FINAL for REVISION

Case Analysis: SUDAN; CONFLICT IN FINDING PEACE Sudan & South Sudan Darfur, crisis in Sudan, genocide and displacement; have all come to be social synonyms of what the UN calls “world’s worst humanitarian crisis”. This case analysis will be presenting concepts and theories that will shed light as to causes and assess if international intervention has been effective and appropriate. The international sentiment is that the Sudan conflict is as simple as one group against another. But different is the actual events when looking at history of the current crisis. In 1970 oil in Sudan was discovered. Beginning on 1983 civil war erupted over the power struggles of the natural resources. By 2005 a peace agreement had been signed. This resulted in south Sedan politically withdrawing formally. This has stressed economic adjustments internally and externally. At a first glance the crisis is often labeled as being caused by an identity factor; religion, ethnicity against ethnicity, “ethnic hatred”. But a thorough analysis of this case exposes that it goes beyond the first glance. In this conflict, conflict the ethnic hatred justification of war does not suffice or explain of a crisis of this magnitude. Yes, there has been friction amongst local groups but no more than the conflicts stemming from globalization. Globalization would be best described as international actions affecting a domestic situation. Parties that hold external, political, economic agendas force resolutions that do not heal the core reasons for the internal conflict. These policies, interventions and enforcements have caused a great deal of frustration, aggression and violence, which deepens the conflict between the people, their government and the international community. In the case of Sudan, globalization has greatly contributed to both “Negative Peace” and to the problem and deficiency of “Basic Human Needs”: both resulting from not respecting other parties “self”. The study will discuss some of the multiple factors that are responsible in creating this perfect storm for the explosion of war and violence we have seen in the Sudan crisis. Applying a Social Conflict Theory to the Sudan crisis identifies the frame of the conflict in terms of globalization. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), oil represented around 57 percent of Sudan's total government revenue and around 78 percent of export earnings in 2011, while it represented around 98 percent of total government revenues for South Sudan in 2011. With the government getting rich off of the oil production and exportation while the citizens work for very little money to no wage, resentment brewed over the years. The problem does not stop at citizens against their government. It has an added player; the U.S and other countries with an interest for that oil. Charges have been raised against the Sudan government followed by forced peace agreements and sanctions. There is much complexity in the relationship between the United States and Sudan. Many citizens of Sudan and their government have voiced concern that the United States “concern” over Sudan and their initiatives for reforms is a plan to ultimately weaken their governmental, financial and territorial unrest. This can be supported by their relations; specifically economic/business suffering greatly since 1997 dues to insistence on Sudan’s conforming to U.S. policies and sanctions. Yes, the United States has been very proactive in supplying the Sudanese with humanitarian aid. A need perpetuated from the actions of the United States that affect the political, economic and social environment of their country. Along with the U.S. humanitarian aid there was pressure for an iron fist to be delivered by the United Nations and other agencies. United States and other countries were welcoming of the Comprehensive Peace agreement, passed on January 9.2005. The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) followed on May 5, 2006. All this while the United Nations Security Council drew a resolution on March 2005 and 2006 which dealt with the concerns about Sudan’s protracted conflicts. On September 11, 2006 the United States effectively pumped up their authority by pushing for approval of a United Nations Peacekeeping Operations in Darfur. This has given the United States power in imposing economic sanctions against Sudan. The United States also pushed for the UN Security Council Resolution 1769 on July 31, 2007, which obliges quick and immediate deployment of a joint African Union/United Nations joint peacekeeping force to Darfur. This is all the groundwork for citizens of Sudan and their government to reaffirm their suspicion that the United States “concern” over Sudan and their initiatives for reforms is a plan to ultimately weaken their governmental, financial and territorial unrest. Ultimately these initiatives stress the Sudanese government, the United States then acquire control with international support in the name of human rights. In turn the United States gains power over Sudan’s political environment, affecting their economy, land use and oil. This type of international efforts for peace can be viewed as “Negative Peace”. Negative peace is not a true resolution to the conflict. Considering that the peace processes have been brought by interest in the country’s economic strength which is oil. The sanctions punish Sudan financially and business. The peace approach taken on by outside governments have only looked to end the violence and left out ending the injustices and abuses which created the violence. It will not be a real and reconciled peace until the grievances are acknowledged and resolved. There will be continued marginalization of wealth if the issue of non-wage workers in the oil industry is not solved. This marginalization is a cause in the internal conflict between citizens and government. This is followed by the conflict between the Sudanese government and the international community (the external actors) which forces their methods in an ineffective push for peaceful resolution.. The international intervention has bolstered the globalization of this issue. The situation of globalization frustrates both the government and its citizens. Outside of their own internal issues, the Sudanese have to worry about unwelcomed changes that do not support their need to cure their core problems. Peace is forced but mostly ineffective because it does not address their needs. The ineffectiveness of such “resolutions” or changes towards peace may be seen in history: In 1989 the Sudanese government was overthrown by a military coup. The coup was led by Omar al-Bashir who became the president of the nation. He was claimed to be the savior and to end conflict. When one government replaces another in efforts to change things but fails to fulfill needs and grievances of the collective it is not real peace and brings about more conflict because of its failure to deliver on its promises. Since the coming of power of the new government, there have been regular deployments of troops, tanks and armies that turn against the people of Sudan. The government has bombed areas to clear lands for oil exploitation. This is the consequence of a resolution that was drawn with an interested party with an agenda other than to meet the needs of the parties in