A critical look at history shows that civil wars are not recent phenomena; they have existed for centuries. The biggest question that lingers in many minds is the reason why people opt for violence instead of using cultured ways of resolving conflicts. Even in the 21st century, civil wars are still a thorn in the flesh of governments, regional and international players. In reference to this fact, examining the issue in totality and analyzing intervention measures is critical in comprehending trends of the places where civil wars are perennial predators. Africa is one place where civil wars have posed serious threats to development. Africa is a continent with immense natural resources. The potential in Africa is immeasurable, but conflicts have continually jeopardized the capacity of the continent to grow exponentially; politically, socially and economically. Civil wars have become a perennial trend in Africa precipitated by the political volatility of the systems of government (Butler, 2009).
Historians argue that the lack of democratic processes have contributed significantly to the slowed growth in many African countries (Dixon, 2007). Most African countries do not have the political stamina to handle the complex social, cultural and economic structures affecting the people; hence, fuelling internal discontent. In most cases, the failure of governments to enact feasible political structures has triggered insurgent groups to rebel against them and cause intense pressure on the normal operations of the governments. The internal strife has often resulted into civil wars, which have consequently led to deaths and displacement of citizens. To date, Africa has experienced a number of civil wars that have tarnished the political, economic and cultural potential in the respective countries. It is notable to assert that in most cases, political and economic factors are responsible for the fuelling of civil wars.
The 2nd Civil War in Sudan (1983-2005) resulted into a death toll of more than 2 million and at least 4 million people displaced from their homes (Minear, 1991). Regarded as one of the bloodiest civil wars after the World War II, it destabilized the oil rich nation and brought virtually every operation to a standstill (Minear, 1991). Political, economic and social factors were at the centre of the conflicts between the then Sudan’s central government and the rebel groups. The discontentment of the rebel movements and the need to acquire greater autonomy heightened the violence in Sudan (Hassan & Ray, 2009). The increased tension and mass violation of human rights by the then Sudan’s central government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army called for the intervention of the international community.
The magnitude of atrocities during the civil war called for an immediate and continued action from regional and international players to negotiate for peace and manage the conflict. International response was vital in managing the Sudan conflict at that time. The international community stepped in with various political, economical and humanitarian interventions aimed at resolving the immense pressure between the central government and rebel movements (Butler, 2009). Clearly, there was no viable mechanism and structures that could bring peace in Sudan without the help of the international community. Just like in the 1st and 2nd World Wars, there was need for an international response to bring the conflict to an end. Efforts to end the civil war through internal means were not yielding, thus calling the international community to step in to negotiate for peace and manage the disastrous conflict.
Indeed, international response was significant in addressing the contentious issues between the central government and the rebel movements in Sudan. Bringing the conflicting groups at the negotiating table with the international community acting as the mediator was imperative in creating a sound intervention structure. Certainly, the contribution of foreign nations and external institutions played a huge role in handling the volatile situation during the 2nd Civil War in Sudan. What did the international community do to arrest one of the bloodiest civil wars in history? A comprehensive analysis of the international response to the crisis will certainly unearth the efforts by the international players to mediate and manage the conflict at that time.
Response from Operation Lifeline Sudan
The continued unrest in the war between the Khartoum-based central government in the north and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the south brought about serious violations of human rights that deemed it necessary for the United Nations to step in and help the suffering civilians (Dixon, 2007). Especially for the civilians in the south who had critically suffered from militias from northern Sudan, the United Nations responded to bring aid and manage the escalating conflicts. Drought, diseases and mass killings spelt out the need for the United Nations to hasten its plans for Sudan and offer humanitarian aid to the civilians. The government was deeply concerned about fighting the rebels. This caused intense pain and suffering to the people especially those from Southern Sudan.
The international outcry about the situations in Sudan called from an immediate response from the international community in offering humanitarian aid. In an endeavor to manage the conflict and combat the rising violations of human rights, the Khartoum conference in 1989 was significant in responding to the excesses of the government of Sudan in the war (Efuk, 2001). The Khartoum conference sought to establish peace between the north and the south, and allow the United Nations to distribute the much-needed humanitarian aid to the south, where most of the killings took place.
