PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 03 December 2010 12:28

Peace Accord 2005 and Need to Build Geopolitics Federalism in Sudan*

Dr. Suresh Kumar

Expert in Africa Federal Politics

Department of African Studies, University of Delhi, India.

The Atlantic Journal of World Affairs, Vol.2 No.1, January-March 2006.

* This paper was originally presented in the International Geographical Congress IGU-Glasgow, UK from August 15-20, 2004 and revised in the light of political developments accordingly.



The nature of multi-polarity enshrines in the Republic of Sudan having an area of 976,750 square miles and comprises 38 million people (2003 estimate) belonging to different communities like Hamito-Semites, the Nubians in the northern part, Dinka, Shilluk, Auak and Nuer, the Murle, Didinga, Boya, Toposa and Bari in the southern and Azande, Kreish, Bongo, Moro and Madi in the southwest region. This research work covers the study of physical geography through four maps, the application of the influence of political and economic geography on the national power, combination of geographic and political factors influencing or delineating Sudan or a region and national policy based on the interrelation of politics and geography. The elements of unity in diversity or multi-diversity did not justify the current north-south problem in simple cultural, religious, ethnic or on racial terms. One cannot ignore the geopolitics of Sudan that lead to regional, national and international connectivity of provinces with the rest of world on the one hand and availability of geoponics and natural resources like petroleum, gold, iron, chromium, copper, zinc, tungsten, mica, livestock, forests, fisheries, cotton, rubber, coffee, gum Arabic, sesame found disproportionately on the other hand need a policy of political federalism to distribute the share equally to all the provinces. Along with it, the high levels of ethnic heterogeneity and a history of economic exploitation, under privilege of different provinces demand a considerable degree of autonomy with in the existing state structure. It will forge a socio-political culture characterized by interpersonal interchanges and better marketing relations i.e. a move towards decentralization of geo-natural resources that strengthen the bonding of cooperation of provinces towards Center on the one hand and center provides the necessary minimum basic needs (Bread, Cloth and Shelter) to all and a move towards civil society on the other. Prior to it, one must visualize and analyzes the historical background of pre colonial, colonial and postcolonial state of Sudan to understand the nature of geopolitics conflict, its consequences and its effects on contemporary Sudan.


We, the member of UN celebrated the 56th year of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December 2004 and reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standard of life in larger freedom. That’s why, the General Assembly resolution A/ C.3/ 59/ L. 40, dated November 24th 2004, Situation of Human Rights in Sudan” got defeated and the UN member states vote in favour of this no action motion (Table-1). Finally, the Sudanese vice president and Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), signed a Peace Agreement in Kenya on January 10, 2005.


Voting Pattern on Situation of Human Rights in Sudan

No Action Motion

UN member states Total




Absent during voting





1. Afghanistan, 2. Azerbaijan

Africa 55



# 03

3. Sierra Leone, 4. Dominica

European Union Members




5. Kazakhstan, 6. Kiribati





7. Papua N Guinea





8. St Kitts-Nevis

Republic of Korea




9. Sao Tome Principe

Middle East, Russia, China and others




10. Seychelles

11 Cape Verde

East Europe




12. Tonga

13. Turkey

Latin America



# 08

14. Ukraine 15.Vanuatu

Total 191





# - Lesotho, Liberia, and Namibia, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Grenada, Honduras, Jamaica,

ST Vincent–Cren and Trinidad Tobago.

Source: General Assembly, SER. NO. 374, Item: 105 (C), Resolution: A/C.3/59/L.48, 24 Nov. 2004.


Table-1 clearly showed the common understanding of human rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge. It is a common standard of achievement for all countries, which respect these rights and freedoms to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance. The effective role of Africa Union, SAARC, member states of ASEAN, OPEC, Latin America, Russia, China, Democratic Republic of Korea and other countries to take a very strong opinion in favour of Sudan that will certainly lead to strengthen the democratic processes their. There is an urgent need to rethink that why the developed world is only having enormous tensions for the democracy and human rights? Is it the real issue of first world tension or the developed world greed of economic supremacy and hegemony demanding to move up against Afghanistan, Iraq and now to Sudan?

