Recently, a new state has appeared on the political map of the world - South Sudan. Diplomats and journalists from different countries cheerfully report that the long-term civil war between north and south has finally ended and peace and tranquility have now been established in northeast Africa. But is it really so?
THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR ARE IN EUROPE
On July 9, 2011, the Republic of South Sudan (RSS) officially declared its independence. Prior to that, on January 9-15, 2011, a referendum was held in the newly minted country, in which 99% of the population of the southern part of the then unified state voted for secession from Khartoum, the capital of now Northern Sudan, or simply Sudan.
The independence of South Sudan should complete the transitional period provided for in the Comprehensive Peace Treaty, which was signed in 2005 between the government of Sudan and the southern rebels, the so-called Sudanese People's Liberation Movement. This peace treaty ended the second civil war that lasted 22 years in Sudan, from 1983 to 2005. The cause of the war was primarily the policy of Islamization launched by the government of Sudan in 1983. The result is the war of the Arabs of Sudan against the peoples of the south who predominantly profess Christianity or who have preserved local cults. The long-term civil war was accompanied by massacres, famine and epidemic diseases. It was preceded by the first civil war in 1955-1972.
In fact, the causes of the conflict in the Sudan run much deeper and are to be found in the long-suffering country's colonial past. At the Berlin Conference in 1884, the European powers imposed such borders on their African colonies that representatives of many ethnic groups that had nothing in common with each other were actually mixed with each other or, on the contrary, were separated. In 1956, Sudan officially became an independent state. But this did not save him from problems - a protracted civil war between north and south immediately began. From the very beginning of the existence of independent Sudan, the life of this state has been complicated by territorial disputes with neighbors, ethnic and confessional contradictions within the country.
REPETITION OF THE UKRAINIAN SCENARIO
A month after the recognition of the independence of South Sudan, it became clear that the difficulties in relations between the north and the south did not end. Looks like they're just getting started. It's all about oil. The authorities of Khartoum are seriously concerned about the loss of deposits, which are located on the territory of ten states of South Sudan. They have a significant trump card: the oil produced in the south is transported through oil pipelines passing through the northern part of Sudan to Port Sudan, located on the Red Sea. Therefore, the northern Sudanese authorities claim a significant share in the oil profits of the south. In addition, the northerners do not want to lose the Abyei region, located at the junction of the south and north, where more than a quarter of Sudan's oil is produced. “Negotiations on this issue are ongoing, but if representatives of the Dinka tribe unilaterally declare that Abyei belongs to the south, a war could start,” Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir turns to threats. The issue of ownership of the Abyei region and its deposits was to be decided in a separate referendum, but its holding was postponed.
Sudan produces 500 thousand barrels of oil daily, with about 75% of oil production coming from fields in the south. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has already said that he will not allow South Sudan, after its secession, to have a monopoly on oil revenues.
The South will either continue to share the oil produced with the North, or will pay taxes and duties for the use of an oil pipeline passing through the territory of the North - only in this way, according to the President of Sudan, can the issue of distribution of income from oil production be resolved after the country is divided into two states. In case of non-payment of duties by the south, official Khartoum is ready to block the oil pipe. At the same time, after the secession of the south in July this year, South Sudan flatly refuses the proposal of the northern authorities to share oil revenues for several years.
In general, the situation in Sudanese relations is deteriorating for several reasons, not only because of the division of oil revenues - the authorities of the north and south have not yet been able to agree on many important issues, in particular, on the definition of borders, ownership of disputed border areas.
The intention of Omar al-Bashir to continue the Islamization of Sudan does not add optimism either. According to the Sudanese President, 98% of the northerners of Sudan are Muslim, and therefore they are ready to build a strong and monolithic Islamic state in Africa. Concerned about Islamization, Christian Africans living in northern Sudan flee to South Sudan. On the eve of the January referendum on the secession of South Sudan, the United Nations refugee agency reported that more than 120,000 people had migrated from the north to the south of the country in recent months. Their number is likely to increase in the coming years.
OIL PILLAGE
Northern Sudan today resembles a wounded beast that has been deprived of its last prey. With no oil left, Omar al-Bashir seems ready to take even the most extreme measures in pursuit of oil resources. Therefore, it can now pose a serious danger in the region. Already after the declaration of independence of South Sudan, al-Bashir said in an interview with the BBC that he was ready to use force to seize the disputed region of Abyei.
Meanwhile, skirmishes are constantly taking place in this area between detachments of the north and south. Recall that the armed conflict over the Abyei region has been going on since the end of May 2011. The army of Northern Sudan has captured this disputed area with a fight and is still there. Northerners and southerners blame each other for unleashing the conflict.
On the eve of the declaration of independence by South Sudan, a very important event took place, which was practically not covered in the media. The army of Northern Sudan captured the oil-bearing region of Kufra in southern Libya, and also took control of the city of Jauf and the highway to the center of the Sarir and Misla oil fields.
The Sudanese military has taken control of Libya's southernmost oilfield and now controls the southeast of the North African country. As British journalists write, "it is clear that the Sudanese will now receive a share in the newly resurgent Libyan oil market." It is genuinely surprising why the UN did not react to this situation in any way. After all, it is quite obvious that there was a violation of the state border with the subsequent military occupation of part of an independent state.
It is logical to assume that NATO was at least aware of the intentions of the Sudanese army, especially since there is a considerable distance from the Sudanese border to Kufra - 800 km. It is quite possible that an unspoken agreement was concluded between the government of Sudan and NATO: the Western coalition provides Khartoum with southern oil fields in southern Libya in exchange for the peaceful and quiet recognition of South Sudan, to which most of the oil-bearing regions of the once unified state depart.
WHO WILL FIGHT FOR SUDAN?
According to some experts, Sudan has oil reserves comparable to those of Saudi Arabia, as well as huge reserves of natural gas, uranium and copper. It would be short-sighted to consider the recognition of the independence of South Sudan only in the context of the contradictions between Khartoum and Juba in the oil sector, ignoring the "Chinese factor" and the American-Chinese rivalry in Africa. Since 1999, according to official figures alone, China has invested $15 billion in the Sudanese economy. China National Petroleum Corporation is by far the largest Sudanese foreign investor, having invested $5 billion in the development of several oil fields in southern Sudan.
The emergence of an independent Republic of South Sudan in practice means that the Celestial Empire will now have to negotiate with the administration of Juba, not Khartoum, about its oil projects. And if you remember that only Western democracies actively supported the southerners in their desire to secede from Khartoum, while China was interested in the unity of Sudan due to established contacts with the administration of Omar al-Bashir, then Beijing will now have a difficult time.
It is significant that the United States of America was the first of the world powers to recognize the new state, followed by China. Another curious fact: the government of South Sudan has the closest and most friendly relations with Uganda, which is the main strategic partner of the RUS in the joint struggle against the Ugandan nationalist para-Christian rebel group Lord's Resistance Army. Meanwhile, today Uganda is the main conductor of Western interests on the African continent. “Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are” - this ancient wisdom is quite applicable to South Sudan. There is no doubt that the pro-American orientation of South Sudan will soon manifest itself. Considering the desire of the United States to squeeze out China, which has settled there, from Africa, one can understand in what direction the processes in northeast Africa will develop.
In the collection of documents published by Stephen Elliot "Scenarios for further US invasions. Pentagon White Papers lists Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan as likely targets for a US invasion. The turbulent situation in Sudan's western province of Darfur, which also has large oil reserves, gives the Americans a pretext for "humanitarian intervention."
