Who are the parties to the conflict and what are their goals?
In the 1990s, during Sudan’s north-south war, former Vice President Riek Machar was a seniorbNuer SPLA commander who, along with others, split from the SPLM/A, citing grievances with the centralized leadership of the SPLM under John Garang, a Dinka, alleged human rights abuses, and disagreements on the objectives of the insurgency against Khartoum.Machar and his allies, who were primarily ethnic Nuer and Shilluk, later allied themselves with the government in
Khartoum and briefly held positions in the Sudanese government. Machar’s struggle with Garang’s forces cost thousands of southern Sudanese lives—Amnesty International estimated that 2,000 civilians, mostly Dinka, were killed in a series of raids referred to as the Bor Massacre by Nuer forces under Machar’s command.14 Abuses against civilians by both sides fueled ethnic hatred and fighting, particularly in the Greater Upper Nile area (now northern Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile states) throughout the 1990s. Machar reconciled with the SPLM in the early 2000s and assumed the third-highest post in the leadership structure, after Garang and his deputy, Salva Kiir. After John Garang died in a helicopter crash in 2005, shortly after the signing of the 2005 peace accord, Kiir then became head of the SPLM, with Machar as his deputy. Sudan held national elections in 2010, prior to the 2011 referendum on southern independence.
As part of the CPA deal, the SPLM had formed a temporary Government of National Unity with Sudan’s ruling party. Salva Kiir, as chairman of the SPLM, served as first vice president under Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, and concurrently as president of a then-semi-autonomous Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS). Rather than Kiir running against Bashir in 2010, the SPLM decided to field a northern candidate on their national ticket. Kiir, who by many accounts viewed secession as imminent, instead ran to retain the GoSS presidency, winning the position with almost 93% of the votes cast.15 As incumbent GoSS president, Kiir retained his post, now as president of the Republic of South Sudan, under a transitional constitution after independence, with Machar remaining his vice president, for a four-year term beginning July 9, 2011.Efforts by senior leaders, often led by Kiir, to seek reconciliation with various armed groups and among communities throughout South Sudan have been ongoing for more than a decade. As part of these efforts, and out of apparent concern for the country’s political stability, Kiir granted
amnesty to several individuals who once led rebellions against the SPLM. In addition to Machar, other faction leaders who returned to the party were often incorporated into either the government
or the security forces; many brought their forces with them, adding to the government’s new challenge of reforming and “right-sizing” the increasingly bloated security sector. Some faction leaders, including Peter Gadet, another Nuer commander who fought against Garang during the civil war, received senior posts in the SPLA (which now refers to South Sudan’s armed forces).
In 2013, President Kiir made major changes to his government in a stated effort to downsize and address governance concerns, but also, it appears, in response to perceived threats to his leadership and international donor pressure to crack down on state corruption. He replaced two state governors, both elected in 2010, by presidential decree. In June, he dismissed two senior cabinet ministers over alleged corruption charges, and conducted a major cabinet reshuffle in July, removing Vice President Machar and his entire cabinet. Kiir also dismissed ruling party secretary-general Pagan Amum, who had been publicly critical of the dismissals. The SPLMdominated
parliament approved a new, leaner cabinet in August (after rejecting one of Kiir’s appointees). Among his notable appointments was naming the powerful Dinka governor of the volatile Jonglei state as defense minister; Kiir in turn appointed the previous defense minister, a Nuer seen as loyal to Kiir, to assume the Jonglei governorship. Jonglei, which is believed to have significant untapped oil reserves, has been a historic flashpoint for inter-ethnic fighting,
including, at various times, clashes between Nuer and Murle, Murle and Dinka, as well as between Nuer and Dinka. Given its mixed ethnic composition and existing tensions, the Jonglei capital, Bor, was among the first areas where fighting spread during the current crisis. The political dispute that appears to have triggered this crisis was not based on ethnic identity or a communal dispute. The leaders who were aligned with Machar prior to the onset of fighting
represent multiple ethnic groups. Broadly, Machar and his political allies contend that President Kiir has become increasingly dictatorial, using corruption allegations to sideline perceived rivals, increasingly condoning human rights violations and abandoning the ideals of the independence struggle, and letting “regional and ethnic lobbies” override collective decision making within the ruling party.To Kiir and those loyal to him, Machar’s charges were seen as politically motivated, and part of a long personal quest for power.
How does the fighting affect civilians and foreign nationals?
