Gabe O'Friel
Mr. Mettee
European Studies
30 March 2011
The first point of contact with Sudan was during the time when the Suez Canal was created and opened in 1869. However, the Turks defeated Egypt in 1821, took over Northern Sudan, and soon after began trade in the southern regions of Sudan, which were previously unaffected by outside nations. During the entire time period from the Turkish influence until Sudan gained independence in 1956, there was a large amount of rivalry between Egypt and Britain. This Turko-Egyptian influence began with the invasion in 1820 under Muhammad Ali of northern Sudan. While there, they allowed the taking of male slaves to be sold in other locations. To counter this, in the 1870’s, Britain attempted to diminish this slave trade. When Egypt attempted to position armies in present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia, “these plans for Egyptian imperial expansion crumbled after Egypt went bankrupt in 1876 and yielded to British and French financial regulation” (Benjamin 1060). Not surprisingly, Britain occupied Egypt just six years after this and Egyptian nationalists failed to remove this British presence. It went so far that “French and British administrators were already serving in the Egyptian government at this time” (Stokes 657). Resenting this occupation of his country, Muhammad Ahmad told his people that he would remove the foreign presence from Egypt. “By the end of 1898 the Mahdists had been defeated and Britain established an Anglo-Egyptian administration over the whole of Sudan” (657). At this point, the Anglo-Egyptian influence in Sudan was little to none, and Britain took over the affairs of the country. Because they knew that the northern and southern regions of Sudan had very distinct cultures, they separated it into two administrative regions. The plan at first was this: to give independence to the northern state of Sudan but to maintain southern Sudan as a British possession. However, as Jamie Stokes says, “Britain reversed this decision and reintegrated the north and south under a single administrative authority in the north” (658). Less than a year before independence was granted to Sudan, a civil war broke out. In 1955 a group of army officers in southern Sudan rebelled because less than ten percent of administrative positions were given to politicians of the south. Then, on January 1 of 1956, independence was granted to Sudan.
How did Britain do when they decolonized Sudan? The slow preparation for independence, beginning in 1943, seemed promising. In a vote during the early 1950’s, “Sudanese parliamentarians ultimately chose separate autonomy” (Benjamin 1062). However, this was later disregarded when Britain chose to unify Sudan, removing the cultural barrier between the north and the south that had been present for so long, which seemed a bit risky, but was a good step towards helping Sudan properly gain its independence. In 1948, the British created the Sudanese “Legislative Assembly for the whole of Sudan [that] was established in Khartoum” (Stokes 658). However, this Assembly was conducted in the language of northern Sudan, Arabic, and was made up of ninety percent northerners. This led to the “civil war that was to seriously hamper Sudan’s development for decades to come” (658). Ultimately, it seems that the preparations and intentions of the British were good, but it was not what the Sudanese people of the time wanted. Because of this, the British would receive a B for their decolonization.
Due to the manner in which independence was received by Sudan, the years following were rough. Power changed hands multiple times in the few years after the Sudanese gained independence, and in 1958, “A military coup led by General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the civilian government of Prime Minister Abd Allah Khalil” (Nations of the World 1578). Abboud declared martial law and that he was dictator, banning all political parties and trade unions in doing so. These political parties that he banned formed to create the United Front (UP) and the Professional Front (PF). These newly formed coalitions opposed Abboud and made him resign in 1964 in the ‘October Revolution’. A new parliamentary system was put into place, but it was “poorly organized…and weakened by the continuing civil war in the south” (Stokes 658). Five years later, the military took control again led by Jafar Numayri during the ‘May Revolution’. Upset with this change, the Anyana Rebellion, a southern rebel army, aimed to create self-rule for southern Sudan. However, the military stopped this rebellion 1985, continuing to rule for another five years. This rebellion seemed to have good motives and strove to provide liberty and the ability to rule themselves for the south. Then, general Umar Bashir took control and his Revolutionary Command Council “abolished the National Assembly, disbanded political parties, trade unions, and newspapers, and banned strikes, demonstrations, and all public gatherings” (658). Basically, his regime restricted the liberties of his people, which is what the Anayana Rebellion had been fighting for. Due to the large amount of conflict between the north and the south, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army were formed. The SPLA gained much control of the south and “waged a continuous guerilla war against government forces until a cease-fire was finally agreed to in 2002” (Stokes 658). While the end to this war was approaching, the next war was just around the corner. “In 2003 rebel groups in the Western Darfur region of Sudan, principally the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, began a second campaign against the government” (658) accused the government of ignoring the development of the Western Darfur region and the “non-Arab” population. The war in Darfur “killed between 200,000 and 400,000 people in five years and displaced as many as 2.5 million persons” (659). After this conflict, Sudan was devastated, and remained a divided state. The diversity between the northern and southern regions of Sudan is just as evident today as they were during the beginning of its independence. There are many different languages and ethnic groups in Sudan, and it “is still regarded as one of the most ethnically diverse nations in Africa” (659). Due to the extreme complications and shifts in power since Sudan was granted independence, Sudan handled its independence very poorly. Sudan would receive a D for the way in which it handled its independence.