The conference brought together the United Nations, the government of Sudan, NGOs and donor governments in an effort to address the heightened violation of human rights in the south (Dixon, 2007). The UN proposed to the government of Sudan and the SPLM to cease fighting for 6 months to allow for the safe penetration of humanitarian aid into south Sudan but they did not agree to the request (Efuk, 2001). Instead, they agreed to set designated areas where the UN would distribute humanitarian aid to civilians. This initiative by the UN was known as Operation Lifeline Sudan. The Operation Lifeline Sudan supported humanitarian aid in Sudan and responded to the cries of the people.
Despite the challenges faced by Operation Lifeline Sudan, the United Nations did not bow down to the increased tension in Sudan. It continued to offer humanitarian aid and foster peace between the parties involved in the war. Towards the end of 1989, Operation Lifeline Sudan had managed to distribute 110,000 tons of supplies and food to south Sudan (Butler, 2009). This effort was significant in addressing the humanitarian problem fuelled by the civil war. Through the UN, the Operation Lifeline Sudan was in a position to trigger peace negotiations between the government and the SPLM. The efforts of the Operation Lifeline Sudan were critical in initiating prospects for future peace between the rival groups. In spite of the hard conditions in delivering relief supplies and food to the suffering civilians in the south, the endeavor of the United Nations in providing aid to the government and rebel groups was indeed significant in fostering peace between the sides.
The response of Operation Lifeline Sudan under the United Nations was timely in averting the crisis and restoring dignity to the civilians. Meeting the humanitarian needs of the affected people was instrumental in initiating a resolving ground for the conflict. Effective management of the conflict meant that the humanitarian needs of the civilians had to be met, of course not from within Sudan but from external parties. The intense political, economic and ideological differences involving the top hierarchy of the central government of Sudan and the SPLM facilitated the killing and displacement of innocent civilians.
The intervention of the United Nations through the Operation Lifeline Sudan was an important response in resolving the Sudan conflict by meeting the needs of the neglected civilians and mediating between the fighting groups (Minear, 1991). It is worth noting that the non-partisan approach of the United Nations played a dominant role in effecting its endeavor. Certainly, the magnitude of the problem called for feasible interventions that would not jeopardize the peace and security of the people of Sudan. Without a doubt, the Operation Lifeline Sudan under the United Nations in collaboration with NGOs and donor governments played an imperative role in managing the conflict in Sudan.
The Egypt-Libya Peace Initiative
Initiated in 1999, the Egypt-Libya Peace Initiative aimed at responding to the increased political turmoil in Sudan (Voll, 2013). The SPLM wanted to have political autonomy over the central government; hence the reason for the continued political violence between the government of Sudan and the rebel movements. The 1999 peace initiative wanted to spur political negotiations between the rival parties and restore viable governance structures to govern both the north and south of Sudan. The Second Civil War in Sudan was widely acknowledged as a continuation of the First Civil War because of the political struggles in the country (Voll, 2013). The Egypt-Libya Peace Initiative brought the south and north in a negotiating platform to discuss ways of ending the continued violence.
Though the northern opposition parties agreed to the proposition, the SPLA did not agree to the terms of the initiative because it did not consider secession in its mediation structure. Political analysts argue that Egypt was reluctant to the self-determination of the south because it could possibly affect access to the river Nile, which passes through the south of Sudan (Rotberg, 2004). This shows explicitly that Libya and Egypt contributed in the intervention process because of the possible consequences of the civil war. Political and economic interests were at stake, thus necessitating the development of the peace initiative. Moreover, Egypt wanted to have a formal mandate while responding to the civil war in Sudan (Butler, 2009). The formal participation of Egypt in the mediation process formed a solid ground for the advancement of peace in the country.
The SPLM pursued self-determination and the separation of religion from the state as part of its negotiation terms, which was refuted by the central government based in Khartoum (Rotberg, 2004). The central government, based in Khartoum, the north of Sudan, had predominantly taken over the political realm of the country, and excluded the south. Additionally, the fact that Muslims dominated the north and the government had introduced Islamic law in the country did not auger well for SPLM in the south.
The south was predominantly Christian. The 1999 peace conference to foster national reconciliation did not progress as it was expected because of the incapacity of the rival groups to agree on the contentious issues. The commitment of Egypt and Libya in negotiating for peace in Sudan was renewed in 2001 after it the stalled talks in 1999 (Voll, 2013). The response of Egypt and Libya in the conflict in Sudan portrayed the commitment of foreign governments in establishing a lasting peace in the country.
