. All these developments culminated to the present armed revolution against Gaddafi regime, which is now on the verge of collapse.
Wind of ‘two states solution’
Since the independence of South Sudan, there has been an option that seems very much relevant to solving many unresolved conflicts in many countries. ‘Two states solution’ is the option that may give us hope to bring an end to bloodshed in many countries. For Sudan ‘two states solution’ has given birth to world’s poorest nation – South Sudan. It brought an end to civil war conducted over five decades (1955-2005) and raised hope for the south Sudanese to change their fate with their own hands. This option is offered to Israel but it remains defiant. Now it seems that, in Libya, this option can be thrown to the negotiation table between Gaddafi and the rebel group ITNC (Interim Transitional National Council) where West Libya will belong to Gaddafi with Tripoli as the capital and East Libya to ITNC with Benghazi as its capital. But in a recent development the US state secretary Mrs. Clinton has given official recognition to ITNC as Libya‘s government. This policy is formulated to serve US interests, not Libyans’. In Libya a South Sudan like solution can be brought where Libyans will decide their fate thorough a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision. In that plebiscite people can be given two options from which to choose only one. Libyans have to decide whether they will stay under Gaddafi or want ITNC in power; and the next option will be to divide the country into two parts with two different rulers. At the end what is expected (and should be) that the fate of Libya is decided by its own people, not by outsiders.
- An anonymous South
Sudanese village leader.
This was a reply from a village leader of South Sudan when he was asked by an author about his understanding on ‘state’. He may not know the definitions given by Plato or Aristotle on state but knows the ‘working definition’ that emerged from his own context. I shall not discuss the definition of state but the context of the emergence of the newly born state of South Sudan. There are many explanations on the causes of emergence of South Sudan which evade many important factors like tribal conflicts, religious differences and many inclusive local dimensions. Here I shall try to explore those unearthed areas and explain in a nutshell.
Tribal dynamics from Libya to South Sudan
Sudan gained independence from Egypt and Britain in 1956. It suffered from seventeen years of civil war during the first Sudanese civil war period (1955–1972) followed by ethnic, religious and economic conflicts between the Muslim Arab and Arabized northern Sudanese and the mostly animist and Christian of southern Sudan from 1983 to 2005. In the year of 2005 a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the Sudanese government and the rebellious SPLM/A. This agreement helped the south Sudanese to decide for their independence through plebiscite.
To understand South Sudan we, first and foremost, ought to know the context of Africa. The present day Africa is a much talked about issue in the international arena because of it’s implications with various incidences like toppling of despotic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, continued war in Libya and birth of South Sudan as a newly independent state. This continent has a long history of colonial rules maintained by European powers. Because of different colonial rules and ruling systems, the African continent does not have very much similar systems of government. More importantly, Africa has diverse tribal and ethnic cultures, which were ignored by colonial powers in the past and has been continuing till date. This ignorance was no exception during the past Sudanese government. Here, not to mention that, the disparity between North Sudan and South Sudan had its legacy from British rule. The disparities were drawn across the tribal-cultural and religious fault lines. North and South Sudanese have differences in their tribal-cultural and religious systems. The Northern Sudanese are mainly Arab-Muslims while the Southern Sudanese are Christian-Animists. South Sudan as a nation is for all from majority Dinka and Nuer, Shulluk, Azande, Acholi, Kakwa, Shilifi, Bari, Lotuka and others regardless of their size. Northern Sudan ignored the rights of those tribal groups; rather, oppressed them, which culminated into civil war and finally ended in ‘two states solution’.
Now let me give another example where tribal discriminations worked as the main source of conflict between the government and the rebel groups. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi hails from a relatively small tribe called Gaddafa and maintains oppressive rule over other tribal groups. Members of the Gaddafa tribe have held many high-ranking government positions. Some members of larger tribes such as the Magariha, Misurata, and the Warfalla have sought to advance their broad interests through control of official positions of influence and some of their members have opposed the regime on grounds of tribal discrimination. Some Libyan military and security officials staged limited, unsuccessful coup attempts against Gaddafi in 1993 and 1996 based in part on tribal and familial rivalries. Unsuccessful plotters were sentenced to death. All these developments culminated to the present armed revolution against Gaddafi regime, which is now on the verge of collapse.
Wind of ‘two states solution’
Since the independence of South Sudan, there has been an option that seems very much relevant to solving many unresolved conflicts in many countries. ‘Two states solution’ is the option that may give us hope to bring an end to bloodshed in many countries. For Sudan ‘two states solution’ has given birth to world’s poorest nation – South Sudan. It brought an end to civil war conducted over five decades (1955-2005) and raised hope for the south Sudanese to change their fate with their own hands. This option is offered to Israel but it remains defiant. Now it seems that, in Libya, this option can be thrown to the negotiation table between Gaddafi and the rebel group ITNC (Interim Transitional National Council) where West Libya will belong to Gaddafi with Tripoli as the capital and East Libya to ITNC with Benghazi as its capital. But in a recent development the US state secretary Mrs. Clinton has given official recognition to ITNC as Libya‘s government. This policy is formulated to serve US interests, not Libyans’. In Libya a South Sudan like solution can be brought where Libyans will decide their fate thorough a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision. In that plebiscite people can be given two options from which to choose only one. Libyans have to decide whether they will stay under Gaddafi or want ITNC in power; and the next option will be to divide the country into two parts with two different rulers. At the end what is expected (and should be) that the fate of Libya is decided by its own people, not by outsiders.
This article was appeared first in the Daily sun on 28th July 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment