The Colonial Period: The Root Cause of the Politically Unstable State of the Sudan
Introduction
Between the 1870s and 1900, Africa faced a process of European aggression, invasion, and eventual conquest and colonization. The European imperialist push to take over Africa was driven by the industrial revolution and the hopes of becoming a world power. After two world wars, countries that had previously been colonized agitated for independence, and eventually colonial powers withdrew their administrators from Africa. For each African state, becoming independent meant something far more than simply gaining back territory. For some, it was the beginning of a stable government, a local economy and a cultural comeback. For others such as the Sudan, it was the start of tragic consequences driven by political conflicts and civil wars. Through the process of decolonization that began, African leaders worked to shape the character of their postcolonial state, usually either against the continued European cultural and political predominance, while others worked with European powers in order to maintain an economically and politically stable state. As the success of each nation and region of Africa widely varied after their independence, their progress also varied. Unfortunately, some are still struggling to overcome these crucial instabilities preventing them from being at peace within their own state, and internationally. By examining Sudan and the decades leading up to its current political, social, and economic state, this paper will highlight the ways in which colonialism has effectively shaped the state's current context. It will give an overview of the current conflict in the western region of Darfur within Sudan's political instability, civil wars, and crisis of identity. More specifically, it will aim at showing how colonialism left the state of Sudan in conflicts harmful to the country's growth, stability, and security, leading up to an ongoing genocide in Darfur.
Prior to Colonialism With a history of friction with the regions to its north, the conflicts of South Sudan were essentially a result of religious differences with the Muslim-dominated north. After Egypt conquered Sudan earlier in the century and began its colonization, the region was still limited in terms of who acquired its control. As the area fell to the Mahdist uprising, a revolt governed by a Muslim cleric named Muhammad Ahmad who preached himself as the restorer of faith and justice and the redeemer of the Islamic world, the British was preparing to take over the land that would soon become part of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. However, the territorial defeat of the Mahdist state in 1898 did not change the social and economic reality of the Northern Sudan. In fact, when the British colonized the Sudan, they found themselves faced with two fundamental concerns; the problem of slavery and the need for law and order in the Southern Sudan.
British Overrule After the Omdurman battle in 1898 that resulted in the Anglo-Egyptian force defeating the Mahdists, Sudan was divided into two supposed region- Arab North and African South (Idris 35). The collapse of the Mahdist State then presented the British government with the dilemma as to who should govern Sudan. As a mean to recover more territory within Sudan and secure the upper Nile waters, it was cleverly proposed to form a "hybrid" solution, embodied in the Anglo-Egyptian "Condominium" Agreement of 1899, by which Britain and Egypt would share sovereignty (Collins 33). This seemed to make certain of separating one ethnic group from another, while at once preventing the possibility of the state ever building a sense of national identity. As Amir H. Idris states in his book, "The new colonial power did not challenge and delegitimize the institution of slavery and the slave trade in the Sudan. Rather, the process of consolidating the colonial state formation forced the British administrators to tolerate it and work closely with the slave traders for several decades" (33). Over time, a tolerance for these existing practices only resulted from the fear of a revitalization of Mahdism within citizens, such as other forms of domination. The Sudan became an independent country on January 1, 1956, marking the outcome of a complex struggle with not only one imperial power, but two. Whereas most states in Africa gained freedom again by negotiating politically with their colonial master, Sudan had to free itself from two countries that ultimately ruled it jointly as a condominium, but were in fact at odds with each other on key issues including the fate of Sudan itself (qtd. in Ryle 86). The Sudan's pre-independence past is a history of colonialism in which the construction of racial, ethnic, and regional identities is genetically related to the process of state formation in the region. "This has a marked effect not only on the way the Sudan was governed, but on the way the Sudanese peoples responded government" (qtd. in Ryle 122).
Postcolonial State The first African territory administered by Britain to be granted independence after World War II, the Sudan was also the first to encounter civil wars post colonialism. When elections were held in Sudan in 1953, Egypt only accepted Sudan's independence on the condition that the South was removed of its administrative powers. This caused an outrageous and violent protest by the Southern Sudan known as the Torit Mutiny, a conflict that began in 1955 and that marked the beginning of the first civil war in Sudan. "Despite Southern Sudanese efforts demanding federalism to prevent northern occupation, the government decided to send its troops to the south in August 1955. The revolt of 1955 marked the first phase of the Sudan's civil war, which lasted 17 years" (Idris 50). As the British continued to resist giving up control over the Sudan, the transfer of power remained complicated. Although Egypt was giving up its own colonial past, it remained at once a major threat to British interests in the Sudan, as well as one of its strategic assets in the World War II period. At this point in time, the British manipulation under the Sudanese nationalist movement was simply part of the way of dealing with fears of a possible neo-Mahdism movement, or even the thought of an Egyptian-Sudan affiliation. If any unification within those civil powers were to ignite, the Sudan would effectively remain in a state of war for many more years. At the time of independence, the postcolonial state in the Sudan endured long periods of violent conflicts, which have resulted in great human suffering and the largest number of refugees and displaced peoples in Africa. The structure of the Sudanese state, its fundamental law, its institutions, and the basic divisions of power remained the same. Based on the notion that only a Muslim state can legitimately rule over a Muslim majority, successive military and civilian regimes was who exercised power. In fact, General Ibrahim Abbud was brought to power in 1958, ending the first two years of any governance over the state of the Sudan. "His policy of forced Islamization and Arabization was met with increasing violence, which led to the first civil war between a mostly Arab Muslim North and a prevalently African Christian/Animist South" (Paglia 4). While in the process of enforcing this newly vision of nation and state, acts of terror by a number of rebel groups have become the main response for the state-sponsored project of nation-building in the Sudan. With numerous issues of its nationhood still unresolved, the historical context of the construction of racial, ethnic, and regional identities in the Sudan seems unquestionably related to the position it is in today. Ultimately, one could argue that pre-colonial slavery and the forced separation of two heterogeneous groups have only contributed to the racial discrimination and the split of cultural societies entwined with the conflicting political and social issues of recent decades.
The First Civil War The Sudan emerged from Colonialism with a number of political and structural conflicts that resulted entirely by its historical and identity struggles. Social conflicts over interpretations of national identity have forced competing visions of nationalism. "In the case of Sudan, the transition from colonialism to political independence marked the beginning of political conflict, which revolved around three fundamental issues: the political conflict over the identity of the postcolonial state, the status of the Southern Sudan in the postcolonial state, and conflict over the nature of the conflict" (Idris 44). In 1972, the rebellion was ended by the Addid Ababa agreement negotiated between the government and the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM), which gave a higher degree of autonomy to the South.
The Second Civil War Although the emergence of the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region between 1972 and 1983 gained some sense of nationalism, it was quite inefficient in peacekeeping the divided groups. A second civil war mainly involving the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement eventually erupted in 1983, lasting up to twenty years. Under President Gaafar Nimeiry, it was the attempt of imposing Sharia law throughout the country that precipitating the Second Sudanese Civil War. In effect, this law was a way to pay service to religion in order for the government to gain legitimacy, while allowing it to apply punishment harshly and inconsistently whenever it felt the need. In addition to the previous civil war, this bloody conflict had its share of vicious killing and large-scale displacement of millions of Sudanese. However, apart from the hopeless political and social disasters of the time, one is still able to see the strength and courage of the ever-tough indigenous population of today. "Protests of students and grassroots, a strong feminist movement, the April 1985 Intifada Revolution that overthrew the Nimeiry regime and the struggle of numerous liberation groups have reminded us that the Sudanese are vigorously working on the building of a liberatory Sudan of equity and justice" (Madibbo 303). It was finally in 2002 when the conflict initiated peace talks, which resulted from the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on January 9, 2005. "The Comprehensive Peace Agreement established a six-year autonomy of the South, an even share from oil revenues between North and South, and the integration of rebels into the regular army" (Paglia 5). Although this meant the end of an incredibly long and damaging event in Sudan, the country was nearly done dealing with violent civil wars that involved two opposing groups.