According to the US military, after years of defiance of Khartoum and the failure of humanitarian missions, only military intervention can resolve the crisis in Sudan, since all means of international diplomacy regarding Bashir have been exhausted. The reason for the intervention, according to these documents, has already been found: the joint resolution of the UN and the African Union on the United Peacekeeping Contingent in Darfur (UNAMID) contains a clear program for humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The US may intervene on the grounds that it is implementing an already existing resolution, the US military says.
In February 2006, the US Senate passed a resolution demanding the deployment of NATO troops and UN peacekeeping forces to Darfur. A month later, President George W. Bush called for a reinforced NATO presence in Darfur. China is also showing great interest in this region. So the "battle for Darfur" is yet to come.
The North Atlantic Alliance already has experience in conducting military operations in Africa: in November 1997, NATO conducted maneuvers in Germany under the code name "Allied Efforts". These exercises simulated the following situation: there is a war between two African countries on one of the islands of Southeast Africa, and NATO's mission is to separate the armies of these countries on behalf of the UN.
In connection with the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa, the words of the former Supreme Commander of the armed forces of NATO in Europe, American General Wesley Clark, which he said in 2007 on Voice of America, cause concern: US Joint Chiefs of Staff: So what did they decide? Are we advancing on Iraq or not? And he replies: “Iraq would be fine. Look at what they let me down today. Over the next five years, we will dismantle seven countries. We start with Iraq. Then we have plans for Syria and Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. And we end up in Iran.” So, it is quite possible that Sudan is next in line. It remains only to wait a little.
They say that the most terrible quarrels are quarrels between close people, relatives. Some of the most difficult and bloody wars are civil ones.
A series of civil wars between Catholics and Protestants went on for 36 years
A series of civil wars between Catholics and Protestants went on from 1562 to 1598. The Huguenots were supported by the Bourbons, the Catholics by Catherine de Medici and the Guise party. It began with an attack on the Huguenots in Champagne on March 1, 1562, organized by the Duke of Guise. In response, the Prince de Conde took the city of Orleans, which became a stronghold of the Huguenot movement. The Queen of Great Britain supported the Protestants, while the King of Spain and the Pope of Rome supported the Catholic forces.
The first peace agreement was concluded after the death of the leaders of both warring groups, the Peace of Amboise was signed, then reinforced by the Edict of Saint-Germain, which guaranteed freedom of religion in certain districts. This conflict, however, did not solve it, but transferred it to the category of frozen ones. In the future, playing with the terms of this edict led to the resumption of active operations, and the poor state of the royal treasury to their attenuation. The Peace of Saint-Germain, signed in favor of the Huguenots, was replaced by a terrible massacre of Protestants in Paris and other French cities - Bartholomew's Night.
The leader of the Huguenots, Henry of Navarre, suddenly became the king of France by converting to Catholicism (he is credited with the famous phrase "Paris is worth a mass"). It was this king, with a very extravagant reputation, who managed to unite the state and end the era of terrible religious wars.
Russian Civil War 1917−1922
The result of the Civil War was the flight of the intellectual elite from Russia
The beginning of the Civil War is considered the resettlement of the first groups of opponents of the barely established Bolshevik government to the south of Russia, where "white" detachments began to form from former officer ranks and volunteers who did not recognize the results of the Bolshevik revolution (or the Bolshevik coup). The anti-Bolshevik forces included, of course, a variety of people - from republicans to monarchists, from obsessed madmen to fighters for justice. They oppressed the Bolsheviks from all sides - from the south, and from the west, and from Arkhangelsk and, of course, from Siberia, where Admiral Kolchak settled, who became one of the brightest symbols of the white movement and white dictatorship. At the first stage, taking into account the support of foreign forces and even direct military intervention, the Whites had some success. The Bolshevik leaders even thought about evacuating to India, but were able to turn the tide of the struggle in their favor.
The beginning of the 1920s was already the retreat and final flight of the Whites, the cruelest Bolshevik terror and the terrible crimes of anti-Bolshevik outcasts like von Ungern. The result of the Civil War was the flight from Russia of a significant part of the intellectual elite, capital. For many - with the hope of a speedy return, which in fact never took place. Those who managed to settle in emigration, with rare exceptions, remained abroad, giving their descendants a new homeland.
Chinese Civil War 1927-1950
The confrontation between the troops of the Kuomintang and the communists went on for almost 25 years
The confrontation between the Kuomintang troops and the communist forces stubbornly went on for almost 25 years - from 1927 to 1950. The beginning is the "Northern Campaign" of Chiang Kai-shek, a nationalist leader who was going to subjugate the northern territories controlled by the Beiyang militarists. This is a group based on the combat-ready units of the army of the Qing Empire, but it was a rather scattered force, quickly losing ground to the Kuomintang. A new round of civil confrontation arose because of the conflict between the Kuomintang and the communists. This struggle hardened as a result of the struggle for power, in April 1927, the "Shanghai massacre" took place, the suppression of communist uprisings in Shanghai. During an even more brutal war with Japan, internal strife subsided, but neither Chiang Kai-shek nor Mao Zedong forgot about the struggle, and after the end of World War II, the Civil War in China resumed. The nationalists were supported by the Americans, the communists, which is not surprising, by the USSR.
By 1949, Chiang Kai-shek's front had actually collapsed, he himself made an official proposal for peace negotiations. The conditions put forward by the communists did not find a response, the fighting continued, and the Kuomintang army was divided.
On October 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China was proclaimed, the communist troops gradually subjugated one region after another. One of the last to join was Tibet, the question of independence of which is periodically raised even today.
Civil War in Guatemala 1960-1996
Among those who joined the rebels in Guatemala were Maya Indians
The beginning of the confrontation was a coup d'état, during which the country's president, Jacobo Arbens, was removed. The performance of the military, however, was quickly suppressed, but a significant part of them left the country, starting preparations for the partisan movement. It was she who was to play the main role in this long war. Maya Indians were among those who joined the rebels, this led to a severe reaction against Indian villages in general, they even talk about ethnic cleansing of the Maya.
In 1980, there were already four fronts of the civil war, their line passed both in the west and east of the country, and in the north and south. The rebel groups soon took shape in the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, their struggle was supported by the Cubans, and the Guatemalan army fought mercilessly with them.
In 1987, the presidents of other Central American states also tried to take part in resolving the conflict, through them a dialogue was carried out and the demands of the belligerents were presented. The Catholic Church, which contributed to the formation of the National Reconciliation Commission, also received serious influence in the negotiations.
In 1996, the "Treaty on a firm and lasting peace" was concluded. According to some reports, the war claimed the lives of 200 thousand people, most of whom are Mayan Indians. About 150 thousand are missing.
Civil war in Sudan 1955-1972, 1983-2005
The first and second wars in Sudan happened 11 years apart
The first and second wars in Sudan happened with a break of 11 years. Both broke out because of the conflict between the Christians of the south and the Muslims of the north. One part of the country in the past was controlled by Great Britain, the other - by Egypt. In 1956, Sudan gained independence, state institutions were located in the northern part, which created a serious imbalance of influence within the new state. The promises of a federal structure made by the Arabs in the government of Khartoum were not realized, the Christians of the south rebelled against the Muslims, and cruel punitive actions only kindled the fire of the Civil War. An endless succession of new governments was unable to cope with ethnic tensions and economic problems, the rebels of South Sudan captured the villages, but did not have sufficient forces for the normal control of their territories.