Historically, the geopolitics of Post Second world war changed the power bloc on the globe and British policy was reversed in 1946 that led to the association of north to south and middle east, which tolerated decades of British isolation policy. But the pressure of the Swez Canal dispute justified British colonizers changed attitude by saying that southern Sudan would not be economically viable if separated from the north. Today, the EU and USA are worried about western Darfur region of Sudan and jeopardize American-assisted negotiations to bring peace in a separate conflict in the south. Even they suggest dividing southern Sudan and forming a separate country because the oil in the ground and flowing through the pipeline to the Red Sea supertanker port has driven expulsions from western Upper Nile/Unity State, the area of the main oil production today. The initial exploration areas in Blocks 1, 2 and 4 dangerously situated on the north-south conflicting region of Sudan are producing crude oil daily (230,000 barrels per day) since 1999.

Today, large number of countries feels that human rights violations never be targeted and it is the Sudan being an Oil producing countries made its southern part significant. The race to seek more and maximum raw oil and to capture oil-well either on the name of anti-terrorism or on the name of non-fulfillment of Human Rights in Democratic Sudan will ultimately a hallmark of multi-lateralism on the one hand and will prove US as a champion and defender of unilateral world, which is a step toward ultra fascism. Along with it, it will hamper the on going peace implementation process in Sudan under the leadership of Africa Union and UN, which lead to regional, national and international connectivity of provinces with the rest of world. Once the peace is established in Sudan, the availability of geoponics and natural resources need a policy of geopolitics federalism to distribute the share equally to all the provinces. It will forge a socio-political culture characterized by interpersonal interchanges and better marketing relations i.e. a move towards decentralization of geo-natural resources that strengthen the bonding of cooperation of provinces towards Center on the one hand and center provides the necessary minimum basic needs to all and a move towards civil society on the other.

Major Features of Sudan Peace Accord 2005

THE Sudanese vice president, Ali Osman Taha, and Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), the main southern rebel group’s leader, John Garang signed a Peace Agreement in Kenya on January 10, 2005 that called for an end to one of the longest-running conflict in Sudan. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, representing the United States, also signed the agreement as a witness. The agreement is a positive development for peace in Sudan and will persuade the other groups of western Darfur region, which is not covered under the agreement, to work further for the peace processes.

The National Liberation Council, the southern Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army's (SPLM/A) legislative body, on 24th January 2005 unanimously ratified the southern peace agreement ending the 21-year civil war in the south. Members of the 224-seat Council convened in Rumbek, the provisional capital of southern Sudan, to discuss the requirements of the agreement.1 Under the power-sharing agreement between the government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, 52 percent of the government will be from the ruling National Congress Party and 28 percent from the SPLM/A, with other northern parties taking 14 percent and other southerners six percent.2 Yassir Arman, spokesperson of the SPLM/A noted, "That the peace agreement was widely and gratefully received by the population of Sudan, whom the Council is representing, was a clear indication that the peace deal was going to be ratified”.3
Sudan's National Assembly on Feb.1, 2005 unanimously ratified the comprehensive peace agreement. Ismail Al-Haj Musa, chairman of the assembly's Law and Justice Committee, presented the committee's findings on the comprehensive peace agreement to the parliament, describing the agreement as "paving the way for a just partnership in resources and power and giving solution for the issue of the relation between religion and state.”4 The committee illustrated that peace was a strategic goal of the state intended to bring about comprehensive development and progress all over Sudan, and stressed that the "implementation of peace is a common responsibility of the government, the SPLM/A, and all the national and political forces.”5 It is believed that the agreement had paved the way for the realization of democratic transformation and the expansion of the scope of participation, facilitating the return of a large number of opposition leaders to the Sudanese capital. This agreement, a framework for unity, which is based on free will, democratic rule, justice, equality and mutual respect, besides guaranteeing the right of self-determination for the citizens of south Sudan. Vice president, Moses Machar, Secretary General of the National Congress, Ibrahim Ahmed Omer, former vice president Abel Alier and other SPLM/A officials, federal ministers, representatives of the Sufi sects and Sudanese political parties attended the ratification ceremony in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum6.

Both the ratifications of SPLM/A and Sudan's National Assembly legislative body will clear the way for the drafting of a new constitution and the formation of a new national government. After six years, a referendum among the southern states will determine whether the south will become fully independent or remain part of a unified Sudan. The agreement also stipulates that the SPLM/A leader, John Garang, is to become first vice president and head an autonomous administration for the south during the six-year transitional period.