Disaster in Darfur Darfur is a geopolitical frontier within the larger Sudanese state. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, Darfur has been a crucial representation of war, famine, plague, and essentially death. These recent political violence in the western region of Darfur demonstrates the complexity of the Sudan's tragedy. While the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) were negotiating to end the longest running civil war in the South, a new civil war erupted in the region of Darfur. The events that unfolded during the past decade were in part precipitated by poor government policies based on ideologies arising from the nation's past, and its constant denial of the racism built within its multi-cultural and ethnic state. In fact, studies of the north-south conflict have closely examined the Nimeiri legacy, said to have effectively led to the ruin of the state. Economists and political economists have termed the Nimeiri years as an exceptionally important period for studying the failures of the development policies that sent Sudan into an economic crisis in the 1980s (Niblock 250). Whether this had any influence on the events of Darfur or not, the citizens were at least not ready to accept ignorance from the federal government. In 2003, two armed movements, the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equite Movement (JEM), began a rebellion against government policies in Khartoum, the start of a struggle that the United Nations would later call the world's worst humanitarian crisis. "Unlike the SPLA/M, both movements do not demand self-determination. Instead, they seek equitable development, land rights, social and public services, democracy, and regional autonomy" (Idris 78). Although Darfur's uprising efforts against the government showed early success against Khartoum's regular military forces, its success had terrible consequences. "In response to the rebellion, the Islamized and Arabized government in Khartoum mobilized and armed a militia group, known as the Janjaweed, employing scorched-earth, massacre, and starvation as strategies to defeat the rebel groups" (Idris 78). With the killing of innocent civilians and the displacement of many more, this situation has been described by many, including the U.S. Congress, as "genocide" (Kessler and Lynch 2004). At the start of this unfolding humanitarian crisis, it did not seem as though the international population was preparing to intervene. However, with thousands of victims and almost 2 million people displaced, this conflict has certainly made it to the central stage of international issues, whether purposely or not. Entwined in a complexity of issues and instability, it is important to understand the history of Darfur within its context. "The inability (or unwillingness) of outsiders - international actors, the media, and humanitarian organizations - to fully comprehend and address the panoply of historical facts has created a barrier to understanding and accounting for the roots of the well-documented "crime against humanity"" (Iyob 133). In fact, the disaster in Darfur is not some spontaneous eruption against neglect, misgovernment, and racism, but rather the recent struggle of the forty-year tragic conflict of the great basin of Lake Chad. Today, as in the past, Darfur represents a crucial trait that has been recurring within the Sudan societies. It is a continual dynamic producing a hybrid of people and groups. "One of the most widely circulated claims about the conflict in Darfur is that the Arabs who inhabit the north are guilty of ethnic cleansing against an African population that inhabit the south of the province" (Bassil 24). Although its historical events are as complex as any other social and political instability in the Sudan, the conflict of Darfur was triggered by Khartoum's failure, Sudan's capital, to respond to the desperate economic needs of this huge region, the decayed judiciary, the lack of political representation, and in particular the growing impunity on the part of Arab raiders that gave rise to the full-scale armed conflict (Reeves 2005). The non-Arab or African tribal groups of Darfur that have ultimately been the victims of this civil war have long been politically and economically marginalized. In fact, based on competition between Arab and African tribal groups over the scarce primary resources in Darfur-arable land and water, this conflict was not directly related to the 21-year civil conflict that was currently ending between the North and the South Sudan.