As a result of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972, the South recognized the autonomy and army of the country, which included both Muslims and Christians, in approximately equal proportions. The next round lasted from 1983 to 2005 and was much more brutal towards civilians. According to international organizations, about 2 million people became victims. In 2002, the process of preparing a peace agreement between representatives of the Sudan Liberation Army (South) and the Government of Sudan began. He assumed 6 years of autonomy and a subsequent referendum on the independence of South Sudan. On July 9, 2011, the sovereignty of South Sudan was proclaimed.
Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005)
Part 1. Beginning
1.1. Causes and causes of war
Under the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972, which ended the 1st Civil War in Sudan, autonomy was created in the south of the country. Many former rebels from the Anya-nya organization have taken high positions in the military and civil administration of this autonomous region. However, this could not completely eliminate the differences between the Arab-Muslim north and the Negro-Christian south.
The main claim of the southern elite to the Khartoum authorities was the so-called "marginalization" - an extremely popular term in African countries, denoting the unfair distribution of power and income in relation to the population (elite) of a certain region. The scope of this concept is vague: it also includes the situation when the resources of the region are really predatory plundered by the central government; and a small deduction of the region's income for national needs; and even insufficient (in the opinion of the local elite) injection of funds into the region at the expense of income from other provinces of the country. The presence of an arbitrarily small number of Arab officials in the power structures of the autonomy of South Sudan could also serve as a basis for accusations of marginalization, and at the same time with dissatisfaction with the insufficient representation of southerners in the central government. Thus, the very perception of “marginalization” is often subjective.
Moreover, in the case of South Sudan in the early 1980s, we encounter a very interesting case. The discovery of oil fields here and preparations for their development aroused strong fears among southerners that they would be deprived in the future. That is, at the moment there has not yet been an active exploitation of the region's resources in the interests of the central government - but the southerners were already afraid that this would happen. And, apparently, the Khartoum government was really not going to be satisfied with a small share ...
The second most important reason for the concern of the southerners (mainly Christians or animists) was the policy of the North Sudanese Arabs to build an Islamic state. Although the Nimeiri government stated that the introduction of the provisions of the Islamic state into the constitution and daily life of the country would not affect the rights of the people of South Sudan, not everyone believed in this (and I will not call it excessive reinsurance).
Having indicated the main causes of the war, it is worth saying a few words about the immediate causes. Firstly, the Khartoum government actively implemented the Jonglei Canal project. The fact is that the flow of watery equatorial Africa flowing through the White Nile and its tributaries into the swampy area in the center of South Sudan (“sudd”) was mainly spent on crazy evaporation due to the slow flow of the river, often completely blocked by floating islands of vegetation. Of the more than 20 cubic kilometers of incoming flow, 6-7 were sent on their way to Khartoum and Egypt. Therefore, a project arose to divert the waters of the White Nile past the Sudd by the shortest route, promising to release a volume of about 5 cubic kilometers of fresh water per year - a huge figure, given that under the agreement on the distribution of water resources already available, densely populated Egypt could claim 55 cubic kilometers, and Sudan - by 20. However, this project caused great concern among the local Sudda tribes, who feared a serious change in their habitat and the destruction of their traditional economic structure. In the process of writing this article, already 29 years after the beginning of the events described, I still did not meet the unequivocal conclusion of environmentalists about the possible impact of the Jonglei Canal on the ecosystem and economy of southerners, so their concern in 1983 was all the more justified.
The second, and most immediate, reason for the uprising was the decision of the central government to transfer several parts of the Sudanese army from the south to the north of the country. Within the framework of the declared unity of Sudan, this step did not look strange and/or unfair. However, it should be borne in mind that parts of the armed forces in the autonomous region were often staffed by former rebels. Many of them already showed dissatisfaction with the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972, which preserved the unity of such a diverse country and, albeit reduced, but still the influence of the Arabs in the south. This already led in 1975 to a new uprising and the creation of Anya-nya-2, however, an insufficiently large movement, the actions of which did not deserve the name "2nd Sudanese Civil War". However, the planned transfer of a significant part of the units of the southerners to the north by the Khartoum government (where they, being in a foreign region, certainly could not pose a threat to the Arab government in exploiting the resources of the south), created an ideal pretext for an uprising.
Thus, assessing in aggregate both the causes and causes of the 2nd Civil War, it is impossible to conclude that the Arabs of the north of the country are completely guilty of this. Just as the fears and claims of the southerners cannot be called unfounded. However, I think that the actions of the Khartoum government after the start of the war (largely described by the terms "medieval" and "genocide") fully justify the leaders of the southerners who initiated this bloody struggle. And, regardless of the initial acts and intentions of the parties, there is no doubt that the attempt to unite in one state of Sudan peoples so different in ethnic origin and religion was initially criminal.
1.2. The beginning of the uprising
Now it is finally time to say at least a few words about the uprising itself, which led to the Civil War. It began in the early morning of May 16, 1983 in the camp of the 105th Battalion of the Sudanese Armed Forces (hereinafter SAF) a few kilometers from the city of Bor. The rebellion was initiated and led by the battalion commander, Major Kerubino Kvanyin Bol, who convinced his subordinates to disobey the order to transfer to the north of the country. The rebels opened fire on the few Arab soldiers present in the camp, temporarily taking control of the surroundings of Bor. On the same day, having received news of the Bor mutiny, the 104th SAF battalion rebelled in the Ayoda region a few dozen kilometers to the northeast, also guarding the Jonglei Canal route. In the latter case, Major William Nuyon Bani commanded the rebels.
The Sudanese government sent significant forces against the rebels, forcing them to flee eastward to Ethiopia, which had supported the South Sudanese rebels from Anya-nya-2 for more than a year. However, the new uprising did not just add a certain amount of dissatisfied to the refugees in the Ethiopian camps. First, organized and trained fighters arrived there with their commanders. Secondly, among the soldiers sent to suppress the Bor rebellion was Colonel John Garang de Mabior, who came from the Nilotic Dinka tribe. Not being the initiator of the uprising, the latter nevertheless joined him, seizing the moment for desertion from the SAF units that arrived in the Bora region.
It is with the activities of John Garang that the main struggle of the South Sudanese during the 2nd Civil War is inextricably linked - someone joined it earlier, someone later; someone showed their heroism on the battlefield more, someone less - but without John Garang this would hardly have led to the result that we see today. Of course, I am getting ahead of myself in the story of the 2nd Civil War in Sudan, but not by chance. John Garang did not personally participate in the assaults on cities. John Garang's forces were losing. John Garang made mistakes. John Garang's forces were doing something inappropriate. John Garang led the Southerners to victory.
1.3. Creation of SPLA
Now let's get back to the events of 1983. The Bor rebellion caused an active influx of dissatisfied with the Khartoum government into Ethiopia. At that moment, rebel sentiment literally wandered in the air of South Sudan, so that when the news of the rebellion began, the flight of both autonomy politicians and ordinary residents began. The former, of course, immediately tried to formalize their participation in the uprising by launching violent activities in the refugee camps. Even before the arrival of the initiators of the rebellion, who spent some time fighting with government forces, a group of politicians announced the creation of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). I’ll note right away that I still prefer to use English abbreviations in the story (instead of SPLA - SPLA), since all the information for writing the article was extracted from English-language sources, and it is for them that those interested in this issue can carry out an independent search.
At the meeting of politicians that led to the creation of the SPLA, the question of creating a movement seeking the liberation of only South Sudan (SSPLA) was initially discussed. However, the influence of the colonel of the Ethiopian armed forces, who was present at the conference, turned out to be decisive, conveying wishes that could not be refused - after all, it happened in Ethiopia:
- the movement should be socialist in nature (the Ethiopian regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam at that time dabbled in Marxist experiments with collective farms, food requisitions and the “red terror”);
- the movement should aim to "liberate" all of Sudan, not just the south.
It is possible that these requirements were agreed with the Soviet Union, which actively supported the Ethiopian regime.
Also at the aforementioned conference, it was determined who would lead the new movement. The head of the political branch (SPLM) was a veteran of South Sudanese politics Akuot Atem. The commander of the military branch (SPLA) was Guy Tut, who distinguished himself in the 1st Civil War, the field commander Anya-nya, an SAF lieutenant colonel (after the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972), who retired from military service in 1974 and since then has held a number of prominent posts in the civilian administration of the autonomous region. For active duty soldiers who deserted from the SAF, the politicians awarded the post of Chief of the General Staff of the SPLA, given to John Garang, who held the highest rank of colonel among them.
Upon the arrival of the military who took part in the rebellion in Ethiopia, disagreements arose between them and the politicians who created the SPLA. Already at the first meeting, John Garang put forward claims against Akuot Atem, citing his venerable age. Yes, and Guy Tut, once a famous commander, as an army commander did not arouse enthusiasm among the garangists, because he was inferior to the latter in military rank and for the last 9 years he has been engaged in political activities. John Garang went to Addis Ababa and secured an appointment with Mengistu Haile Mariam. As a result of a personal meeting, Mengistu decided to support him, impressed by his active character and readiness to fully support the socialist character of the movement. From Addis Ababa, the Itang camp (where refugees were concentrated after the Bor rebellion) received an order to arrest Akuot Atem and Guy Tut, but the latter, warned by one of the Ethiopian officers, fled to the Bukteng camp in Sudan.
John Garang himself returned, along with a highly empowered Ethiopian general. Although Itang was at this point entirely in the hands of Garang's supporters (the military who took part in the Bor rebellion), however, a question arose regarding the Bilpam camp, where the Anya-nya-2 fighters under the command of Gordon Kong Chuol had been based for 8 years. The Ethiopians wanted to create a united socialist insurgency in Sudan, so the latter was given a week to come to Itang to decide on his place in the SPLA. Gordon Kong refused, either fearing arrest (there had already been precedents), or disagreeing with the exchange of the post of leader of Anya-nya-2 for a not so high place in the SPLA hierarchy. After a week, the Ethiopian general appointed Colonel John Garang as the leader of the SPLA / SPLM, a deputy in the person of Major Kerubino Kwanyin, approved Major William Nuyon as the Chief of the General Staff and Captain Salwa Kiir as the Deputy Chief of the General Staff (by the way, the current President of South Sudan). At the same time, the Ethiopian granted Garang the right to appoint other members of the command and, more importantly, authorized military action against the forces of Anya-nya-2. So at the end of July 1983, the SPLA attacked and after a short fight captured Bilpam, driving Gordon Kong's forces into the already mentioned Bukteng camp. On this, the design of the new insurgent movement (SPLA) can be considered complete.
As for the dissidents from the SPLA and the members of Anya-nya-2 ousted to Bukteng, their paths soon parted. Gordon Kong and his supporters, not seeing any further opportunity to rely on any bases outside of Sudan, went over to the side of the Khartoum government, against which Anya-nya-2 began 8 years before the appearance of the SPLA. Guy Tut was killed in early 1984 by his deputy, who soon also died in another civil strife. Akuot Atem, a native of the Dinka tribe, fell shortly after the death of Guy Tut at the hands of the Nuer, who received an impulse to hate the Dinka after the failure of their leaders Gordon Kong and Guy Tut.
1.4. Population of South Sudan
Here is the time to pay attention to the ethnic composition of the rebels and the ethnic map of South Sudan as a whole. The latter is a motley conglomeration of peoples and tribes, which could not but affect the course of the events described.
The largest people in this region are the Dinka, very warlike people, divided, as it is supposed here, into several tribes, but quite capable under certain conditions to gather under the banner of a single leader. The second largest Nuer - the representatives of this tribe are unusually warlike, perhaps even more than the Dinka, but clearly inferior to the latter in the ability to act under a single command. The patchwork of Dinka and Nuer lands makes up most of the north of South Sudan, where the Shilluks, related to the two previous tribes, also live, as well as the less related Bertas (on the northeastern border of South Sudan and Ethiopia). The southern part of the region (the so-called Equatoria region) is filled with many tribes, the most significant of which, when listed from east to west, are the Didinga, Toposa, Acholi (kindred in Uganda, known for creating one of the most terrible formations of the late 20th / early 21st century - Lord's Liberation Army, LRA), Madi, Lotuko and Lokoya, Bari and Mundari, Azande. Marked in the 2nd Civil War and Murle, and Anuaki (in the east near the border with Ethiopia), and Fertit Corporation (various small tribes in the west of the region in the strip from Wau to Ragi).
It was the Dinka and the Nuer who initially formed the backbone of the rebels. It was the rivalry between their leaders that led to the most difficult consequences for the SPLA during the war. As part of a series of articles entitled "The 2nd Sudanese Civil War", the author will, as far as possible, avoid talking about events related to the Nuer, because the history of the participation of representatives of this tribe in this war is so interesting that it is planned to devote a separate article to it - and the quality reviews of other events of the 2nd Civil should not suffer. This is quite possible, since the outcome of the confrontation was decided mainly in the course of hostilities against the Khartoum Dinka government and allied detachments organized by the SPLA leadership from representatives of the most diverse tribes of South Sudan.
However, it is worth finally indicating the ethnicity of the previously mentioned heroes of our story:
- the initiator of the Bor rebellion, initially the deputy commander of the SPLA, Kerubino Kwanyin Bol - Dinka;
- the initiator of the uprising in Ayod, originally the chief of the General Staff, William Nuyon Bani - Nuer;
- the holder of the highest military rank at the time of the rebellion and then the constant leader of the SPLA (and SPLM), John Garang - Dinka;
- the very first leader of the SPLM, Akuot Atem, is a Dinka;
- the very first head of the SPLA, Guy Tut is a Nuer.
Thus, the 1983 summer struggle in the Ethiopian refugee camps for the leadership of the SPLA was not between the Dinka and the Nuer, but between the military and politicians. Among the winning party were representatives of both tribes (Garang / Kerubino and Nuyon), among the losers also (Atem and Tut).
The situation with regard to the rivalry between the “new” rebels and Anya-nya-2 turned out to be somewhat more complicated: the leader of this organization, Gordon Kong, who rejected the union with the SPLA, belonged to the Nuer tribe, but the departments that joined the new movement were headed by Dinka John Koang and Murle Ngachigak Ngachiluk. Thus, among the detachments of Gordon Kong, only the Nuer remained, and Anya-Nya-2, which entered into an alliance with the Khartoum government, was already an exclusively tribal organization. This was not a very good sign for the SPLA - "picking up" an insurgent structure for itself, playing on social or personal motives (the duration of which is calculated for a maximum of years), is undoubtedly easier than "poaching" ethnic opponents, whose reasons for discontent lie in the centuries-old disputes of peoples.
