The newest state & constant struggle 

South Sudan gained independence in July 2011 becoming the 197th recognised state in the world and making it the newest state too, ending the longest African civil war which killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Yet the separation from Sudan has not made anything any better or any easier. The country has been in the midst of a civil war and the people of South Sudan are now suffering from severe droughts.

Conflict began in 2003 in Darfur in which two ‘liberation movements’, the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement began fighting the Sudanese government, accusing them of severe mistreatment of the non-Arab population. This resulted in the government led by Omar al-Bashir carrying out ethnic cleansing against the non-Arab population. The conflict in Sudan split between the Sudanese military, police and Janjaweed (translating as man on a horse with a gun). Janjaweed was made up of certain Arab groups. on the other side were the rebel groups who were made up of non-Arab Muslim groups such as Zaghawa. It is estimated that around 70% of the Sudanese population were Arab with the remaining 30% (approx.) being Nubians (who follow Islam), Zaghawa (Beri, who also follow Islam and are semi nomadic) and Copts (Christians). In South Sudan, the majority groups are the Dinka and Nuer followed by other groups such as the Shiluk, the Toposa and Otuho. Along with conflict, disease and starvation were also large causes of death in the conflict.

An agreement was reached in 2005 which finally came into force in July 2011 giving South Sudan independence following the vote which resulted in 98.83% in favour of succession. This made the majority states in South Sudan the Dinka and Nuer followed by other groups such as the Shiluk, the Toposa and Otuho and capital declared as Juba. Due to the conflict with Arab Sudan, it is not surprising that South Sudan is made up predominantly of Christianity and Traditional Religions. South Sudan was supported by numerous local states, but more importantly, became a recognised member state of the UN and the African Union. However, the citizens of South Sudan did not receive the happy ending that they had hoped for.

To begin with, conflict broke out with Sudan again in 2012 in dispute over the oil rich Abyei region. This was quickly resolved in 2012 with the introduction of a 10km militarised zone. Abyei still remains unresolved meaning the region is effectively its ‘own entity’ without any government or structures.

Civil war broke out in South Sudan in 2013 and lasted until 2015 although the country still remains rather unstable. The civil war displaced over 2 million citizens of the new nation and has left a long lasting, damaging effect on the nation. The conflict broke out due to the President, Salva Kiir Mayardit accusing his Vice President Riek Machar (and others) of trying to carry out a coup d’état. Despite Marchar denying this, he fled to join and lead the  Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – in – position (SPLM-IO). So this left Salva Kiir Mayardit from the SPLM vs. Riek Machar from the SPLM-IO. The conflict proved to be deadly with numerous massacres and atrocities occurring with both sides being guilty of taking areas and then killing all those they believed opposed them. There has also been repots of widespread abuse towards women and children including rape and burning villages to the ground and the use of child soldiers. It is estimated that over 50,00 people were killed and over 1.5 million internally displaced.

Eventually, in August 2015, Salva Kiir Mayardit signed a peace agreement due to the threat of international sanctions. Riek Machar was re-sworn in as Vice President in Juba in 2016 as a sign to enforce the peace agreement. However, this caused conflict to ignite again in July 2016 and led to Machar leaving the country and being replaced by General Taban Deng Gai.

South Sudan separated from Sudan due to ethnic conflicts and massacre by Arabs towards groups such as the Dinkas who then formed South Sudan. However, the civil war in South Sudan has also been characterised by ethnic tensions. The Dinka group aligned themselves with President Salva Kiir and the SPLM whilst those from the Nuer ethnic group aligned with the SPLM-IO and Machar. It seems that the main reason for the creation of South Sudan – to prevent conflict based on ethnic divisions – has failed and left many in the same, if not worse situations than before.

Conflict has also had a huge impact on causing mass food shortages. The civil war prevented farmers from working as many were either directly caught up in the fighting, or, were unfortunate civilians caught in the middle. In 2014, the United Nations Security Council categorised South Sudan as a humanitarian emergency and warned that a third of South Sudan’s population was affected by the food shortages. Despite the fact that over 7,000 UN peacekeepers and 6,000 security forces were deployed to the country, little seems to have changed. The UN was given the mandate of civilian protection, allowing UN troops to use force yet this too seems to have done little good. Only last month, it was reported that 100,000 people were suffering from serious famine due to the ongoing conflict and inability of farmers to maintain the agricultural economy (due to conflict). It was also reported by the UN that over 1 million people were on the verge of famine. The main state that is said to be affected is Unity – on the border with Sudan where some of the worst fighting has occurred.