To understand Sudan’s foreign relations, it is first necessary to look at its geography. Sudan is bordered to the north by Egypt and Libya, to the west by Chad and the Central African Republic, to the south by the Congo, Uganda, and Kenya, and to the east by Ethiopia and Eritrea. Along with this, the country has a large amount of the Nile River running southward and has a 309-mile border of the Red sea. Because of this, Sudan is in an interesting position for foreign relations as it is surrounded by nine nations of Africa and borders the Nile, through which ten percent of world trade is carried. Just a few years before Sudan gained its independence, “The United States of America was more concerned that competition between Britain and Egypt might thwart its plans for new defense arrangements in the region. Washington was more concerned with the bigger picture from its own perspective and did not want the ongoing quarrel between the Condominium powers on the question of Sudan to abort its efforts” (Sidahmed 66). At this point in history, the U.S. only cared about Sudanese affairs if they would affect their own later on. Sudan itself, on the other hand, wanted to go about foreign relations in a not-allied way. Leaders of Sudan thought that in doing so, they would “be on better terms with Arab and African countries. As such it attended the 1955 Bandung non-Aligned conference, joined the United Nations in 1956 and the Arab League the same year, and was a founding member of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963” (66). However, during the early 1980’s, under the leadership of Nimeiri, the ties between the United States and Sudan became strong. Nimeiri was “reliant on support from the outside world, particularly the USA” (69). The United States saw Sudan as a strategic ally, and because of this, Sudan became the “top recipient of US aid in Africa south of the Sahara” (69). Sudan had strong ties at this point with Egypt as well, but lost the trust of many neighboring African nations. However, after the fall of Neimiri, Sudan was beginning to be a liability for the U.S., rather than a strategic ally because of civil wars and general instability. As stated by Abdel Sidahmed, ” Relations with the US continued to deteriorate, reflecting on one hand the drop in strategic importance of the country and on the other the general decrease in US aid to Africa. Sudan’s share of military and economic aid fell from close to $500 million in 1985 to $125 million in 1986 and merely $70 million in 1987” (71). While Sudan’s foreign relations at this time were looking weak, they improved dramatically during the Darfur crisis. In 2007, “The UN voted for a UN peace-keeping force to be sent to Sudan to bolster African Union (AU) troops already deployed in Darfur to protect civilians” (1579). Not only the UN provided support, but also the International Criminal Court (ICC) helped to remove President Al-Bashir from power. In March of 2009, “The ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of President Bashir on two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity” (1579). Throughout the time since Sudan gained its independence, it had at least some support from foreign nations. These nations provided monetary or physical support in their attempts to help Sudan overcome civil strife. For this, the international community would receive a B+.
Word Count: 1573
Works Cited Benjamin, Thomas. "Sudan, Egyptian and British Rivalry in." Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450. Michigan: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 1060-062. Print.
Sidahmed, Abdel S. "Sudan." Questia.com. 2004. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Stokes, Jamie. "Sudanese: Nationality (people of Sudan)." Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. New York: Facts On File, 2009. 654-59. Print.
"Sudan." Nations of the World: A Political, Economic, and Business Handbook. Amenia: Grey House, 2010. 1578-579. Print.