Before turning to the description of the hostilities, I will say a few more words about the "cartographic support" of the narrative. I believe that a full understanding of the course of any conflict without studying its development in space is impossible. Therefore, only in rare cases, the name mentioned in the text cannot be found on the maps accompanying the article, and this will be specially marked with the sign "(n / k)". In particular, it will be possible to track the ups and downs of hostilities outlined in this article using fragments of a map of Sudan prepared by the Cartography Production Mapping Association of the Main Directorate of Geodesy and Cartography under the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1980.
I will note only one feature - after the publication of this map in Sudan, the fragmentation of large provinces was completed, as a result of which Bahr el-Ghazal was divided into Western Bahr el-Ghazal, Northern Bahr el-Ghazal, Warrap and Lake Province; Jonglei and Unity were isolated from the Upper Nile; and the Equatorial province was divided into Western, Central and Eastern Equatoria.
1.5. Fighting in 1983-1984
And now, finally, to the struggle of the rebels with the government, and not just among themselves. On November 7, 1983, the SPLA captured the village of Malwal (n / a) a few dozen kilometers south of the city of Malukal. The settlement was thatched huts with less than a thousand inhabitants, so its capture (accompanied by a maximum of "battles" with the local police) served only as an application for the seriousness of the new movement. Of course, insignificant events should be excluded from the narrative, but nevertheless I decided to mark Malval as the first settlement that fell into the millstones of the 2nd Civil War in Sudan. In addition, the SPLA attacked it almost simultaneously with the city of Nasir, in which the rebels captured everything except the base of the SAF garrison. Over the next few days, the military units of the Khartoum government that advanced from neighboring regions fought with the rebels, and after a week they were able to oust the enemy from Nasir, and then from Malwal.
The November 1983 sortie of the SPLA into Sudan was only a test of strength, and the rebel leadership was preparing for a battle on the supply routes that was completely natural in those conditions, which was not at all exclusively a “battle on the roads”. In South Sudan, poor in road infrastructure, the main routes of communication ran along the rivers - primarily the Nile (giving direct access to the capital of the southern region of Juba), as well as along the Sobat (a tributary of the Nile leading to Nasir), and the Bahr el-Ghazal system (giving access from the Nile to a vast territory to the west, including the oil-bearing province of Unity). Therefore, initially, the Nile steamships became the main objects of attacks by the rebels.
In February 1984, a ship towing several barges was attacked. Government sources claimed that only 14 passengers died, while according to other sources - more than three hundred. It should be clarified that the passengers of such "convoys" were equally civilians and military (the Sudanese army initially used ordinary civilian vehicles to move along the rivers). The second confirmed by both sides insurgent attack on a riverboat was only in December this year, but it should be borne in mind that this conflict is characterized by particularly conflicting reports from the parties, so that confirmation by the government of the fact of the incident often occurred only when an incident of a significant scale.
In connection with the problems on the river routes, transport aviation acquired special importance for the government. But she also had to learn to work in the difficult conditions of the conflict - at the end of June, the Sudanese confirmed the loss of one transport and one combat F-5. Moreover, the government side suspected that the aircraft were hit with the help of the Strela MANPADS received by the PLA from Ethiopia.
However, not only on the water and in the air there was a “battle on the roads”. The supply of government forces in the western part of South Sudan was largely carried out by rail, which went from the north of the country to the capital of the state of Western Bahr el Ghazal, Wau. In March 1984, the SPLA blew up the railway bridge over the Lol River here, killing the garrison guarding it.
Finally, there were attacks on convoys moving overland. In August, a government detachment was ambushed and suffered heavy losses, heading from Juba to Bor. And in early October, a column between Duk and Ayod, on the Jonglei Canal, was defeated. By the way, the construction of the latter was stopped back in February - then the rebels attacked the previously mentioned Ayod and a number of other points, so the general contractor of this hydraulic facility, the French company, refused further work due to the death of several employees. Similarly, a number of oil companies have suspended their work on fields that are almost ready for development in the state of Unity.
1.6. Fighting in 1985
At the beginning of 1985, a new convoy left Juba for rebel-blocked Bor, numbering several thousand military personnel with a large amount of equipment. At 70 kilometers from his target, he was subjected to a powerful attack by the PLA and suffered heavy losses. However, the size of the convoy affected the outcome of the battle - it was not possible to completely destroy it. After some time, having put themselves in order, the column resumed movement. On the way, she was ambushed several more times, suffered losses and stopped for a long time. However, even after three months, the government detachment still reached Bor. It should be noted that such “long-term” convoys have become very characteristic of the Sudanese war. Due to the complete superiority of the army in heavy weapons, it was not easy to destroy them, but the government forces also had to move very carefully, given the risk of being ambushed at any moment on terrain well known to the enemy.
While the fight was going on on the roads, and the fighters of the former 104th and 105th battalions of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), who initiated the uprising, were disturbing the army garrisons in Pochalle and Akobo adjacent to Ethiopia, the leadership of the SPL was preparing new units that could adequately perform in the arena of struggle with SAF. At the same time, the title was considered as important - the first two SPLA battalions bore the name "Rhinos" and "Crocodiles". The latter in 1984 undertook an operation to capture the Boma mountain plateau south of Pochalla, convenient for creating a base area already on Sudanese territory. After initial success, the rebels were forced to retreat, having tasted the effect of the principle "luck is on the side of the big battalions."
Meanwhile, new forces were being prepared in the Ethiopian camps - a “division” with the sonorous name “Locust”, numbering up to 12 thousand fighters. And, of course, her new battalions bore no less proud names than the previous ones - "Scorpions", "Iron", "Lightning". At the very beginning of 1985, the mountainous region of Boma was again captured, now by the Scorpions battalion under the command of Ngachigak Ngachiluk. And, despite the further vicissitudes of a long civil war, Boma was never recaptured by government forces, becoming a reliable base for rebel operations.
From Boma, the SPLA forces moved west, defeated government troops north of the provincial center of East Equatorial Torit, and began to occupy its environs. Their activities in the area were facilitated by the assistance of the Lotuko people (and related to the latter Lokoi living in the area of Liria and Ngangala), whose representative and prominent political figure in southern Sudan, Joseph Odunho, entered the leadership of the SPLM.
Moving southwest, the forward detachments of the SPLA reached the village of Ovni-ki-Bul (n / a) 20 kilometers from Magvi. This was already the territory of the Madi people, who did not show much enthusiasm to join the struggle against the northern Arabs. Therefore, it is not surprising that the SAF detachment burned the village, and the SAF units, which arrived soon, with the support of the local police, defeated and drove the enemy back.
The second direction of advance from the Lotuk area for the SPLA was western, where they captured the town of Mongalla located on the banks of the Nile. However, here too certain nuances arose - the rebels entered the area of the Mandari tribe. The latter, for centuries, were the direct neighbors of the Dinka from the bor unit, and therefore "had scores" with the main striking force of the SPL. The old conflicts between Mandari and Dinka erupted more than once in the post-colonial era. In particular, shortly after the outbreak of the uprising in 1983, the Mandaris massacred Dinka merchants in Juba in the course of the struggle for the right to trade in the local market. And the Khartoum authorities, who skillfully used the “divide and rule” policy, did not interfere with this. In turn, in the same 1983, the Dinka expelled their rivals from the town of Tali Post, southwest of Bor. So the Mandari militia was well motivated and enjoyed the full support of government forces. Soon she defeated the rebels near Gur Makur (n / k) near Mongalla, forcing the SPLA to retreat from this settlement.
