South Sudan Civil War

South Sudan Civil War

South Sudan is the youngest independent country, the independence that they have struggled for almost 50 years, coupled with civil wars. A struggle for freedom, freedom from exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and slavery not only on religious but also racial grounds. After attaining independence in 2011 as a kleptocracy, South Sudan did not last long before plunging into civil war again in 2013.

In this paper, I will focus on south Sudan’s civil war, then analyze the reasons for the conflicts. I will relate to the civil war on three different conflict theories and political ideologies. I will focus on realism, liberal institutionalism, and armed conflict theories and how they are being impacted by either liberalism, socialism, and conservatism.  South Sudan has gone through several civil wars with periods of peace in between served as a best-case study to shed light on how conflict theories played a role in the civil wars.

Armed conflict focusing on the need for conflict to sort oppressing issues of a people South Sudan has gone through almost four decades of violent conflict. South Sudan having sessions of the peace, then back to civil wars, implies theories of a liberal institution- roles played by domestic and international institutions play in facilitating peace and cooperation play a significant role. Realism plays a large role in the war as international relations, and personal characters hugely affect the decisions of a state. I will focus on how these individual aspects of conflict theories interrelate and differ about South Sudan’s civil war.

Armed Conflict

For many years, the armed conflict has raged in Sudan with disastrous consequences on political, economic, and social growth. Civil wars and political unrest threaten to pull apart Sudan’s postcolonial state. A state which the British government fueled when they failed to address the inequalities in development, representation, and safeguarding the interests of south Sudanese when they granted independence to the whole of Sudan. The ripple effects of these armed conflicts are felt in the present Sudan and will be felt for generations to come. Armed conflicts have caused Sudan’s insecurity, instability, and stunted economic growth. There have been prolonged periods of violent conflicts in Sudan, resulting in the displacement of people, refugees, and pronounced human suffering. The Sudan civil war was partly influenced by political aspirations and ideologies for the south Sudanese did not approve of the political ideologies of the northern Sudanese. The rampant political violence dates back to the colonial and pre-colonial legacies. Southern Sudanese were given subordinate status in the hierarchy of leadership. The political institutionalizing of this misdoing granted the northern Sudanese the entitlement to rule and lead, resulting in armed conflict. The political landscape of Sudan was shaped in the colonial period, and South Sudan’s first revolt against the government was a political opposition against racialized despotism and inclusion in government institutions. The ruling group refusing demands for inclusion mirrored the lack of political will to consider the marginalized group escalating the crisis to civil wars. The theory of armed conflict was opted for as a last resort by the southern Sudanese to address their grievances.

Realism

Realism played a great role in the South Sudan civil war as the military, national in tests, and politics took center stage in the civil war. The state was unmoved by the problems of the southern Sudanese. Even after attempts to rectify the injustices, through the 1970 talks, the state was unwavering, for they doubted the ability of the marginalized group to seek justice. Realism tries to explain how human nature impacts on state behavior. The northern Sudanese elite’s selfishness for power led to violent conflicts and civil war for almost four decades. They were unwilling to share power with the southern Sudanese. The constraints of the international community saw south Sudan’s economy suffer as foreign states like U.S.A stopped their firms from purchasing fuel from the country. This added more strife to an already suffering nation. Sudan’s involvement in international politics aggravated its internal war as it led to unprecedented arms distribution. Sudan is rich in natural resources drew interests from both global states and investors. This interest dictated foreign aid, depending on the stand of the country. Realism differs significantly from armed conflict since realism focuses on the roles played by individuals and institutions in fueling civil wars. In contrast, armed conflict focuses on violence to undo injustices.

Liberal Intuitionalism

South Sudan was entangled in a struggle for freedom. They fought for inequalities in economic, political, and educational developments.  Sudan was ruled by a northern elite who thought entire Sudan could be ruled by Islam culture and principles.  South Sudan had different interests and representations that the leadership did not address. They suffered slavery, discrimination, exploitation, and abuse. They fought to free themselves from these injustices. Liberal institutionalism assumes that institutions, both domestic and international, are vital in fostering peace among states and nations. This is seen in the case of the South Sudan civil war when foreign states offered relief help in an aim to aid the problem. The northern government was not willing to share power, address the issues of the southern people, or unite Sudan in a compromising approach that factors in all Sudanese, Both Islam, and Christian. The failure to reach a consensus by the south or the north in 1970 when addressing regional development, national unity, and the balance of governmental power led to the prolonged civil wars. Political nationalists within the northern elite tried to solve the diversity and unequal development by formulating a national identity. The identity based on Arab culture and Islamic principles. It took the intervention of international states to end the civil wars by the formation of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. liberal institutionalism focuses on the role institutions play in conflict. In contrast, realism focuses on international relations and personal traits, which also differs from armed conflict, which focuses on the role of violence in conflict.

In my findings, I noted that realism, armed conflict, and liberal institutionalism all play vital roles in fueling and ending conflict. Realism fueled the South Sudan civil wars for the northern elite were not willing to share power with the southern Sudanese because of personal greed. I noted how institutions played a crucial role in fueling the civil war, for we can see South Sudan through the executive, political institutions trying to resolve the injustices in an amicable way but the northern elite was reluctant. The Sudan civil war was marred with violence leading to refugees, displacements, and many deaths reflecting the role of armed conflict theory. But we see the main resolution of the long civil war can be attributed to international relations. International countries step in and come up with the agreement

In conclusion, theories of conflict have both sound and negative effects depending on how they are implemented. It is critical to note that humanitarian relief be independent of political influences, and amicable solutions for war should be the first option before the war. This is seen after South Sudan was troubled by civil wars for four decades but fell back to a peace agreement to solve their stalemate.

References