Some History

To get a handle on South Sudan today, we have to look at some history. First, however, a disclaimer: Almost everything about South Sudan is contested. For example, its problems are usually described in ethnic terms – yet ethnic, racial, and “tribal” groupings are not necessarily fixed, and have a long history of being used by colonial (and post-colonial) powers to define, control, and often divide subject peoples. This reasonably calls into question their contemporary use as explanatory categories. Similarly, while a division you will frequently see in writings about Sudan - “North/Muslim/Arab” vs. “South/Christian and Animist/African” - may have some historical and cultural basis, it is also true that, for a very long time, power and money have been centered in the north while the south has been subjugated and left undeveloped. So perhaps it is these differences, more than any religious or cultural ones, that have led to the tensions between the two regions.

I do not have the time, and I most certainly do not have the expertise, to sort through all of these questions. In what follows, I will do my best to give you a narrative that makes sense to me. I am not claiming, however, to give you the last word on any of it. I am always open to correction, and to learning more, from anyone who knows the country better than I do.

That said, let’s start at the beginning – or a beginning. Back in the early part of the 20^th century, Sudan, like so much of Africa, was ruled and administered by outsiders. On paper, in Sudan’s case, it was Egypt and Britain that jointly controlled the country; in practice, Britain had the upper hand. (Remember learning, maybe in some college class years ago, about “Kitchener,” “Khartoum,” and a dauntless campaign to defeat “the Mahdi”? That was the Brits in Sudan in the late 19^th century.)

The histories of the southern and northern parts of Sudan had diverged widely during the colonial period. Southern Sudan (culturally more a part of sub-Saharan Africa, with religion typically described as “Christian and animist”) had, for an extended period in the 19^th century, been seen largely as a reserve of captive labor to be exploited by northern slave traders. Even in the 20^th century, the region received significantly less investment – and was less integrated into the “modern” money economy – than the north. Thus, at the time of independence in 1956, northern Sudan (culturally more a part of the Arab world, and Muslim) was economically and politically dominant, and no workable approach had been found for bringing the two regions into greater parity. The result was that, from independence onward, the north and south fell into a civil war.

In 1969, a communist/socialist coup brought Colonel Gaafar Muhammad Nimeiri to power in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. He quickly found himself isolated, having alienated both the traditional, “right-wing,” Islamist elite and the communists, whom he purged after a failed coup. To shore up his own power, he turned both to Sudan’s neighbors (peace deals with Ethiopia and Uganda) and to the south, ending the civil war and attempting to assure southern loyalty via a 1972 peace agreement granting regional autonomy. And for a decade or so, it worked. During this time, however, two things happened: Nimeiri concluded that he needed support from northern groups more than from the south, and – in 1979 – oil was discovered in southern Sudan, making the region more attractive to hold on to. The end result was that in 1983, Nimeiri (the former secular socialist!) unilaterally abrogated the peace treaty, eliminated regional autonomy, made Arabic the official national language, and started an Islamicization campaign. In the south, the civil war resumed.

Over the next 20 years, Sudan endured coups leading to increasingly radical Islamicization and increasing alienation of neighboring countries and of non-Muslim groups and regions within Sudan itself. Support for the southern cause deepened, and, despite attempts from Khartoum to set southerners against one another along ethnic lines, a united southern front – the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) – emerged. 1993 saw the launching of a multilateral regional effort at reconciliation and, although the war continued, and Khartoum was somewhat successful at concluding separate peace deals with various factions, in July 2002 Khartoum and the SPLM/A came to an initial agreement. The final Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), ending the second phase of the civil war, came into force in early 2005.

Along with provisions to do with power sharing, elections, economic matters, etc., the CPA called for a referendum in which southern Sudanese could decide whether to remain in Sudan proper or secede to form a separate country. The referendum was held, on schedule, in January 2011. According to official resuts, 98% of elegible voters participated, and 99% of them voted for independence. And so, on July 9, 2011, the new nation of South Sudan was born.

Which all sounds relatively hopeful. Next time: Why there is still a crisis in the country, 5 years later.