Here I will note another feature of this conflict. In conditions when only the Khartoum government had no shortage of heavy weapons, the presence of even a few tanks on the battlefield could become a decisive factor. Thus, in many battles with the SPL, the government side turned out to be represented mainly by some kind of tribal militia, which could hardly win without being supported by "armor" or "artificers" from the army. And such support, in turn, was extremely likely - just ask.
In September of the same year, detachments of the SPLA Southern Command, led by former SAF Major Arok Ton Arok, attacked another important Mandari city, Terekeka, now on the west bank of the Nile a little north of Mongalla. In the captured Terekek, there were serious excesses against the Mandari. Moreover, the sources note their orientation primarily against the "eastern wing" of the tribe, which may have been revenge for the recent defeat on the other side of the Nile. However, the SPLA detachments were soon forced to leave Terekeka.
Of course, the rebels were active in other areas of southern Sudan. However, for now I will only note the capture on March 3, 1985 of the village of Jack (n / c), east of Nasir near the border with Ethiopia. Although this event did not lead to further serious consequences, at least the SAF lost the entire garrison here, led by the colonel.
It was much more difficult to capture the provincial centers, although the rebels tried. In November 1985, a battalion that had just arrived after training in Ethiopia tried to take Bor. However, for the Dinka from the northern clans who made it up, the Sudda area turned out to be completely unfamiliar and unusual, which played a significant role in the final crushing defeat.
Apparently, it was this defeat that overflowed the “cup of patience” of the SPLA command in relation to the Southern Command. Arok Ton Arok was replaced with a certain Kuol Manyang Juuk. However, the epithet “some” should not be considered too pejoratively - as subsequent events showed, the most famous in the 2nd Civil War was acquired not by the leaders of successful operations, but by schismatics and traitors.
Let's finish this section with a couple of episodes from the "fight on the roads" of 1985. The continuing problems with the Nile shipping company were evidenced by the fact that in February 1986 the captain of the ship, a citizen of the FRG, who had been captured by the rebels a few months earlier, was released (which is why this case actually became known). The danger of flights to supply the garrisons was confirmed by the loss of two Buffalo transports - on March 14 at Akobo and on April 4 near Bor. Finally, at the end of the year, the SPLA bombarded the Juba airport several times with guns and mortars, albeit without much result.
Meanwhile, more serious events were approaching ...
Pavel Nechay,
ETHIOPIA AND SUDAN
1983–1988
Over 1 million people died from famine, which reached its peak between 1984 and 1986. It was caused by both natural factors and civil wars in Ethiopia and Sudan.
Most of Africa is not as prone to drought and famine as Asia. But tribal strife, the inability to farm and civil wars have increased the impact of famine in Africa on people's lives. Now, in the 1990s, when countries around the world are getting richer, 150 million Africans, according to the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Edward Saums, “are in the most difficult economic situation, experiencing food shortages that can lead to mass hunger."
Even in the best of times, Africa, by European standards, is a poor continent. It is dependent on agricultural production, which feeds 12 million people in 12 countries. The farming methods used are long outdated and often have the exact opposite effect. For example, countries adjacent to the Sahara (Chad, Niger, Mauritania, Mali, Upper Volta, Gambia, Cape Verde), due to the onset of the desert (on average 8 kilometers per year), are losing fertile land. The amount of precipitation over the past 20 years has decreased by 25 percent.
The lack of rain is a natural phenomenon, but the advance of the Sahara is largely due to unwise farming, an excess of sheep and other farm animals. The south of the Sahara, once covered with trees and lush greenery, has now turned into a bare, eroded semi-desert.
In countries such as Zimbabwe, which is rebuilding its economy after 8 years of war, with its vast northwestern territory suffering year after year from droughts, there is hardly any hope of self-sufficiency in food in the near future. Government corruption in Ghana has led to food shortages for 10 million people.
So, Africa has been and remains a region where hunger will rule people's lives for a long time to come. At least as long as the population is ruled by corrupt, warring governments and government clans.
Not a single state in Africa can more clearly confirm the drama of the situation by its own example than neighboring countries: Ethiopia and Sudan. Since 1983, both states have suffered from drought, famine and civil wars. Their governments are pursuing a policy of genocide using starvation. Both countries were once played as pawns in the confrontation between West and East. More precisely, between the governments of the United States and the USSR, which supported local governments or warring factions, which further aggravated the general disorder and need.
The pivotal year was 1983. As the Soviet-backed Marxist government seized power in Ethiopia, the UN demanded a truce and an end to the armed conflict. But in 1983, a civil war also broke out between North and South Sudan. Here, the US-backed government proclaimed itself democratic, although its Islamic fundamentalists declared Sharia law to apply throughout the country, escalating fighting between Arab Muslims in the north and Christians and other believers in the south. Military operations, drought, famine (natural and social causes) claimed more than 1 million lives in Sudan from 1983 to 1988. And now, when these lines are being written, the war and famine have not yet ended, although their severity has decreased.
To understand this tangle of disasters, you need to go back 20 years.
In 1973 and 1974, hundreds of thousands of people in West and East Africa suffered from hunger, and the Western world was immersed in its problems associated with an economic crisis exacerbated by OPEC's dramatic increase in the price of oil and petroleum products. As a result, almost no assistance was provided to starving Africa. According to many analysts, this led to a real hunger pestilence, more severe than expected. It reached its zenith in 1983–1986. In fact, the Ethiopian Marxist government seized on the scholarly suggestion and used it as a smokescreen to cover up its $200 million 10th anniversary celebrations while millions of poor Ethiopians lived under the threat of starvation and hundreds died daily.
The situation developed in such a way that the problem could be successfully solved by turning to international aid organizations, which in 1984 launched an offensive against hunger and disease. But the constant migration of the population, associated with the movement of refugees from one part of the country to another, made planning impossible. Food supplies could be plentiful in one part of the country, while they were in short supply in another. The issue of their redistribution within the country raised great doubts, since even convoys under the UN flag were attacked by Somali guerrillas.
Such actions began in 1980. At this time, 1.8 million of Ethiopia's 5 million starving people were in Ogaden province, where ethnic Somalis were conducting guerrilla raids on government outposts and villages. Often similar raids were made in Gama-gofa, in the southwest, where the drought was most severe. Not a single rain fell there all year. UN officials visiting Gama Ghofa, Baye, Harar and Vallo noted that 50 percent of the 600,000 livestock had already died from lack of feed.
During 1981-1982. irrigation was not possible as the rivers dried up. At the same time, the tides of the Indian Ocean became higher and made the water brackish.
Even though the market was well developed in some African countries, there were not enough products for trade. More and more people turned into nomads and wandered from one place to another, remembering the last heavy rains in sub-Saharan Africa in 1968.
In Ghana in 1983, the January hot wind blew twice as long as usual. He brought fires that destroyed fields and food stores. Together with the drought, the fires cost the state a third of the annual food production.
Finally, in mid-1983, most of the world community caught on and led a massive fight against the wave of famine that swept Africa. In September of that year, the UN forced the Ethiopian government to sign a truce with the guerrillas. The US administration, headed by Reagan, at first resisted the supply of food to the Marxist government of Ethiopia, then decided to provide humanitarian assistance and raised aid costs, bringing them to $ 10 million.
At the end of 1984, the UN published a report in the New York Times that supposedly about 7 million Ethiopians were on the verge of starvation. Many died from diseases associated with malnutrition.