One of the major objects of the agreement is to keep Sudan intact, with the prospect of secession by the south intended to put pressure on the central government to uphold its end of the bargain. In a carefully negotiated compromise, an autonomous government is to emerge in the south while new national institutions are created. David Mozersky, a Nairobi-based analyst for the International Crisis Group, said the agreement "was very positive, but in a sense the hardest part is still ahead and believed that the first test would be the drafting of a new constitution during a six-month ‘pre-interim’ period.”7 Second, there are concerns over whether the parties will meet the deadline and whether the negotiations will be inclusive. Third, It is observed that the representative democracy will be a tough task in the south Sudan. Mozersky said that the rebel movement currently lacks the capabilities and institutions to form a government and that the government has ‘questionable political will’ to abide by the agreement and further said, implementing the deal "will be made that much more difficult, if not impossible, unless Darfur is resolved." 8

Overall, the Peace Accord initiates six-year transition period calls for assimilation of fighting forces, sharing of oil wealth and dividing governance seats between north and south. Several thousand onlookers-most of them Sudanese refugees who had nothing but war in their homeland-danced with glee at a downtown sports arena here as Sudan’s vice president, Ali Osman Taha, and the rebel leader, John Garang, initiated the agreement, which had been years in the making. Now, the centre and provincial governments of functional democracy will be initiated by providing some autonomy to build and strengthen their governance. The symbolic functional autonomy is initiated by announcing the following measures:

1. Both the Arabic and English will be treated as official languages.

2. New paper money will be issued reflecting the country’s unity in diversity.

3. Dual banking system is to be set up.

4. Islamic law will be made applicable in north Sudan only thus helping in keeping the gun battles down. And

5. The agreement calls for a referendum in six years among southerners to determine whether they wish to remain part of a unified Sudan.

The agreement was threatened by the fact that the war continued in other parts of Sudan. The western Darfur region, where clashes involve different rebels, was not covered under the agreement. This six- year transition period to ease the combatants toward peace. It is fraught with potential complications but, if it works, it could help bring development to one of the world’s most destitute and disease-ridden regions. Southerners will be given some autonomy in the coming years and must create a functioning government from scratch. Even few expect Sudan’s government to allow a split to occur, but the vote is considered a major incentive for inclusive rule in the years ahead.

Physical Nature of Sudan

Sudan the largest country is situated in North-East Africa consists of twenty-six states (the government divided the nine states into the 26 states in Feb. 1994) and having an area of 976,750 square miles. It shares common borders with nine countries – Egypt and Libya in the North, Chad and Central African Republic in the West, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Kenya in the South, Ethiopia and Eritrea in the East. The Sudan is irrigated by two Niles; the white Nile and the Blue Nile, Which joining the white Nile at Khartoum and the habitant is only possible along the banks of the Nile as in eastern region.9 The northern part of the Sudan from Egyptian borders to the north of Khartoum consists of desert or semi-desert areas largely uninhabited. The central Sudan is a country of semi-desert and Savannah with a rainfall of 8-25 inches per years lays the famous cotton growing area between the blue and white Niles, and Kardofan province10. The Southern Sudan have produced an environment difficult to live in, resulted a variety in modes of living (Table-2) and consists of three provinces of Bahr-at-Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile.11 Agriculture is the dominant sector of the Sudanese economy contributing the 40% of the GDP12. The livestock population is over 125 million heads of cattle (36%), sheep (37%), goats (45%) and camels (3%), the largest animal resources in Africa.13 Cotton is the main cash crop of Sudan and is characterized to its quality. Sudan is the largest supplier of ‘gum Arabic’, producing 80% of world demand (Table-2). Sesame seeds groundnuts and sunflower seeds are also source of income generation. Along with it, gold, copper, iron ore, chromium, silver, zinc and most important source is the oil, which has emerged as a valuable asset and merged the republic with ‘club of oil producing countries’.

The People of Sudan

Sudan is a multi- orient features having a population of nearly 38 million (2003 estimate and Table-2) having the people of northern Sudan or Hamito-Semites descendants of Arab-migrations settled and intermarry with the original inhabitants the Nubians, speak Arabic and having faith on Islam. The people of southern Sudan or Nilotic, Nilo-Hamites and Sudanic speak Arabic and Dinka followed by fourteen minor languages representing one-third of country’s population residing within a quarter of its territory (Table-2 and Map-3). The elements of this multi-diversity found in Sudan are really difficult to justify the current north-south conflict in simple cultural, ethnic or racial terms. To understand the current situation in Sudan, one must clearly understand the historical background of the conflict taking into account of pre-colonial and colonial period.