The political turmoil in Sudan affected its relations with other governments; hence, there was need for international response from the international community. The continued response from Egypt and Libya signaled the need for a united and peaceful Sudan. Therefore, in 2001, Egypt and Libya renewed their efforts to see a united and peaceful Sudan. The then Egyptian Deputy Assistant Foreign Minister Rafiq Khalil led his delegation to the peace initiative in Tripoli (Rotberg, 2004).
Government officials from both countries met to discuss the most feasible ways of activating a sound intervention that would end the civil war. The peace initiative sought to enhance the peace talks between the rebel groups and the central government. Moreover, the Egypt-Libya initiative proposed the formation of an intermediary cabinet by the political structures involved, and the setting up of election plans to settle the political turmoil (Voll, 2013). Of importance still, was the proposition to cease the increased fighting between the north and south.
A critical analysis of the efforts by Egypt and Libya show that the response was important in settling the internal conflicts in Sudan, without which, it would have been difficult for the parties to agree on the contentious issues. From a critical approach, the peace initiative took a diplomatic dimension to bring the rival groups together and discuss on a way forward. Indeed, the Egyptian and Libyan officials sought to primarily handle the political differences and put the government of Sudan and the rebel groups on a transitional platform that would consequently lead to political stability.
The political instability in the country fuelled the civil war, thus the response of the peace initiative in having a comprehensive political framework that would accommodate both parties was utterly significant. Though the conflict in Sudan continued after the presentation and discussion of the peace initiative, the Egypt-Libya Peace Initiative was instrumental in setting precedent for further talks and negotiations towards the cessation of the civil war. The peace process indicated the need for further talks to end the crisis and foster development in Sudan. The initiative spelt out important steps in managing the conflict in Sudan.
The Response of the US in the Civil War
The United States of America, as an important global player could not fail to respond to the constant violence that threatened to destroy Sudan. The United States responded both on humanitarian grounds and politically in a bid to manage the conflict in Sudan. The response of the US in the crisis demonstrated the magnitude of the Sudan problem, and the commitment of the international community in managing and resolving the civil war. The United States collaborated with the United Nations to provide aids to the suffering civilians because of the civil war. During the Operation Lifeline Sudan, the United States of America was on the forefront in providing financial and material assistance to Sudan (Grzyb, 2009). The humanitarian response by the US was in a bid to manage the conflict by reducing the number of deaths in the country.
The death toll out of famine and diseases was increasing; hence, the US had to step in and offer humanitarian aid. The actions of the US in offering humanitarian resources to the worsening condition in Sudan, especially the southern part, demonstrated the commitment of the international community in bringing to an end the devastating effects of the civil war. The massive investment of the US and other donor governments like the United Kingdom demonstrated the devastating nature of the civil war, and acted as an impetus of ending the long struggle. The number of deaths, devastating physical conditions and displacements precipitated by the civil war prompted the intervention from the US and other donor nations. The efforts of the US in providing humanitarian aid contributed immensely in averting starvation and diseases. Despite the fierce nature of the violence, the response of the US in providing humanitarian aid was undoubtedly imperative in managing the upheaval.
The political realm of the United States also threw its weight in responding to the civil war in Sudan. The political instability in Sudan was not only affecting the country and the region, but also across African boarders. In the wake of democracy and upholding governance through democratic practices and structures, the US sought to support political negotiations and peace both in the south and north of Sudan. The efforts of the US directed at restoring political order in Sudan wanted to bring the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement at the negotiating table and foster a future of peace and democracy (Grzyb, 2009). The response of the US as a super power signaled the importance of a peaceful and united Sudan. The escalating violence in Sudan in the early 2000s prompted the response from the US because the civil war in the volatile region meant that internal struggles could cause overwhelming effects to the surrounding regions (Shields, & Baldwin, 2008).