UN teams found out in what terrible conditions the population of the country lived for the last 10 years. When the Marxist government came to power (as a result of a government coup), it did not take measures to irrigate the land, improve agricultural technology. As a result, agricultural activities in the north of the country have reduced the land to a miserable state, causing almost complete soil erosion. The area of forests cleared by livestock has decreased. But the government did nothing. If it did, it would only worsen the situation. With the help of his agricultural market corporations, the government reduced the purchase price of grain, depriving the peasants of the incentive to produce excess product and sell it.
“In fact, many farmers prefer to stockpile their surplus grain rather than sell it to the government for next to nothing,” said one UN official. “It’s better to have additional food, they say, than the crumbs that will be received from the government.”
Meanwhile, the drought continued, and hundreds of Ethiopians continued to die of hunger every day. Scientists estimated that from May 1984 to May 1985, half a million people would die from lack of food.
“…Many others, especially children, will suffer from hunger throughout their lives, including physical and mental retardation,” said High Goyder, field spokesman for Oxfam, a British relief organization.
Service workers traveling around the camps, who fed tens of thousands of people daily, described the state of affairs in sad and eerie tones. "So things have improved in Korem," said Save the Children's independent William Day. - At a food distribution center 350 kilometers north of Addis Ababa, 150 people died daily three weeks ago. Three days ago (November 1984) that number dropped to 40.”
This was only a relative improvement as people continued to starve to death. It was very cold in the high altitude camps of Ethiopia. As a result, people there died from hypothermia. Having no other shelter, they dug dugouts and built stone fences around them. This was the only protection from frost and wind. Diseases were rampant in the camps. Typhus, pneumonia, dysentery, meningitis and measles claimed the lives of hundreds of people.
While governments blamed each other for the cause of the disaster, the loss of life continued. Nomads began to arrive in the camps. They built traditional low drop-shaped huts - tukus, made of mats and sticks. One of their women in Harare, eastern Ethiopia, told a Times reporter in December 1985: “The drought has killed all the animals, we have lost everything in three years. We don't have sheep or goats, and there's nothing we can do even if it rains."
Such desperation gripped many of the 1.2 million people in Harare who were gripped by the prolonged drought. One of the representatives of the rescue organization "Interaction" called it "green hunger". “Sorghum grows in the fields, there is not a single grain on it. The corn has dried up on the vine, so there is no end in sight to the famine,” he concluded.
By January 1985, US aid to Ethiopia had risen to $40 million. But the government of the country used most of these supplies for other purposes. Food and blankets were used as bait for the supposed relocation of residents from the poor, overpopulated areas of the north to the fertile, sparsely populated areas of the south. The hidden purpose of this was undoubtedly genocide. Exhausted by hunger and disease, hundreds of thousands of refugees died on the road, the sides of which were already littered with the corpses of animals and people.
Finally, in 1986, the rains began, and the drought ended. But other problems with the improvement of weather conditions have not disappeared. A "normal" situation for Ethiopia means importing 15 percent of the food needed for the country's needs and feeding 2.5 million people. (During the peak of the famine during 1984-1986, 6.5 million people received food.)
In January 1987, the leader of Ethiopia, Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, began a three-year struggle for the full provision of the country with food. He said that "the famine left an indelible mark on the history of the country and in the souls of its people."
High words. But the underpayment of farmers for their produce and the horror of the January 1985 resettlement, which was yet to be repeated, led UN workers to question the Ethiopian government's ability to deal with poverty, drought and famine. And not only this. In late 1987, a UN convoy transporting food to the drought-stricken provinces of Eritrea and the Tigris was attacked by people from the anti-government group, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. 35 trucks delivering food to famine-stricken Ethiopians were set on fire. It never made it to the right place.
New problems have emerged. The civil war in Ethiopia's neighboring Sudan is gaining even greater scope. Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Sudan began to cross the western borders of Ethiopia. Tens of thousands of refugees walked thousands of kilometers on foot along the roads of Sudan, which, like a few years ago in Ethiopia, were littered with the corpses of people who died of starvation or from police bullets.
Because Sudan's government was democratic, the Reagan administration sent him $1.7 billion in aid. Over $1 million a day was to be spent on distributing food to the hungry. But workers from independent aid organizations were not allowed into the country, and the duty of distributing food was placed on the army. As a result, most of the supplies remained in the army and did not reach the starving population.
The situation became even more aggravated due to heavy floods, which literally paralyzed the country in August 1988. When the water subsided, numerous representatives of the UN and rescue agencies who arrived in the country saw clear signs of genocide in this desolation.
As in Ethiopia, the militia drove from place to place thousands of people herded into herds. Many of them died on the way. But unlike Ethiopia, where there was some kind of reasonable beginning in these movements, nothing of the kind was observed in Sudan. The only goal was the death of people. The townspeople were moved to villages, the rural population was driven to the cities, but no one could survive in unusual conditions, so they died.
Diseases also multiplied. Tuberculosis was decimating entire districts.
Finally, in May 1989, a truce was signed between South and North Sudan. For the first time ever, the International Red Cross was allowed into the country. Food began to flow into the country, but the government did not distribute it among the population. A crisis was brewing. The May rains are approaching. When they start, roads will be washed out and food transport will be delayed for a long time. An active air transport of food began, which for some time gave poor countries, so badly affected by drought and famine, the hope that an end to devastation and death would be put to rest.
From the book Encyclopedic Dictionary (C) author Brockhaus F. A.Sudan Sudan or Belad-es-Sudan, also Nigeria - the name of a significant part of the sowing. Africa south of the Sahara. S. does not have strict geographical boundaries and rather denotes a number of Muslim states that are more or less dependent on Egypt and
From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (PO) of the author TSBPort Sudan Port Sudan, a city in Sudan, in the province of Kassala. 100.7 thousand inhabitants (1969). The main port of the country on the Red Sea (cargo turnover about 3 million tons in 1971). Zh.-d. station. Refinery. Cotton factory. Ship repair. Export of cotton, gum arabic, cotton seeds,
From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (SU) of the author TSB From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (EF) of the author TSB From the book Dictionary of Modern Quotes author Dushenko Konstantin Vasilievich From the book All Countries of the World author Varlamova Tatyana KonstantinovnaVOLPIN Mikhail Davydovich (1902-1988); ERDMAN Nikolai Robertovich (1900-1970), playwrights; ALEKSANDROV Grigory Vasilievich (1903-1983), film director 146 * Under my strict guidance. Film "Volga-Volga" (1938), scenes. Volpin, Erdman and Alexandrov, dir. Alexandrov In the film: "thanks to
From the book Memo to citizens of the USSR traveling abroad author author unknownSudan Republic of Sudan Date of establishment of an independent state: January 1, 1956 Area: 2.5 million square meters. km Administrative-territorial division: 26 states Capitals: Khartoum Official language: Arabic Monetary unit: Sudanese dinar Population: approx. 40 million (2004) Population density
From the book Lost Worlds author Nosov Nikolay VladimirovichEthiopia Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Date of creation of an independent state: October 26, 1896 (recognition of the full independence of Ethiopia by Italy); August 22, 1995 (Proclamation of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia) Area: 1.1 million square meters
From the book Diving. Red sea author Ryansky Andrey S.Republic of Sudan Consular section of the embassy: Khartoum, block A-10, st. New Extension, 5, p/o 1161, tel. 413-15, 408-70 (24 hours), telex
From the book Natural Disasters. Volume 2 by Davis LeePeople's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Consular Section of the Embassy: Addis Ababa, PO Box 1500, tel. 11-20-61,
SUDAN Khartoum, August 4-5, 1988 The city of Khartoum in Sudan was flooded during the flooding of the Nile on August 4, 1988. More than 100 people drowned, hundreds were injured, and more than 1 million people were left homeless.* * *Khartoum located at the confluence
From the author's bookSudan Sudan is the largest, hottest and friendliest country in Africa. Stretching for 3,000 km from north to south and 1,500 km from west to east, Sudan will seem to the traveler even more enormous due to bad roads and Sudanese slowness. Routes of our
From the author's bookEthiopia The oldest, poorest and freest country on the African continent. It is the only country in Africa that has never been colonized over the past 5000 years - only briefly occupied by Italians during several years of World War II
Civil war breaks out in South Sudan. The reasons for Africa are traditional: the unwillingness of the elites to share the proceeds from the plunder of the country and tribal disunity. There are no serious reasons for the opposing sides not to engage in a deadly fight, so a violent and prolonged conflict seems almost inevitable.