Republic of Sudan

Languages Arabic (Official), Tribal Dialects, English,

Ethnicity/Race Black52%, Arab 39%, Beja, 06%, Foreigners 02%, Others 1%

Religion Islam (Sunni) 70%, Indigenous 20%, Christian, 5%

Agriculture and Livestock Cotton, wheat, gum Arabic, sugarcane, Ground (Pea) nut,

Cassava (tapioca), Sweet Potatoes, Sorghum, Papaya, Millet,

Mangoes, Bananas, Sesame, Sheep and Camel

Industries Oil, Cotton ginning, Shoes, Textiles, Cement, Petroleum refining,

Soap distilling, Armaments, Automobile Light truck assembly

Pharmaceutical, Edible Oils, Sugar

Labor Force 11 million Agriculture 80%, Industry and Commerce 7%, Government 13%

Natural Resources Petroleum, Copper, Iron Ore, Zinc, Chromium Ore, Tungsten

Mica, Silver, gold, Hydro powder

Export $2.1 billion Oil & Petroleum products, Cotton, Sesame, Live Stock, Ground nut

Gum Arabic, Sugar, petroleum products

Import $1.6 billion Foodstuff, Refinery, Wheat, Manufactured goods, textiles

Transport, Equipment, Medicines and chemicals

Transportation Railways 5995 km, Highways 11,900 km paved 4,320km

unpaved 7,580 km, Waterways 5310 km navigable, Airports 65

Major Trading Partners Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, UK

Communication Telephones 400,000, Mobile 20,000

Internet Service Providers 02

Internet Users 56,000

Source: Encyclopedia of Sudan, 2003.


Geographic Determinism

1 Pre-Colonial Sudan

The Saifa-run kingdoms of Kanem and Bornu in east-central Sudan, which began to emerge gradually after AD 900, reflected continuous ruler ship by a single group of Mai, or governors, from AD1100 until 1846.14 The 15th century Sennar, an ancient city in northern Sudan was the capital of a very strong Arabised-Negro nation of the Fung15 and it was mentioned by David Reubenl, Jewish adventure in 1522. The Turco-Egyptian conquest of the Sudan in 182016 started a new period in the southern Sudan and its relation with the north. It came under the control of one government, for the first time, which administered north and south, becoming part of the Egyptian empire.17 This regime in Sudan altered the political and economic balance in the country considerably18, in terms of gold and slave raiding.

The next significant phase is known as Mahdia and Muhammed Ahmed Ibn Abdallah attracted many followers because of tribal discontent with oppressive taxation (by the Egyptian) grow disruptions caused by the slave trade, and deportation of traders. 19 Mehdi was defeated at the Battle of Tuski 1889 and faced with many rebellions, even in their own stronghold like Darfur and Kardofan, and along the white Nile20. During this period, an Egyptian officer, Colonel Ahmed Arabi led a revolt against Khedurie Ismael the Egyptian ruler, which was crushed with the help of British General Wolseley Khedurie in response to it, renounced much of his power to British and later on a British protectorate21.

2. The Colonial Sudan

The geographical division or doctrine of ‘Scramble of Africa’ reached its high points and British initiated and successfully invaded Sudan on the name of Egyptian ruler and killed Second Mahdi in 1899. The British administration influenced the social sector to discourage Arab culture, names, language, clothing and customs. The Southern people were encouraged to return to tribal law, family life and custom wherever possible. English increasingly replaced Arabic as the lingua franca of the region22. Along with it, the missionary English education in the south was encouraged to replace the northern administrators and clerks working in the south. The subsidized mission schools in 1926 formulated a prior condition to enter into the school as pupil in the south, had first to accept Christianity23. In contrast, there were both government and religious schools in the north resulted a higher literacy their as compare to south. Sir Harold Mac Michel memorandum on southern policy 1930 witnessed the vigorous implementation of these principles led to the embarkation on the road to separation till the initiation of second world war.