During the Clinton’s administration, the government of Sudan was largely viewed as deliberately failing to participate in the peace process (Grzyb, 2009).This led to the enactment of economic and trade sanctions against Sudan. The United States showed commitment in the peace process in Sudan. However, in 1997, with the realization that the government of Sudan was hesitant in promoting peace, the US introduced sanctions that mounted immense pressure on the government (Shields, & Baldwin, 2008). The efforts of the US concerning Sudan were aimed at resolving the intensified conflict and restoring peace in the country. The political response of the US pressurized the government to readjust its stances and focus on improving the political climate in Sudan. Moreover, pressure on Sudan to avert the crisis and foster peace increased when the US declared the country was among the countries facilitating terrorism attacks (Grzyb, 2009).
The declaration of the US that Sudan was among the sponsors of terrorism put the country on the spotlight. The US capitalized on its political power to pressurize Sudan to fasten its endeavor to promote peace and streamline its political systems. Of greater significance to the US was to see the realization of peace in both the south and north of Sudan. According to the US, the government of Sudan had to take precedent in maintaining peace and stability in the north and the south. The Khartoum-based government had an obligation to advance the peace deal with the rebels. A critical analysis of the United State’s stance shows that the government of Sudan was back peddling in the efforts to end the civil war. Thus, the US’ political intervention of pressurizing Sudan to show commitment in the peace process was considerable in resolving the intense conflicts between the government and the SPLM.
The US was also committed in diplomatic responses to avert the civil war. In 2001, George Bush sent former Senator Danforth as the special envoy to the country (Grzyb, 2009). The president believed that diplomatic relations between Washington and Khartoum could play a huge role in enhancing peace in the nation. This move demonstrated the increased commitment by the Bush administration to cultivate peace and tranquility in Sudan. At this point, the civil war had claimed many lives and destroyed infrastructure that would have helped in the development of the country. Averting the war was a priority for the US; hence, it became increasingly important for America to establish feasible political relations with Khartoum, which would strategically avert the civil war. Danforth’s role was to secure prospects of enabling the US become an impetus for peace in the war-torn nation.
Through talks and negotiations with the leaders of the government and the rebels, he was tasked with the responsibility of securing diplomatic advances that would contribute in the development of peace, and consequently end the civil war. In addition, the special envoy sought to find ways of allowing the effective penetration of humanitarian aid in the war zones (Rotberg, 2004). There were instances whereby the government of Sudan led by Omar al Bashir denied the United Nations permission to distribute humanitarian supplies to the south, claiming that the UN was feeding his enemies (Rotberg, 2004). Unquestionably, the US’ response to the civil war enhanced political sobriety and reduced the violation of human rights. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the US played an essential role in resolving the conflict in Sudan. Without its efforts, perhaps the civil war would have taken a different dimension, and aggravated the then political and humanitarian struggles.
The Response of the European Union
Since the escalation of the second civil war, the European Union expressed its desire in bringing the war to a halt. Economic, political, cultural and geographical factors were strategic elements that fostered international relations between Sudan and the European Union. Particularly in the 1970s, the two parties shared cordial relations politically and economically (DeRouen & Heo, 2007).However, after the civil war started, the relations between the European Union and Sudan started crumbling, with the EU calling upon the government of Sudan to avert the civil war. The severe consequences of the civil war (the deaths, violation of human rights and mass displacements) forced the European Union to withdrawal its relations with Sudan.
According to the European Union, withdrawal of the foreign relations was aimed at putting political and economic pressure on Sudan. The EU did not appreciate the way the government of Sudan handled the peace process. Just like the US, the European Union argued that the government was not fully committed to the negotiations. In response, the European Union commissioned economic sanctions against Sudan and restricted the transaction of arms to Sudan. Moreover, the EU practiced diplomatic isolation by excluding Sudan in its diplomatic relations (DeRouen & Heo, 2007).The political and economic pressures against Sudan were geared towards initiating a positive response from the conflicting groups.
Sudan enjoyed good political and economic relations with the European Union prior to the beginning of the civil war. Therefore, because Sudan needed to improve its relations with the international community, there was need to handle the unstable situation in the south in order to restore its place in international relations. Foreign policies are as important as domestic policies in every country, thus it is the duty of the government to ensure that its foreign policies thrive. No country can thrive in total isolation from other countries.
In reference to this point, the European Union’s position to place sanctions against Sudan acted as a catalyst to challenge the nation to respond by averting the war. This implies that though support and negotiations where coming from external sources, the solution to end the war remained primarily within the boundaries of Sudan. The central government based in Khartoum, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) were pivotal members in initiating peace in the country.