So what now? South Sudan, an oil rich state, was once deemed as having a successful, prosperous future. The ethnic conflict that led to the states creation has only diversified into different ethnicities fighting each other and has not provided the stability and prosperous future that many hoped it would. Many civilians are now suffering one of the worst famines known in the world for a long time and it seems unlikely that anything will change in the near future. Millions of civilians were failed by their former state, Sudan and are continuing to be failed by their new state, South Sudan – whether it be through fighting or starvation. With limited food supplies coming in and violence threatening the transport of food goods along with the collapse of the agricultural industry, many civilians South Sudan is in desperate need of help to survive. But will the international community step up to the plate to help an African nation that is not in their national interest?

 

 

 

Dear Donald….

Donald Trump is someone I’m sure we would all rather not have to talk about. I for one wish I did not have to waste my time thinking about the man, let alone let him bring me to writing about him. But it has become unavoidable. It’s time to face the man at the forefront of post-truthism. The concept of a Mexican Wall was bad enough, his so called ‘pro-life’ anti-abortion stance was bad enough. Yet for me, the final straw was his treatment of nationals from those seven particular countries. That sir, was one step too far.

As a proactive campaigner for refugees rights (and as someone who works weekly with refugees and asylum seekers), Donald Trump’s proclamation of banning the entry of anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia is an utter disgrace and outrage. Not only is it completely pointless when we come to America’s favourite subject – terrorism, its damn right obnoxious and heartless. So lets take a step back. ‘Terrorists’ that America seems to constantly be so scared about (despite the fact that you’re probably more likely to get shot by your toddler with the gun you casually keep in your house) have tended to be from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Surprise, surprise they’re not on the list. Of course, we must prevent ‘Islamic Terror’ unless they’re from a country that we’re so reliant on being friends with (I mean oil, hello). Therefore, for Trump to claim this ban to be because of so-called ‘terrorist’ threats is absurd. Yes Islamic State are real but over 90% of the people who have been killed by them are Muslim. In Syria or Iraq. You know, the ones who want to flee to safety?

Second of all, conflict, terror or human rights abuses significantly affect all the states that Trump has taken issue with. Syria and Yemen are both in the midsts of deadly civil wars that appear to have no end in sight. Sudan has experienced political turmoil for as long as can be remembered with past genocides, sectarian issues and human rights abuses. Somalia – after escaping war, has seen itself divulged into a fight against Al Shabab (an offshoot of Al Qaeda). And Libya. Libya, Libya. After overthrowing Qaddafi, has seen itself in civil war as well as fighting off an offshoot of Islamic State. Last of all, Iran. Iran might not have an issue with civil war but the human rights abuses are unreal. Kurds, women, Sunnis, Bahai. You name it.

All because they’re Muslim? Some might be Christian, Jewish, Bahai. Is that even relevant?

So now lets get real. There are millions of people displaced globally right now. Estimates put half of them as children. Yet ‘the land of the free’ calls them ‘terrorists’, or people who are not worthy of being safe or free from oppression. Yet Donald Trump gets up on his high horse proclaiming that he is ‘pro-life’. PRO WHOS LIFE? You don’t care about the millions of people across the globe, persecuted, shot down, struggling to get by. Many of them who have seen their only families die behind their own eyes. Families who send their kids for safety in hope of giving them the future they could never have.

But we will not be silent. The world will not sit back and watch one vulgar human being treat humanity like this. We will not rest until justice is served. We must not rest until humanity is free and these borders that are nothing short of social constructions are destroyed. We are all human beings. We are all one. This is not about politics, this is about humanity. And anyone who cares about humanity will shout until there is no need to shout anymore.

The Arab Spring & Oil

The so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has troubled the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) significantly since 2010.  The protests were a shock to many around the world as no one had predicted such protests and consequently revolutions or wars could or would happen in the MENA region. However, once it became clear that this ‘domino effect’ was happening, people began to question whether there were any correlations between the nations involved.  One of the main things questioned was the role of oil. The majority of states that have experienced significant protest or civil war have not been states in possession of large quantities of oil.  So does rentier state theory explain the failure of mass mobilisation in certain states?

Let’s role it back to how this ‘Arab Spring’ began. In December 2010 in Tunisia Mohamed Bouazizi, a fruit and veg seller set himself on fire in protest against corruption in the country. This led to all out protest in the nation and the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The protests soon spread as in January 2011, they broke out in Yemen and Jordan swiftly followed by Egypt in February 2011 following the Mukhabart beating to death Khaled Said (of which pictures appeared on the internet sparking outrage). A couple of weeks later, Hosni Mubarak resigned. The Libyan people joined the ‘Arab Spring’ in February 2011 too along with Bahrain, Morocco, Oman and Algeria followed by Syria and Saudi Arabia in March 2011 and finally, Kuwait in the summer of 2011. Every protest was different in nature and outcome as some were easily resolved by their leaders, others involved regime change or even counter-revolution and many continue to suffer grave civil war to this day.