3. The Process of De-colonization and Sudan

The Post Second world war changed the power bloc on the globe and British policy was reversed in 1946 that led to the association of north to south and middle east, which tolerated decades of British isolation policy. Most fluent reason was to adopt this new policy of ‘challenge to colonialism’ that forced British to initiate the process of de-colonization. But British colonizers justified the changed attitude by saying that southern Sudan would not be economically viable if separated from the north24. Even the British administrators in east Africa pressurized them because of having the opinion of no productive zone that resulted into not interested in a liaison with southern Sudan25. Along with it, the Swez Canal dispute and the pressure of Umma Party for United Sudan, forced the British colonial administration to keep Sudan intact. The 1948 legislative assembly having sixty-five elected and ten nominated members was formed for the “Interim period” in which thirteen members represented the southern Sudan26. The Anglo-Sudan Constitutional Amendment Commission started working in 1951 and draws the stages for granting independence to Sudan27. The Anglo-Egypt Agreement 1952 recognized the right to self-determination to Sudan28. Following that, the Nationalist Unionist Party won the elections and Sh. Ismail Anzari became the first interim Prime Minister of Sudan in Jan. 195429. The discontent in southern Sudan broke out in 1955 because of not getting their due share resulted into the killings of northern people living in Sudan. British colonialist enforced to speed up the process of independence and assured that a federal constitution would be given serious consideration that came into effect on 1st Jan. 1956.

Today, the federalism in Sudan is, therefore, basically federalism of functions rather than of powers.

Geopolitics Federalism in Sudan

Federalism, it is true, unlike a unitary system, does not compel unity out of diversity. It allows the diversity to coexist. But in the course of its growth towards maturity does create union through the real functions of the federal government and the component units of the state.

It is uniformly significant that the geopolitics allocation of diversities within a federation require not always strictly follow the boundary lines of the component units of the state.

There are two reasons why geopolitics federalism in Sudan is considered as the most expressive forms of government. First, Federalism has been described as ‘the process by which a widening sense of social (and political) harmony is reconciled with the attachment for local identity, through the provision of dual political organization. Secondly, because of a sort of dual political organization and the grant of substantial regional autonomy, the north and south Sudan in a federal state federation, unlike in other forms of government, should be most clearly recognized.

The geopolitics federalism in Sudan starts with a tacit recognition of the immutability of regional personalities, and because most clearly recognized, geopolitics federal becomes a suitable subject for geographical inquiry, if geography is properly described as the science of spatial interaction.

Geopolitics Importance and Southern Sudan

The economic position and lop sided development in Southern Sudan, where the extraction of precious natural resources (minerals from Katanga and Kasaai and oil from southern Sudan, eastern Nigeria, north-west Cameroon and Angola’s Cabinda. Map-2) coincided with a state’s inattention to regional economic decay, the resultant pan-territorial popular outrage served as especially potent mobilizing fuel. One can measure sub-nationalist movement according to whether it achieves its stated goals or not. To a lesser degree, changes in movement aims have occurred in several times in southern Sudan, where leaders sometimes imply that greater autonomy would be sufficient.

Southern Sudan having primary areas of major ethnic groups is a large territorial domain with distinct historical, cultural and religious characteristics that set the region substantially apart from the politically predominant north (Map-3). While Islamic Arabic people have dominated northern Sudan since pre-colonial times. The South is populated by a large number of animist and Christian groups. The largest and best-known group is the Dinka, and today number about 2 million and its (Dinka) share with other southern Sudanese a history of resistance against northern domination.30 Other southerners include the Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile provinces, the Shilluk, Auak and Neur, whose social institutions and identity reflect a complex set of relations between cattle and people; 31 in Equatoria province, the Murle, Didinga, Boya, Toposa, and Bari; and in the south-west, the Azande, Kreish, Bongo, Moro and Madi32 (Map-3). Many of these smaller groups suffered particular devastation during the Arab slave trade, while the numerous and well-organized Dinka military units were able to marshal a more effective defense33. For the most part, Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk and other southerners enjoyed cooperative political and economic relations with each other, and village leaders from different ethnic groups would frequently meet together to resolve different ethnic groups would frequently meet together to resolve differences. The pre-colonial history of interethnic coordination against attacks from the north gave rise to prophetic traditions passed on through sacred songs and oriented toward the collective, inter-group liberation of the south from northern domination34.