In 1999, at the height of the civil war, the European Union supported the peace initiative between the central government and the SPLM to negotiate for peace and stop the mass killings of the civilians (Jok, 2001). The European Union responded by advocating for a feasible political dialogue that would address democracy, the rule of law and the adhering to human rights standards. The EU monitored closely the internal relations of Sudan, and in 2002, the union sought to support the country for the political improvements it had initiated (Soderlund, 2008). By 2002, the European Union acknowledged the steps that Sudan had taken in normalizing its operations.
Though the civil war was continuing, with the south and north in conflict, the European Union expressed satisfaction in the efforts that the government and the rebels had put forward to foster peace in the country. After seeing the commitment of the government and rebels in devising viable political structures in promoting peace, the EU promised to support Sudan in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 (Soderlund, 2008). It also promised to renew its relations with Sudan and enhance international cooperation.
The renewed cooperation between the European Union and the government of Sudan showed explicitly that the Union favored development and political soundness in Sudan. The union was not as active in the negotiating table mediating between the two conflicting groups as other parties, but it observed and managed the conflicts from a distance. Therefore, the EU capitalized on its foreign relations with Sudan as its catalyst towards ending the civil war. Its response in limiting foreign relations with Sudan especially politically and economically played an immense role in managing and resolving the conflict in Sudan.
The African Union Response
The African Union also took a keen participation in averting the civil war. The African Union was particularly instrumental in initiating international participation in averting the civil war in Sudan. The African Union, which consisted of African member states contributed significantly in addressing the issues by leading mediation talks between the central government and the SPLM/A. In 2004, the African Union was leading mediation talks in the Darfur region of Sudan (Hassan & Ray, 2009). At this point, the country had plunged into serious civil atrocities, which called for renewed commitment from the international community. The parallel violence in Darfur meant that Sudan was becoming increasingly volatile. In response to this, the African Union sent troops to the unstable territories to enhance peace and ensure the safe administration of humanitarian aid to the hungry, sick and displaced civilians.
The African Union sought to unite African leaders in support of the political and humanitarian responses to the war. Moreover, the AU was influential in developing a viable network of connecting with Western countries and rallying support for the peace negotiations. Heightened clashes between the SPLM and the government meant that the African Union had to step in and offer mediation talks to end the problem. The Darfur problem was fuelling tensions in the civil war and called for deliberate attention from external forces. In April 2004, the government of Sudan, the SPLM and JEM agreed to sign the Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement to promote peace in the region (Dixon, 2007).
The African Union responded by adding more troops to monitor the progress of the Darfur situation. Based on the unstable conditions in Sudan, the actions of the AU to deploy troops in a bid to avert the mass atrocities and violation of human rights played a huge role in managing the conflict and foster future peace. The AU-mediated peace talks in Darfur played a critical role in preventing further civil unrests to the already IGAD-supported peace talks to end the civil war. The humanitarian and political roles of the AU were influential in creating a mediation platform between the political groups. By leading international political and economic attempts to bring solutions to civil unrests in the continent, especially in Sudan, the continental institution was paramount in raising the banner of peace in the region.
The IGAD Peace Initiative and Signing of the Comprehensive Peace Pact
The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development sponsored the peace initiative aimed at restoring peace in the war-tone Sudan. Since the beginning of the Second Civil War in Sudan in 1983, international states, donors, international agencies and regional states wanted to bring the civil unrest to a halt. One of the dominant players that ended up facilitating the peace treaty between the government of Sudan and the SPLM was the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). IGAD started facilitating peace processes from 1993 (International Crisis Group, 2014). The first IGAD Peace Initiative was from 1993 to 2002. The second IGAD Initiative started from 2002 to 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Pact was signed, and marked the end of the civil war (International Crisis Group, 2014). The formation of IGAD came as a result of international pressure to enact feasible mechanisms of negotiating for peace in Sudan. In essence, IGAD stemmed from the need to empower regionalism and regional cooperation in fostering peace in Africa. The formation of the body was in line with international order to settle the problems that Sudan faced.