Mr. Mettee
European Studies
30 March 2011
The first point of contact with Sudan was during the time when the Suez Canal was created and opened in 1869. However, the Turks defeated Egypt in 1821, took over Northern Sudan, and soon after began trade in the southern regions of Sudan, which were previously unaffected by outside nations. During the entire time period from the Turkish influence until Sudan gained independence in 1956, there was a large amount of rivalry between Egypt and Britain. This Turko-Egyptian influence began with the invasion in 1820 under Muhammad Ali of northern Sudan. While there, they allowed the taking of male slaves to be sold in other locations. To counter this, in the 1870’s, Britain attempted to diminish this slave trade. When Egypt attempted to position armies in present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia, “these plans for Egyptian imperial expansion crumbled after Egypt went bankrupt in 1876 and yielded to British and French financial regulation” (Benjamin 1060). Not surprisingly, Britain occupied Egypt just six years after this and Egyptian nationalists failed to remove this British presence. It went so far that “French and British administrators were already serving in the Egyptian government at this time” (Stokes 657). Resenting this occupation of his country, Muhammad Ahmad told his people that he would remove the foreign presence from Egypt. “By the end of 1898 the Mahdists had been defeated and Britain established an Anglo-Egyptian administration over the whole of Sudan” (657). At this point, the Anglo-Egyptian influence in Sudan was little to none, and Britain took over the affairs of the country. Because they knew that the northern and southern regions of Sudan had very distinct cultures, they separated it into two administrative regions. The plan at first was this: to give independence to the northern state of Sudan but to maintain southern Sudan as a British possession. However, as Jamie Stokes says, “Britain reversed this decision and reintegrated the north and south under a single administrative authority in the north” (658). Less than a year before independence was granted to Sudan, a civil war broke out. In 1955 a group of army officers in southern Sudan rebelled because less than ten percent of administrative positions were given to politicians of the south. Then, on January 1 of 1956, independence was granted to Sudan.
How did Britain do when they decolonized Sudan? The slow preparation for independence, beginning in 1943, seemed promising. In a vote during the early 1950’s, “Sudanese parliamentarians ultimately chose separate autonomy” (Benjamin 1062). However, this was later disregarded when Britain chose to unify Sudan, removing the cultural barrier between the north and the south that had been present for so long, which seemed a bit risky, but was a good step towards helping Sudan properly gain its independence. In 1948, the British created the Sudanese “Legislative Assembly for the whole of Sudan [that] was established in Khartoum” (Stokes 658). However, this Assembly was conducted in the language of northern Sudan, Arabic, and was made up of ninety percent northerners. This led to the “civil war that was to seriously hamper Sudan’s development for decades to come” (658). Ultimately, it seems that the preparations and intentions of the British were good, but it was not what the Sudanese people of the time wanted. Because of this, the British would receive a B for their decolonization.
Due to the manner in which independence was received by Sudan, the years following were rough. Power changed hands multiple times in the few years after the Sudanese gained independence, and in 1958, “A military coup led by General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the civilian government of Prime Minister Abd Allah Khalil” (Nations of the World 1578). Abboud declared martial law and that he was dictator, banning all political parties and trade unions in doing so. These political parties that he banned formed to create the United Front (UP) and the Professional Front (PF). These newly formed coalitions opposed Abboud and made him resign in 1964 in the ‘October Revolution’. A new parliamentary system was put into place, but it was “poorly organized…and weakened by the continuing civil war in the south” (Stokes 658). Five years later, the military took control again led by Jafar Numayri during the ‘May Revolution’. Upset with this change, the Anyana Rebellion, a southern rebel army, aimed to create self-rule for southern Sudan. However, the military stopped this rebellion 1985, continuing to rule for another five years. This rebellion seemed to have good motives and strove to provide liberty and the ability to rule themselves for the south. Then, general Umar Bashir took control and his Revolutionary Command Council “abolished the National Assembly, disbanded political parties, trade unions, and newspapers, and banned strikes, demonstrations, and all public gatherings” (658). Basically, his regime restricted the liberties of his people, which is what the Anayana Rebellion had been fighting for. Due to the large amount of conflict between the north and the south, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army were formed. The SPLA gained much control of the south and “waged a continuous guerilla war against government forces until a cease-fire was finally agreed to in 2002” (Stokes 658). While the end to this war was approaching, the next war was just around the corner. “In 2003 rebel groups in the Western Darfur region of Sudan, principally the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, began a second campaign against the government” (658) accused the government of ignoring the development of the Western Darfur region and the “non-Arab” population. The war in Darfur “killed between 200,000 and 400,000 people in five years and displaced as many as 2.5 million persons” (659). After this conflict, Sudan was devastated, and remained a divided state. The diversity between the northern and southern regions of Sudan is just as evident today as they were during the beginning of its independence. There are many different languages and ethnic groups in Sudan, and it “is still regarded as one of the most ethnically diverse nations in Africa” (659). Due to the extreme complications and shifts in power since Sudan was granted independence, Sudan handled its independence very poorly. Sudan would receive a D for the way in which it handled its independence.