During the twentieth century, the advent of British colonial rule led to a rigid administrative reinforcement of north-south separation, with northerners needing special permission to travel or conduct business in the south and southerners being accorded a distinct and less well-funded educational system35. The northern provinces of Khartoum and Kassala absorbed the vast share of communications and transportation infrastructure and development projects. Political institution was similarly concentrated in north, while the south remained under the control of military commanders36. Finally the stage for north-south political negotiations over federalist arrangements during Sudan’s decolonisation has been set. After independence in 1956, however, northern politicians abandoned negotiations, and soon thereafter, in November 1958, the armed forces staged a coup d’etat and seized control of the government37. Mean while, the southern provinces of Upper Nile, Equatorial, and Bahr el Ghazal remained excluded from representation in central government institutions and were not accorded substantial economic development investment38.

Contemporary Issues in Sudan

It is wrong to offer the impression of being at economic and political aspects of the crisis in a separate and isolated manner. Both cooperate in diverse and intricate customs in Sudan. The nature of political system in Sudan overlooked the accomplishment of federal structures, which has a major impact on patterns of accumulation, growth and distribution of wealth and played a vital role in their economic performance. This political dynamics have forced the economic problems of Sudan in many ways:

First, the civil wars and prolonged violence engendered by political conflict have overcome the economy of Sudan in the past decades on the one hand and the affected populations by district, internally displaced and refugees are the direct result of it on the other hand (Map-1).

Second, the economic performance of Sudan has been badly affected not only by the diversion of resources to armed forces to launch peace, but also by the demolition of social and economic infrastructure.

Third, lack of food led to hunger that has thus been particularly cruel in war zones in Southern Sudan. The main conflicts in Sudan are all the time more due to internal troubles (struggle for secession or autonomy). Consequently, conflicts have become more of a social and public health problem than an instrument of state politics (Map-4). The war between the government and the SPLM/A erupted in 1983 when rebels took up arms against authorities based in the north to demand greater autonomy. At least 2 million people have been killed and four million displaced. Another 600,000 fled to seek refuge in neighboring countries.39 And

Fourth, the oil in the ground and flowing through the pipeline to the Red Sea supertanker port has driven expulsions from western Upper Nile/Unity State, the area of the main oil production today. The initial exploration areas in Blocks 1, 2 and 4 dangerously situated on the north-south conflicting region of Sudan (Map-2) are producing crude oil daily (230,000 barrels per day) since 1999. The UN special reporter on Sudan reported to the March/April 2002 session of the UN commission on Human Rights that: “the overall human rights situation has not improved since 2001. Oil exploration is closely linked to the conflict which --- is mainly a war for the control of resources and, thus, power. Oil has seriously exacerbated the conflict while deteriorating the overall situation of human rights and oil exploitation is continuing to cause widespread displacement---.”40 This peace agreement asserts that people of southern Sudan are capable of appreciating the economic advantages which petroleum exploitation will offer them.

Vision of Geopolitics in Sudan and Conclusion

Since federalism is essentially a polity based on interactions and interrelations of a complex set of regionally grouped diversities (represented by and articulated through the constituent provinces of the Sudan), a geographical approach to its study would appear a very helpful one. Since the main federal diversities are regionally organized, and since they are neither purely sociological, economic, or political in nature but all these together at one and the same time, a geographical approach with its emphasis on aerial integrations and regional interactions should prove a helpful tool in the study of the dynamics of federal political systems, particularly with respect to their overall origins and stability wherein the regionally grouped diversities on which federal systems are based become a critical factor that distinguishes this polity from other governmental systems.

Thus, in reviewing the historical development of Sudan shall be twofold: first, to delineate the politico-geographical factors that were largely responsible for creating among the constituent units strong regional identities and the consequent desire for separate existence; and secondly to isolate the factors that in the end overwhelmed their feelings for separatism and persuade them to unite into a functioning federalism. From the two sets of factors one would proceed to infer the general relationships among north and south regions and Post Peace Accord 2005 interactions that will help the rise of geopolitics federalism in each case and thus arrive at certain hypotheses on the origins of federalism in Sudan (as State-idea).

As the State-idea in Sudan is not easy to identify, the task may be difficult. But since historical studies of the relevant periods in the history of Sudan exist, it has seemed possible to do so for the study of geopolitics federalism. Use is also made of relevant works of political scientists and students of constitutions.