Based on its prospects of securing peace in the war-torn region, Western nations supported its endeavor in ending the challenges that the people of Sudan were facing. On the mantle of the IGAD Peace Initiative, negotiations embarked in Nairobi with various propositions in respect to the Sudan problem (International Crisis Group, 2014). The support of international states and players gave the peace initiative a major boost and worked towards establishing peace in Sudan. The 1994 propositions asserted that the southern part of Sudan had the right to self-determination. However, it is important to note that according to the principles upheld in the negotiations, the south had the right to self-determination if the government of Sudan failed to enact democratic principles and secularism. The negotiations also pointed out that the government had the obligation to respond to the basic needs of the people without discrimination.
In essence, this stipulated that the people of Sudan were entitled to social and political equity regardless of their geographical placement in Sudan. After the Declaration of Principles for the peace talks, the government of Sudan was hesitant in agreeing with the principles, a decision that led to increased fighting between the SPLM and the government-led forces. After the failure of the negotiations, there was need for the peace initiative to sit at the negotiating table again and seek for ways of bringing the groups together.
Though the first IGAD Peace Initiative from 1993 to 2002 did not end the civil war, it had significant achievements that set precedence for the second IGAD Peace Initiative from 2002 to 2005. By the time the second IGAD Peace Initiative was being put in place, violence was still a problem in the north and south of Sudan. Political tension and civil unrests still dominated the civil war. With much international pressure dominating the second IGAD peace negotiations, it was important for the parties to put forward solid negotiation platforms to put to an end the devastating effects of the civil war.
The government of Sudan and the SPLM brought representatives in Kenya to spearhead the negotiations. The negotiations in June 2002 staged an important platform in the journey towards peace in Sudan. Idris Mohamed, who was the then State Minister in the Office of the President, led the government’s side, while Nhial Deng Nhial who was among the trusted loyalists of John Garang led the SPLM’s delegation. The negotiations reached an important stage by the signing of the Machakos Protocol by Salva Kiir representing the SPLM and Dr. Ghazi Salahdien on behalf of Sudan’s government (Grawert, 2010). With the achievement of the Machakos Protocol, the IGAD Peace Initiative had taken bold steps in reaching substantial progress for the negotiation of peace in Sudan. The IGAD efforts showed that it was committed to enriching peace in Sudan. After many years of negotiations from diverse quarters, the prospects of peace were being felt in Sudan.
Through the efforts of the IGAD Peace Initiative, it was evident that Sudan was headed into a new direction. The ability to bring the conflicting groups together at the negotiating table was a significant step towards peace in the African nation. Through the help of regional and international partners, it was possible for the Sudanese government and the SPLM to undertake significant agreements in a bid to bring the decades of fighting and civil unrest to a halt. Indeed, the Machakos Protocol was imperative in directing instrumental agreements in the negotiations.
The agreements in 2002 involved the self-determination of South Sudan, the separation of the state from religion and the development of equity to the people of Sudan. From a political perspective, the agreements made between the government and the SPLM were pivotal in uniting the people of Sudan and forging a viable way forward. Since political instability played a huge role in fuelling the civil war, it was a necessary transition for Sudan to recollect itself from the ruins of the civil war through feasible political mechanisms.
The last step in the quest for peace came through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The agreement and declaration of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement involved instrumental agreements and proposals that changed the course of Sudan. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement played a huge role in the culmination of the civil war in Sudan (International Crisis Group, 2014). The IGAD Peace Initiative was on the forefront in ensuring that peace prevailed in Sudan. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement gave directions on wealth sharing, power sharing, the right to self-determination and the separation of state from religion (Adar, Yoh & Maloka, 2004).The agreement brought forth the freedom of worship and religion. The separation of the state from religion made it possible for the people of Sudan to enjoy their religious rights.
Moreover, the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Sudan were no longer based on religious grounds but on citizenship (Adar, Yoh & Maloka, 2004). The agreement gave the people of Southern Sudan the right to self-determination. This gave them the ability to have autonomy in their political structures. This was indeed a big step in the realization of peace in Sudan. Power sharing was also an important aspect in the agreement. The power sharing agreement pointed out that the national government of Sudan would exercise its authority to safeguard the sovereignty of the country.
The Southern Sudan government was to enact effective governance to control the people of Southern Sudan (Weller & Wolff, 2005). Distribution of wealth was set to have equity between the governments. The wealth of Sudan was supposed to be shared equally to allow equitable representation in the levels of government. This made it possible for the national government and the South Sudan government to govern the people well.