The current crisis worsens humanitarian conditions in a country facing acute needs.Fighting and rising insecurity have contributed to deteriorating conditions that are further impacted by the evacuation of many international relief workers. The protection of civilians is currently the primary humanitarian challenge in South Sudan, and reports indicate that the security forces are, in many areas, divided and/or unable to provide security for either residents or foreigners. In some areas, reports by human rights groups suggest that members of the security forces may have committed serious abuses against civilians. U.N. peacekeeping mission personnel have limited capacity to protect civilians—under its existing mandate, UNMISS is authorized by the U.N. Security Council to protect civilians under
imminent threat of physical violence “within its capabilities and in its areas of deployment.”While the Security Council has authorized an increase in the force size of UNMISS, the mission’s resources remain constrained given large-scale displacements in a country the size of France, with extremely little infrastructure. The lack of paved roads outside the capital significantly hinders the mobility of both South Sudanese security forces and U.N. peacekeepers. Prior to the onset of the crisis, the Security Council reiterated in multiple resolutions that the government of South Sudan has the primary responsibility for conflict prevention and civilian protection, with UNMISS playing a supporting role.Amid reports of abuses by elements of the security forces, this dynamic places U.N. forces in an increasingly difficult position vis-à-vis the host government.
More than 60,000 people have sought refuge at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the first three weeks of the fighting. As of January 7, the United Nations conservatively estimated that more than
200,000 people had been displaced by the conflict, with the real figure likely much higher, given limited access to civilians outside population centers.Delivering assistance to those in need is a
top priority for relief agencies, where security allows. Hygiene and sanitation have emerged as problems in areas where the displaced are gathering, and U.N. officials indicate that food, water,
healthcare, and shelter are urgently needed. The United Nations has issued an emergency appeal for $166 million to address immediate needs, including those of Sudanese refugees currently
residing in camps in South Sudan.This funding represents the most urgently required resources from an overall $1.1 billion 2014 aid appeal for enduring humanitarian needs in South Sudan.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay reported on December 24 that “mass extrajudicial killings, the targeting of individuals on the basis of their ethnicity and arbitrary detentions have been documented in recent days.” She also expressed concern about the safety of detainees, including several hundred civilians who were reportedly arrested in Juba and hundreds of police who were also reported arrested across the capital.Fighting in Unity and Upper Nile States not only threatens local residents but may also worsen conditions for refugees who have fled the ongoing conflict in the neighboring Sudanese states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Fighting between Sudanese forces and insurgents in those states has led some 200,000 refugees to seek shelter and assistance in camps in South Sudan since 2011. Foreign aid workers were evacuated, for example, from Yida refugee camp, which hosts more than 70,000 refugees from Southern Kordofan. The fighting has also affected aid deliveries to the Maban refugee camps in Upper Nile.
Agenda 2
BRITISH MANDATE
1920 - 1948
Back to Top
|
DATES
|
E V E N T
|
1920
British Mandate
|
"The League of Nations divided the territory [formerly under Ottoman rule] into new entities, called mandates. The mandates would be administered like trusts by the British and French, under supervision of the League, until such time as the inhabitants were believed by League members to be ready for independence and self-government.The mandate territories were Syria and Lebanon, awarded to France; Iraq, awarded to Britian; and a new entity called Palestine, which was also placed under British control. Palestine, as defined for the first time in modern history...included the land on both sides of the Jordan River and encompassed the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan."
|
1922
|
"Out of the broad region known as Palestine, Britian carved two political entities in 1921. One entity consisted of the rea of Palestine east of the Jordan River; it was named the 'Emirate of Transjordan,' and later simply 'Jordan'... In the western half of Palestine, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, Palestinian Arabs and Zionist Jews wrestled for control under the British umbrella."
[Note: The League of Nations ratified the Mandate on July 24, 1922]
|
1947
|
"On February 14, 1947, the British cabinet decided, in effect, to wash its hands of Palestine and dump the problem in the lap of the United Nations."
|
1947
UN Partition
|
"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions to partition western Palestine into two states -- one for the Jews, which would consist of the Negev Desert, the coastal plain between Tel Aviv and Haifa, and parts of the northern Galilee, and the other for the Palestinian Arabs, which would consist primarily of the West Bank of the Jordan, the Gaza District, Jaffa, and the Arav sectors of the Galilee. Jerusalem, cherished by both Muslims and Jews as a holy city, was to become an international enclave under U.N. trusteeship.
The Zionist, then led by David Ben-Gurion, accepted this partition plan, even though they had always dreamed of controlling all of western Palestine and Jerusalem. The Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states rejected the partition proposal. They felt that Palestine was all theirs, that the Jews were a foreign implant foisted upon them, and that they had the strength to drive them out."