Over all, all ethnic elites should be discarded and be treated alike, be cherished and should be recognized under the constitution of Sudan. The government and all the traditional chiefs should initiate the process of states autonomy to strengthen political unity and socio-economic development. All the political rival military groups like Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M), United Military Command Council (UMCC), Sudan People’s Defence Forces/Democratic Front (SPDF), Machar, Akol ,Bol, should initiate the process of table negotiation , implementing peace Accord 2005 and to come forward for electoral politics on the one hand and to keep away the armed struggle on the other hand will be the only way to maintain a geopolitics federal Sudan. The “People-to-People” conferences (as held in October 1999 and May 2001) should be organized, which will create a way to respect and recognize ‘Peace Accord 2005” to know the real essence of geopolitics federalism. The central-provincial relationship to fulfil the grassroots demands should be pursue a new path of development for the welfare of common people that is the basic requirement of a federal state.


1. IRIN News Org, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Nairobi, 25th January 2005.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. IRIN News Org, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Nairobi, 2nd Feb 2005.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. The Washington Post, 10th January 2005.

8. Ibid.

9. Bashir, M. O. The Southern Sudan: Background to Conflict, (C. Himstand and Co. London, 1968), p.1.

10. Ibid, p.2.

11. Abdalhaleem. Abdalmahmood, “Sudan: the Country Profile”, Dilomatist, Vol.7, No.3, (Noida, May-June 2003) p.82.

12. Ibid.

13. Reyna. Stephan. P, War Without End: The Political Economy of a Pre colonial African State, (University Press of New England, Hanover, 1990), p.163

14. MO Bashir, op.cit, p.9.

15. Calling, R.O, The Southern Sudan 1883-1893 (Yale University Press, Yale, 1962), p.178

16. MO Bashir, op.cit, p.10.

17. Douglas. H. Johnson, Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars, (Fountain Publishers, Kampala, 2003), p.10

18. Dunslan. M. Wai, The African-Arab Conflict in the Sudan, (Africana Publishing Co., New York, 1981), p.30

19. Hizkias. Assefa, Mediation of Civil Wars: Approaches and Strategies, the Sudan Conflict, (Westview Press, London, 1987), p.41.

20. Ibid.

21. Hizkias. Assefa. op.cit, p.45.

22. Ibid, p.43.

23. Misddathir. A. Rahim, The Development of British Policy in the Southern Sudan, 1899-1947,(Khartoum University Press, 1968 ), p.46.

24. Dunan. J. S. R, The Sudan’s Path to Independence, (William Blackwood &Sons, Edinburg, 1957 ) p.213.

25. Hizkias Assefa, op.cit, p.50.

26. Ibid.

27. Abel. Aier, “The Southern Sudan Question” in Dunslan. M. Wai (ed), Southern Sudan: The Problem of National Integration (Frank Cass, London, 1973), p.18.

28. Doughlas. H. Johnson. op.cit, p.26.

29. Ibid, p.29.

30. Sharon. E. Hutchinson, Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State, (University of California Press, Berklay, 1996), p.60.

31. Salih. M. A. Mohamed. op.cit, p.189.

32. Donald. Rothchild, Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Pressures and Incentives for Cooperation, (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1997), p.215.

33. Young. Crawford, The Politics of Cultural Pluralism, (University of Wisconsin Press, , Madison, 1976), p.492.

34. Sharon E. Hutchinson, “A Curse from God? Religious and Political Dimensions of the Post-1991 Rise of Ethnic Violence in South Sudan”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 39, No.2, (UK, 2001), p.326.

35. Benyanamin. Neuberger, National Self-Determination on Post Colonial Africa, (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1993), p.30.

36. Johnson. Doughlas. H, “The Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the Problems of Factionalism” in Christopher Clapham (ed), African Guerrillas,(Indiana University Press, Bloomington, . 1998), p.55.

37. Johnson, “Sudan People’s Liberation Army” in Donald Rothchild, op.cit, p.64.

38. Livingston. S. W, Federalism and Constitutional Change, Oxford University Press, London, 1956), p.1.

39. IRIN, News Org, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Nairobi, 2nd Feb 2005.

40. Statement by USAP on oil. December 1999. As reproduced in Sudan Democratic Gazette, Year X, no.115, London, p.9.



  1. Map-1, Affected Populations by District, Internally Displaced and Refugees (Oct. 2003)
  2. Map-2, Major Oil and Gas Blocks, (Oct. 2002)
  3. Map-3, Primary Areas of Major Ethnic Groups, 2003
  4. Map-4, Sudan Health Facilities, (31 Dec. 2002)