Of all the states that were involved in the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria and Libya were the only states with significant oil assets and Libya was the only state that saw dramatic change.

At first glance, it appears that states involved in the Spring that had oil wealth were able to survive the upheaval. Due to the sheer amount of money that these states make from producing oil, they were able to ‘buy off’ their citizens – which is exactly what Saudi Arabia did. Saudi Arabia put $136 billion into the public sector to help fund housing and unemployment. This undoubtedly prevented citizens from wanting to revolt further – along with the fact that people were arrested and often tried in courts specifically used for terrorism charges. The Saudis were also able to use their oil influence in Bahrain where they helped the Bahraini King suppress rebellion with military force (probably paid for by oil).

Although on the surface oil (rentier-state theory) may be useful in explaining why certain states did not have to deal with the mass mobilisation of their citizens during the ‘Arab Spring’, it doesn’t truthfully represent it. Oil prices fell during the late 1980s and we didn’t see political liberalisation then and also, there were a number of other causes such as the  authoritarian or monarchic (although monarchies can also be authoritarian) nature of governments and the protests themselves.

Arguably, it wasn’t the fact that oil producing states had financial abilities but it was how we used them. The Gulf monarchies attempted to consult and include the vast majority of the population rather than just a particular group of supporters – something that Libya failed to do. Libya did not use their oil wealth to appease their citizens in a successful way which ultimately led to widespread protests that spiralled. When Qaddafi finally attempted to ‘buy off’ his citizens (with $24 billion for housing) it was too little, too late. This just goes to show that some states were a lot more willing to use their oil wealth to buy off their citizens and prevent them protesting than others. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Monarchies recognised this ability – Libya, did not.

The majority of states in MENA are either ruled by monarchical or authoritarian governments. Its arguable that Monarchies were able to retain power without much issue during the ‘Arab Spring’ due to the nature of their regime and the tradition it entailed. Monarchies sit outside the normal legislative institutions making it easier for them to quell protest and offer reforms in an easier manner – due to the differing factions in the legislature. In Saudi Arabia reforms were granted as women gained certain political rights as well as noted changes to interfaith dialogues and the judicial system. Libya on the other hand played off clan and ethnic differences and held central importance to the army to stamp out process. The army then split into two meaning that civil war broke out. This is something we have also seen in Egypt and Syria – deserters – yet we have not seen it with monarchical regimes as they still retain full support of their militaries. Qaddafi came to power in 1969 following a military coup and played off deep divisions in the country ensuring he followed authoritarian rule. This created a fractured and distrustful society, which ultimately was prepared to rebel against authoritarian rule.

My last point is that the nature of the protests varied significantly. In Saudi Arabia protests were pretty limited – the majority of protests were in the Eastern Province, the Shia dominated region of a Sunni nation. Limited groups were involved in the protest such as the Free Youth Coalition and the National Youth Movement (both Shia). The protests did not call for the direct overthrow of the regime, only for changes to human rights and putting an end to corruption. There were vary few Sunnis who became involved in the protests. This meant that unity and mass mobilisation was not going to happen due to sectarianism being used as a counter-revolutionary strategy. This was the opposite to Libya were protest was widespread and mainstream. Libyan protests expanded nationwide and even set up the National Transitional Council (NTC). There were numerous opposition groups which had grown abroad as well as underground at home such as the Libyan Constitutional Union and the Libyan Islamic Group and, to top it off for Qaddafi, most the Arab world despised him making it a lot easier to overthrow him.

So, although oil wealth helped states that were willing to use their oil wealth to ‘buy off their citizens’, it was very much dependent on whether the state in question was willing to do so. Saudi Arabia was willing to put billions into employment benefits, housing and public sector pay and therefore this, to an extent, helped prevent mass mobilisation. Libya on the other hand, attempted to put a few billion into the state welfare and citizens, in particular housing, but it was very much seen as far too little and far too late. Furthermore, the protests themselves and their demands and the nature of the regime played significant roles. In Libya, a large section of society called for the fall of the regime whereas in Saudi Arabia, a limited sect of society protested. Furthermore, due to its monarchical nature and the support of their armed forces, they were more capable of overcoming unrest in the early stages whereas, in Libya, the authoritarian regime lacked the overall support of the military and therefore, the regime fell.