A Historical Impact on The Crisis in Darfur Many have argued the simplicity between the civil wars of Sudan, casting the conflict in terms of south versus north or African against Arab. As it may seem simple to generalize the reason for the current situation in Darfur, it could be argued that the colonial discourse was perhaps its biggest impact of all. While initially dividing the country into two distinct racial, cultural, and religious entities, it is likely that such separation caused the display of national crisis that has devastated the country for decades. With a long history and politics associated with the process of the state formation, perhaps it is European colonialism that sits at the root of this national conflict. However, when war broke out in 2003, those who leaned towards the religious or racial factors in determining the reasoning behind the war were unable to make sense of the violence in Darfur. Since the people of Darfur were devoted Muslims as well as Arab in the context of the north-south conflict, it only proved that in both perceptions, history and politics had been removed from the context of the conflict. Instead, each group was competing for history and identity within the context of Sudan. "Neither race, nor culture is at the center of the current Sudan's crisis. Instead, it is the racialized postcolonial state that imposed a single vision of nation through the policy of Arabization and Islamization" (Idris 81). Unlike the events of the 1980s when the state failed to protect its citizens, the war in Darfur has been one for the control of the state. Such wars in Africa have historically been proven the most stubborn and brutal of wars, and the one in Darfur is no exception. As the United Nations state, more than 200,000 people have been estimated to have died, with at least 2 million displaced from their homes since the fighting broke out in 2003 (United Nations, 2007). With atrocities such as murders of innocent civilians and the raping of women and girls, this ethnic devastation became a huge international concern and eventually, a priority.
Conclusion
Historically, the political violence in the Sudan was often assumed through ethnical or religious conflicts. In turn, this has led many scholars and policy makers to propose liberal democracy and ethnic or regional arrangements as a solution to the crisis of citizenship in postcolonial Africa. However, perhaps the persistent violence within the Sudan is not only driven by ethnic loyalties or ancient group hatred, but of economic crisis and revolt against the government as well. The crisis of the postcolonial state and the constant spread of political violence in the Sudan could have been triggered by its circumstances during colonialism. With a long history of various ethnic, racial and religious groups within the territories of Sudan, it is not entirely shocking that the political leaders could barely keep up with the changing perceptions of its citizens from the result of the wars, displacement, and immigration. While there is current stability within the newly divided countries, it is difficult to predict in which direction the people of the Sudan and South Sudan will go next. Political leaders among the Southern Sudanese and the people of Darfur must look outward, and embrace the groups that share different visions of democratic citizenship. It is important for the state to construct a transformative framework eliminating the constant dualism between the subjects and the citizens that occurred during the colonial period. Perhaps the national government should also consider developing a de-racialized democratic regime, one that will overcome the historical grievances of its citizens, and prevent any other conflicts from arising. Although independence was finally granted to South Sudan last year, the states cannot continue to ignore the needs of their people for the creation of a peace process between its various cultural groups. If this ignorance occurs, other movements such as the ones in Darfur will most likely form within different regions of the country, allowing for deeper crisis to form once again.

Works Cited
Bassil, Noah H. "The Crisis of the Sudanese: Post-colonial State and Conflict in Darfur". Diss. Macquarie University. Sept 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
Collins, Robert O. A History of Modern Sudan. University of California: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.
Idris, Amir. Conflict And Politics of Identity in Sudan. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Print.
Iyob, Ruth and Gilbert M. Khadiagala. Sudan: The Elusive Quest for Peace. United States of America: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006. Print.
Kessler, Gleen and Colum Lynch. "U.S. Calls Killings In Sudan Genocide." The Washington Post. 10 Sept. 2004: A01. Web. 11 Nov. 2012.
Madibbo, Amal Ibrahim. "Conflict and the conceptions of identities in the Sudan" Calgary: Sage Publications, 2012. 302-319. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
Niblock, Tim. "Class and Power in Sudan: The Dynamics of Sudanese Politics, 1898- 1985" New York: State University of New York Press, 1987. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
Paglia, Pamela. "Ethnicity and Tribalism: are these the Root Causes of the Sudanese Civil Conflicts? African conflicts and the Role of Ethnicity: a Case Study of Sudan" Africa Economic Analysis: 12 April 2007. 1-37. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
Reeves, Eric. "Genocide in Darfur: How the Horror Began" Sudan Tribune Plural News and Views on Sudan. 3 Sept. 2005. Web. 11 Nov. 2012.
Ryle, John, and Justin Willis, eds. The Sudan Handbook. New York: Boydell & Brewer, 2011. Print.
United Nations. The United Nations and Darfur: Fact Sheet. The Peace and Security Section of the United Nations Department of Public Information. August 2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.