The contributions of IGAD in the peace process were certainly immense in bringing peace to Sudan. Of course, the IGAD Peace Initiative did not materialize without the presence of international states and agencies. The United States of America, the European Union and the United Nations played a huge role in supporting the IGAD process. Without the support of the international community through finances and political structuring for the process, it would not have bore fruits. Therefore, the response of IGAD through the support of the international community was responsible in negotiating for peace, managing and resolving the conflict in Sudan.
Civil wars have rocked many nations and left devastating effects that civilians struggle to recuperate from years after. Even the United States went through the American Civil War that has remained a defining moment in the history of the country. Judging from history, civil wars can either destroy a nation or be an impetus for greater strength in a country. Revolutions have played significant roles in the development of political, social and economic realms of nations and regions. It is definite that civil wars are disastrous and result to deaths of innocent civilians who pay the price for change. Change does not come easily; it might even take longer than expected, but the price has to be paid. The Second Civil War in Sudan is a classic example of what a civil war is; the true reflection of democracy, and regimes that go to extra lengths to block its penetration.
The international response during the civil war was indeed important, particularly because the internal players in Sudan could do nothing to avert the crisis. Internal efforts to stop the civil war were not yielding much; hence, the reason for the participation of the international community in the peace process. The civil war took 22 years to end. The two decades of constant fighting saw Sudan become a volatile country and experience its most turbulent times. International responses took the form of political, economic and humanitarian interventions in a bid to mediate, manage and resolve the conflicts. The mass violation of human rights triggered the United Nations to be on the forefront in facilitating the distribution of humanitarian aid to the victims of the mass atrocities.
The efforts of the UN took strategic planning and facilitation to achieve the desired goal. Feeding the north and south was not easy; it took coordinated efforts from the donor governments, NGOs, the United Nations and the internal structures of Sudan to avail the much-needed help. The US also participated actively in financial aid to the victims, as well as providing political and economic frameworks that would foster peace to the country. The European Union’s contribution in putting pressure on Sudan was also important in calling for peace and good governance in the country. The IGAD and the AU also contributed in the growth and development of peace in Sudan. This demonstrated the importance of regional institutions in fostering peace and tranquility. The Egypt-Libya Peace Initiative was also pivotal in stimulating further peace negotiations for the cessation of fighting in Sudan.
This implies that international responses to war are highly significant in enabling nations survive internal strife. Without international players in play, it is certain that many nations especially in the developing world cannot be in a position to avert civil wars and their effects. The devastating effects of war and crumbled political processes deem it necessary for external intervention. The end of Sudan’s Second Civil War is strongly attributed to the international responses to mediate, manage and resolve the conflicts.
Adar, K. G., Yoh, J. G., & Maloka, E. (2004). Sudan peace process: challenges and future prospects. Pretoria, South Africa: Africa Institute of South Africa.Butler, M. J. (2009). International conflict management. London: Routledge.
Dixon, M. (2007). Textbook on international law (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeRouen, K. R., & Heo, U. (2007). Civil wars of the world: major conflicts since World War II. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
Efuk, S. O. (2001). Operation lifeline Sudan (1986-1996). New York: Sage Publishers.Grzyb, A. F. (2009). The world and Darfur international response to crimes against humanity in western Sudan. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Grawert, E. (2010). After the comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan. Woodbridge, Suffolk [England: James Currey.International Crisis Group. (2014). South Sudan: A Civil War by Any Other Name. Crisis Group Africa Report, No. 247.
Jok, J. M. (2001). War and slavery in Sudan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Minear, L. (1991). Humanitarianism under siege: a critical review of operation lifeline Sudan. Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press.Rotberg, R. I. (2004). When states fail: causes and consequences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Shields, V. E., & Baldwin, N. (2008). Beyond settlement: making peace last after civil conflict. Madison [N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Soderlund, W. C. (2008). Humanitarian crises and intervention: reassessing the impact of mass media. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.Voll, J. O. (2013). Historical dictionary of the Sudan. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press.
Weller, M., & Wolff, S. (2005). Autonomy, self-governance, and conflict resolution: innovative approaches to institutional design in divided societies. London: Routledge.