To understand Sudan’s foreign relations, it is first necessary to look at its geography. Sudan is bordered to the north by Egypt and Libya, to the west by Chad and the Central African Republic, to the south by the Congo, Uganda, and Kenya, and to the east by Ethiopia and Eritrea. Along with this, the country has a large amount of the Nile River running southward and has a 309-mile border of the Red sea. Because of this, Sudan is in an interesting position for foreign relations as it is surrounded by nine nations of Africa and borders the Nile, through which ten percent of world trade is carried. Just a few years before Sudan gained its independence, “The United States of America was more concerned that competition between Britain and Egypt might thwart its plans for new defense arrangements in the region. Washington was more concerned with the bigger picture from its own perspective and did not want the ongoing quarrel between the Condominium powers on the question of Sudan to abort its efforts” (Sidahmed 66). At this point in history, the U.S. only cared about Sudanese affairs if they would affect their own later on. Sudan itself, on the other hand, wanted to go about foreign relations in a not-allied way. Leaders of Sudan thought that in doing so, they would “be on better terms with Arab and African countries. As such it attended the 1955 Bandung non-Aligned conference, joined the United Nations in 1956 and the Arab League the same year, and was a founding member of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963” (66). However, during the early 1980’s, under the leadership of Nimeiri, the ties between the United States and Sudan became strong. Nimeiri was “reliant on support from the outside world, particularly the USA” (69). The United States saw Sudan as a strategic ally, and because of this, Sudan became the “top recipient of US aid in Africa south of the Sahara” (69). Sudan had strong ties at this point with Egypt as well, but lost the trust of many neighboring African nations. However, after the fall of Neimiri, Sudan was beginning to be a liability for the U.S., rather than a strategic ally because of civil wars and general instability. As stated by Abdel Sidahmed, ” Relations with the US continued to deteriorate, reflecting on one hand the drop in strategic importance of the country and on the other the general decrease in US aid to Africa. Sudan’s share of military and economic aid fell from close to $500 million in 1985 to $125 million in 1986 and merely $70 million in 1987” (71). While Sudan’s foreign relations at this time were looking weak, they improved dramatically during the Darfur crisis. In 2007, “The UN voted for a UN peace-keeping force to be sent to Sudan to bolster African Union (AU) troops already deployed in Darfur to protect civilians” (1579). Not only the UN provided support, but also the International Criminal Court (ICC) helped to remove President Al-Bashir from power. In March of 2009, “The ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of President Bashir on two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity” (1579). Throughout the time since Sudan gained its independence, it had at least some support from foreign nations. These nations provided monetary or physical support in their attempts to help Sudan overcome civil strife. For this, the international community would receive a B+.
Word Count: 1573
Works Cited
Benjamin, Thomas. "Sudan, Egyptian and British Rivalry in." Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450. Michigan: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 1060-062. Print.
Sidahmed, Abdel S. "Sudan." Questia.com. 2004. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Stokes, Jamie. "Sudanese: Nationality (people of Sudan)." Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. New York: Facts On File, 2009. 654-59. Print.
"Sudan." Nations of the World: A Political, Economic, and Business Handbook. Amenia: Grey House, 2010. 1578-579. Print.