Thomas L. Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, p. 14, Anchor Books, 1995
|
ISRAEL, JORDAN & EGYPT
1948 - 1967
Back to Top
|
DATES
|
E V E N T
|
1948 - 1949
Declaration of Independence (Israel)
Arab-Israel War of 1948
|
"On 14 May the Jewish community declared its independence as the state of Israel, and this was immediately recognized by the United States and Russia; and Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese forces moved into the mainly Arab parts of the country. In a situation where there were no fixed frontiers or clear divisions of population, fighting took place between the new Israeli army and those of the Arab states, and in four campaigns interrupted by cease-fires Israel was able to occupy the greater part of th country.In the course of that war, the Zionists not only managed to hold all the areas assigned to them by the United Nations [in 1947] but to seize part of the land designated for the Palestinian state as well. The other areas designated for the Palestinians by the United Nations were taken by Jordan and Egypt; Jordan annexed the West Bank, while Egypt assumed control of the Gaza District."
|
1949
Armistice Agreements
Palestinian Refugees
|
"The armistice agreements were not peace treaties and did not provide for many of the features that normally govern the relations between neighboring states at peace with each other, such as diplomatic and trade ties. During the following years Arab leaders made abundantly clear their uniform view that the armistice accords were merely elaborate cease-fire agreements, implicitly temporary and qualitatively different from and well short of full peace treaties."
"At the end of hostilities early in 1949, the United Nations estimated that there were 726,000 Arab refugees from Israeli-controlled territories, about 70 percent of the Arab population of Palestine. The exact number is difficult to determine because it is impossible to know the true number of Arab illegals living in Palestine when the war broke out and the number of Bedouin who had become refugees. A fugure of about 600,000 to 760,000 is probably more accurate."
Ian J. Bickerton & Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict p. 104, fourth edition, Prentice Hall, 2002
|
1949 - 1956
|
"The essential reality of Israeli-Arab relations during 1949-1956 was...unremitting, if generally low-key, conflict. Leaders and news media on both sides regularly voiced propaganda and traded threats, and the Arab world closed ranks in waging massive political warfare against Israel, regarding it as a pariah state and attempting to persuade the rest of the world to follow suit. The Arabs refused to recognize Israel's existence or right to exist -- leaders and writers avoided using the word 'Israel'; maps left its area blank or called it Palestine.
A comprehensive Arab economic boycott was imposed, including the closure by Egypt of the Suez Canal [July 26, 1956] and the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and to specific goods (such as oil) bound for Israel, carried on third-country vessels, and a ban on deals with companies doing business with Israel.
|
1956
Suez War
|
"In October [29-30, 1956] Israeli forces invaded Egypt and moved towards the Suez Canal. In accordance with their previous agreement, Britain and France sent an ultimatum to both Israel and Egypt to withdraw from the Canal Zone, and [Egyptian President] 'Abd al-Nasir's refusal gave a pretext for British and French forces to attack and occupy part of the zone... Under American and Soviet pressure, and faced with worldwide hostility and the danger of financial collapse, the three forces [Britain, France and Israel] withdrew."
|
1956 - 1957
|
"The U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), which was to supervise the truce, began arriving on 4 December [1956]. Britain and France completed their withdrawal by 23 December, handing over their positions to UNEF. Though Israel agreed to withdraw on 8 November it did not actually do so until 8 March 1957 -- and then only after the United States committed itself to standing by Israel's right of passage through the Gulf of Aqaba, ensuring that Gaza was not used again for launching guerrilla attacks against it. On Israel's insistence UNEF troops were posted exclusively in Gaza and the Gulf of Aqaba region to safeguard Israeli shipping. Egypt was allowed to return to Gaza to administer it."
|
1957 - 1967
|
"The political outcome of the war was a clear and substantial radicalization of the conflict. Nasser and other Arab leaders began to speak openly of the need for a 'third round' [after 1948 & 1956], in which Israel would be destroyed. In a letter to Hussein [King of Jordan] on March 13, 1961, Nasser wrote: 'On...Israel, we believe that the evil introduced into the heart of the Arab world must be uprooted.'"
|
1967
|
"[Egyptian President] Gamel Abdul Nasser asked the United Nations to withdraw the forces which had been stationed on the frontier with Israel since the Suez war of 1956, and when this was done he closed the straits of Aqaba to Israeli shipping... As tension mounted, Jordan and Syria made military agreements with Egypt."
|
Share with your friends: |