The secession of black South Sudan from Arab Sudan and the creation of an exemplary democratic African state there has been one of the favorite projects of the international community. Khartoum was quite rightly criticized for racism, religious intolerance, forced Arabization, lawlessness, authoritarianism, predatory pumping of oil from the southern regions of the country, corruption and other features of typical Eastern despotism. It is generally agreed that getting rid of the tyranny of the brutal northern dictator Omar al-Bashir (wanted for war crimes, by the way) would open the way for southerners to a more or less tolerable life. US President Barack Obama went even further, promising "a peaceful and prosperous future for all the South Sudanese people."
I must say that Obama was somewhat wrong in his forecasts. What happened in South Sudan after the declaration of independence in 2011 will not be called peace and prosperity even by the most convinced optimist. Prosperity for the whole nation did not work out from the very beginning. The only competitive South Sudanese commodity on the world market is crude oil. And the only way to deliver it to buyers is an oil pipeline passing through Sudan to the Red Sea. As the authorities in Juba explained, Omar al-Bashir had raised such prices for pumping oil that it became unprofitable to sell it. The Sudanese dictator himself, by the way, did everything possible to strengthen his bad reputation among former fellow citizens: for example, his aircraft periodically bombed the oil fields of southerners. As a result, South Sudan failed to get rich quick selling oil.
Photo: Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah / Reuters
Despite the forced removal of the "raw material curse", other sectors of the newborn country's economy did not develop rapidly either. But it is not so much the old ruler who is to blame for this, but the new ones - they spread horrendous corruption in the country. Investment is also hindered by the idiosyncratic understanding of property rights in South Sudan. For example, pastoralists wandering from pasture to pasture in the Nile Valley do not disdain the opportunity to increase their herd at the expense of colleagues they meet on the way. An interesting detail: the weaning of cows and bulls is carried out in ancient, one might say, ways - with the help of bows, arrows, swords and spears.
The peace hoped for by the American president turned out even worse. Numerous rebel groups that fought against the Sudanese troops quickly retrained into gangs leading either a sedentary lifestyle (terrorizing the local population) or nomadic (arranging raids on settled fellow citizens). Against the background of the weakness of the central government and complete lawlessness, the slave trade flourished in remote areas of the country. The army units sent to disperse these gangs, to the displeasure of the local residents, often rob their fellow citizens with zeal.
But lawlessness, corruption and authoritarianism are not the main problems of the youngest country in the world. The greatest danger to South Sudan is the deep-seated mutual hatred between the main ethnic groups, the Dinka (about 15 per cent of the population) and the Nuer (10 per cent). It should be noted that the figures, of course, are very approximate, since no one knows exactly what the population of the country is in principle.
The history of relations between the Dinka and the Nuer is replete with cases of mutual massacres. Even during the war against Khartoum, in rare moments of rest, representatives of the two nationalities slaughtered each other, as well as all others who came to hand. Actually, many robberies, murders and cattle rustlings in "peacetime" were carried out according to the ethnic principle. The Western press is not very fond of mentioning this, but the Dinka and Nuer have about the same feelings for each other as Serbs and Croats during the Balkan wars in the 1990s. In South Sudan, this means low-profile ethnically motivated violence.
Three factors saved South Sudan from the country's final slide into civil war: the presence of a common enemy (Sudan), the relatively fair distribution of posts in the government between representatives of both nationalities, and the fact that even together they barely reach a quarter of the total population of the country. Approximately 75 percent of the population are representatives of other tribes, and in total in South Sudan there are more than 60 different dialects alone.
However, in 2013 the situation began to change rapidly. First, Khartoum and Juba agreed on a cold peace. Of course, there was no friendship between them, and there is no, but they are no longer fighting. Secondly, President Salva Kiir (Dinka) fired Vice President Riek Machar (Nuer) and also purged all governments of representatives of other tribes. This, by the way, among local observers gave rise to the term "dinkocracy". And thirdly, against the background of the expulsion of all non-Dinka from the government, the Nuer began to consolidate around themselves other nationalities, dissatisfied with the dominance of the Dinka. Thus, all the ingredients for starting a civil war were prepared.
And she did not keep herself waiting long. Last week there was a night battle in Juba that President Kiir declared to be a failed coup attempt. In the main conspirators, he predictably recorded Machar and his people, deprived of power by presidential reshuffles in the government. The former vice president managed to escape from the capital, but some of his associates were less fortunate: at least 11 former officials from the Nuer tribe were arrested.
It was even worse for ordinary representatives of this tribe living in the capital. According to eyewitnesses, government forces began to carry out cleansing operations, killing "conspirators" by the hundreds. Thousands of people, fearing for their lives, poured into the refugee camps in the capital.
Meanwhile, in the state of Jongliy (Nuer bastion), similar processes began. Only representatives of the Dinka people have become victims there. Forces loyal to Machar captured the main city of the state, Bor, where ethnic cleansing began immediately. By the way, representatives of the Dinka Nuer people are calculated according to two criteria: pronunciation features (their languages are similar) and high growth. Dinka are considered the tallest people on the planet.
Against the backdrop of the outbreak of the rebellion, other armed groups that have abounded in South Sudan since the war for independence have also become more active. World leaders are urging the parties to refrain from violence and resolve the issues at the negotiating table, but, of course, no one listens to them. Dinka, Nuer and others are completely engaged in mutual destruction. They are distracted only by the shelling of UN helicopters and American convertiplanes, which are taking foreigners out of the country. The situation there can be described in one word: chaos.
The US State Department, having issued a condemnation of the shelling of its tiltrotor, faced an unexpected problem: it is not very clear who exactly to condemn. There are now such a number of armed people who are not subordinate to anyone that it is not possible to understand where, who and for (against) whom, now.
Most likely, South Sudan is waiting for extremely difficult times. Dinka and Nuer cannot defeat each other, and they are not going to stop hostility and put up with each other. Of course, they could also split into two countries, but then the process of division could become irreversible. The case may end with the fact that each of the 60 nationalities inhabiting South Sudan will demand independence. No acceptable way out of the current situation is yet to be seen.
The international community looks on in a kind of daze as the project of creating a peaceful, prosperous, democratic African country turns into its complete opposite. There are already voices around the world calling for the introduction of foreign peacekeepers into South Sudan before a massacre begins there, as in the neighboring Central African Republic, or even worse - as in Rwanda in 1994. As years of experience show, sub-Saharan African countries are having a hard time keeping out of civil war, being left to their own devices.
