The Sudanese Dispute after the Split

The country of South Sudan had been through many decades of consistent fighting and civil wars to become the independent country that is today South Sudan. The inequality and unfair government treatment led to their decision of officially breaking the largest country in Africa into two separate countries. Only six years after the peace treaty that finally ended the atrocious civil war did South Sudan gain independence, becoming Africa's newest country. South South Sudan faced many problematic issues wanting to break off and become independent and its own nation because the southerners felt discriminated against by the disagreement with the northern government standards.

According to the conflict theory of dependency, Sudan was taken advantage of, then eventually left on its own. One

‘The war in Darfur” is an armed conflict in the Sudan Darfur region that began in 2003 and is still ongoing, and in 2005 it was later declared as a civil war against Chad and Central African Republic.

Sudan has known conflict for most of its existence. The discovery of oil in 1979 served to heighten this conflict as north and south fought over valuable resources. In more recent years human rights violations and genocide have occurred in unsurpassed numbers with the Sudanese governments support. Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state with an issued arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In July 2011 southern Sudanese citizens voted to secede from Sudan and form the Republic of South Sudan in response to years of oppression by the Arab led Islamist government. South Sudan is now the worlds newest country and free to determine its own path

The Sudan is home to two civil wars taking place dating back hundreds of years. “The older of the two, pitting the Muslim revels from the south, has claimed 2m lives in the past two decades, and spurred 4m people to abandon their homes.”(Economist 11) Although the two sides in this old war are close to a peace resolution, a new insurgence has begun in the region pitting “Arabs” against the “black Africans”, in an effort to attract peace concessions from the Sudanese government just as the older rebels did years before. An uprising by rebel groups against government targets sparked this new war because they felt neglected by the Sudanese government. But the response of the government to the new revolt falls extremely short of peace concessions, and instead perpetuates an environment of violence, torture and depression. The government has given its own militia, the janjaweed, free reign to pillage, rape and kill black civilians in a futile attempt to squelch the revolt. This can be see as an “ethnic cleansing” in which the government feels that the killings of blacks will hopefully rid the country of the rebels given that the Darfur rebels are mostly black Africans. Thus, the Sudanese

Ever since the start of the civil war (December 2013) in South Sudan, tensions have been running high between two opposing groups. Those who support the President, Salva Kiir, and those who support his fired deputy, Rick Machar. This conflict has caused food shortages and disease for many people. The one thing the parties have in common is the brutal violence especially towards women. According to the article,

Sudan has had internal problems for many years. The country negatively affected itself from within. No outer force caused the issues at hand. Sudan experiences their first civil war in 1956. The issue came from economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim and non-Arab southern Sudanese. The war lasted for about sixteen years and finally concluded in 1972. Unfortunately the violence

Soon after this new government and administration was established, conflict, unfortunately, came back again. It is important to note the environment that precipitated the conflict. Once South Sudan achieved their independence, the international community stepped away without giving much guidance. The government

In the long run, Lost boys were positively affected by being able to go to the United States. During the second Sudan civil war in 1987, between Northern Sudan and Southern Sudan, many boys were separated from their families because they had to flee to avoid slavery, death, or being forced to fight. About 20,000 boys, mostly 6 or 7 years old, had to flee. They walked thousands of miles to find safety. Over the journey, thousands of boys lost their lives, but some boys survived and made it to refugee camps. These boys are called Lost boys. “UNHCR recommended approximately 3,600 of them for resettlement in the United States and the U.S. State Department concurred," (“International Rescue Committee”). UNHCR(the United Nations refugee agency) recommended

1.) How were "tribes" in the Sudan formed differently from the way "races" were constructed in the United States?

Djibouti's identity as a nation is a compromise between the social and political aspirations of two different communities that have created a social contract within the context of the state that now allows them to maintain their independence. The new President, Ismail Omar Guelleh, who has been in office for over fifteen years, supports economic integration with Ethiopia and has hinted at favoring economic federation with that country. Though closely related culturally and linguistically, the Afar and the Somali-speaking groups have been rivals for power and access to resources. This tension exploded into open armed conflict in the 1990s. After a military campaign to quell the Afar revolt, the government opted for a policy of compromise without

The Lost Boys of Sudan survived their struggle because of their physical, emotional, quel spiritual streath. Their physical they went though a lot they were always bearfoot and they walked though rocks and ruf.Their emotions was very sad because they were alone since they were young because they killed their parents but they still went kept on going with there life they didn’t stop for there own safety. They also berid there bother he died because he never drink anything so he died and they beried him right after he died they had no choice and they drank their pee if they wanted to live. Yes it might be nasty but they had nothing to drink so they had to drink there pee.They were very strong they kept on going even doe there brother die and

Given the fact that within many countries, there are various different cultures, political views, ethnicity, religious beliefs and so forth; it is no surprise when internal state conflicts emerge. Each country has a different way of resolving their internal state conflicts. Canada for instance uses a federal system in order to efficiently resolve local and national issues. Other countries such as, Sudan applied State separation in order to resolve their internal state conflicts, resulting into the creation of South and North Sudan as two separate countries. This essay argues that federalism is a much more efficient way of resolving internal state issues than State separation. In order to support this statement, this paper will: First define federalism and state separation to ensure a better comprehension of the essay. Secondly it will highlight the pros of both of these ideologies. Thirdly I will analyze the financial consequences of state separation. Then I will analyze the social benefits of federalism and lastly I will analyze the political benefits of federalism.

While still struggling to achieve peace with Sudan since its independence in 2011, South Sudan is now rife with inner-conflict. Rebel forces led by the former Vice-President Riek Machar want to overthrow the South Sudanese government, led by President Salva Kiir.

The origin of the war between these two regions goes back to the 1950s when the country, which was previously two separate nations, was made one after World War II by the west. Shortly after this union, Sudan was emancipated from England. 1983 marks the beginning of the violent relations between the North and South Sudan. The initiation of this conflict was brought forth by the Islamic Sudanese of the North, invading with military force the Southern Sudanese Christians . From 1983, it is estimated that at least two million people have been killed in the violent duration of this genocide, most of whom are of the Christian faith and lead non-violent civilian lives. Attention on human trafficking was brought into the international community’s scope with close proximity to the beginning of the violence as two professors from the University of Khartoum shed light on the subject. Ushari Ahmad Mahumud and Suleyman Ali Baldo learned about the genocide and enslavement being practiced on the Dinka people, a tribal group in the southern Sudan, and upon this discovery they dicided to investigate it further. What they found was that raiders from the north were killing the Southern Christian men and kidnapping the women and children to be sold into slavery. The most disturbing part of this discovery was the newfound knowledge that this had been going on for over two years. Professors Mahumud and Baldo