the conflict. The conflict was merely used as a vessel to obtain power, strengthening their power. The frustration of the Sudanese citizens promotes an emergence of collective action. Frustration leads to aggression then to direct violence. There, a collective discontent is found. Basic needs and human rights are not respected by their government and self-governance is denied to Sudan on an international platform. The values of self are disrespected to both the citizens by the government and to Sudan by the United States. There is no accordance or satisfaction as to the administration and benefits of the oil export. The government holds dominance over its citizen’s quality of life in every aspect and the U.S. hold control over Sudan’s state within the international community. The Sudanese citizen’s basic human needs have been denied to them by government and rebel organizations. The word “genocide” has been the word of choice of the United States, concerning the crisis in Darfur. This term has been exploited successfully in militarizing Sudan’s oil region. Anyone can easily acknowledge the facts of deaths, misery and displacements. But the United States is not even willing to look at their role in the conflict. A human rights stance is proposed with that term. This is met with international acceptance of charging Sudan with genocide. It puts pressure from the world to Sudan for serious regimen change. The international sentiment gives way for organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and by affiliation, the United States, authority over Sudan’s political, social and economic affairs. The term is being widely used and exploited as a human rights issue from organizations governments and even celebrities wich have great manipulation of the public’s decision on supporting an issue or not. Attempts to sensationalize the human rights abuse have really obstructed true progress in resolving this conflict. The United States government insists on politicalizing the conflict, punishing the government and forgets to address the real underlying issues; denial of basic needs and globalizing the issue. Wile the United States insisted that genocide had been ongoing in Darfur, a five persons committee from the United Nations (UN) concluded that in 2004, genocide had not been committed, but definitely very serious abuses to human rights have been inflicted. Had the international community been focused on the real issues of conflict from the beginning, millions of lives could have been saved by addressing the crimes against the people that violated their rights. People are being murdered and displaced. This strips them of their need economic and physical security. The obvious deprivation would be one’s life. Along with the fear to lose their lives, Sudanese flee. Being displaced takes away any economic security they previously had. The Sudanese suffer from a complex mixture of losing their rights of being secured from malnutrition and the blockage of those needs being met by their own government. The combination of violence towards the people by government and conflict-generated famine has caused millions of deaths in the decades of conflict. This humanitarian issue has escalated to an extreme crisis as Sudan’s government and rebel groups threaten food supplies. Because of globalization, the local authority policies conflict with international groups that bring aid. The Sudanese government has prohibited humanitarian aid groups in certain areas because they fear that the aid organizations will in some way support the rebels. With millions of people depending on aid to survive, this is a disaster to the famine conditions many experience because of displacement and the murder of their providers. The humanitarian crisis in particular denies citizens of recognition; adding frustration and anger to the conflict. People are not part of society. They have no say in obtaining their basic needs such as food. Identity plays such a major factor with the governments inside and outside the country having a power play on what is to be done. The Sudanese government refuses to address and resolve the human rights crisis. People are being displaced and murdered every day. In June 2005 the International Criminal Court (ICC) set out investigations concerning human right violations in Darfur. This just echoed the ongoing conflict; Sudanese government refused to cooperate in these investigations. All the while almost three million people remain in internally displaced persons camps. People continue to be murdered daily and millions depend on humanitarian aid to survive. With Sudan having been through several peace agreements, the question must be asked: have the peace agreements and resolutions ended Sudan’s conflict? The answer is “no”. There is a clear absence of reconciliation within these agreements and resolutions. The agreements only represent what the government needs to cease doing or needs to do but do not resolve people’s needs. This is even more so damaging to the conflict because it reassures that the agreements will end the conflict and have failed to do so. These agreements and resolutions have been handed to Sudan by governments outside their own to impose peace in Sudan. The vast take away from these resolutions and agreements increase the authority and power of the international community over Sudan and its citizens. That does not resolve anything; rather it adds insult to injury. Assessing this case the study concludes that international intervention in the Sudan conflict has been neither effective nor appropriate. The intervention is full of political agendas, denying reconciliation to the people making the international attempts most damaging. Best said by Edward Azar. “The patterns of linkages in the international system...force states to ‘pursue both domestic & foreign policies disjoined from or contradictory to the needs of its own public.” Bibliography Levy, M. (2008). Beyond Darfur: Sudan in its Entirety. Africa Action , 1-12. Efuk, S. (2000). ‘Humanitarianism that Harms’: A Critique of NGO Charity in Southern Sudan. Civil Wars, 3(3), 45. “Sudan’s Man-Made Catastrophe” United to End Genocide Report July 2012 Human Rights Watch,,http://www.hrw.org/africa/sudan International Crisis Group, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/sudan.aspx El-Affendi, Abdel Wahhab (1990), op. cit., p. 372. Burton, J.W. (1990) Conflict: Human Needs theory, London and New York: MacMillioan and St. Martin’s Press Slater, Philip (1955). Role Differentiation in Small Groups, New York: Knofp, p.76. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. 1980. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. New York: Academic Press. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP27.HTM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/28/statement-president-announcing-appointment-ambassador-donald-booth-us-sp http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SU D'Abreu, S. (2011). Oil transparency would start south sudan off on right foot. (). Albuquerque: Inter-Hemispheric Resource Center Press. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/878735468?accountid=14541 Fake, S., & Funk, K. (2009, 04). Uncertainty in sudan. In these Times, 33, 23-25,5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195848909?accountid=14541