Bushra 1
Mohamed Bushra
UNIV 112
11/4/2015
Professor Dempster
Annotated Bibliography
Research Question:
Was Sudan the cause of the secession of South Sudan from Sudan? If so, what social, political,
and economic actions did they take to drive South Sudan away?
Source 1:
“Strife and Secession in Sudan” by Khalid Mustafa Medani
MLA:
Khalid Mustafa Medani. "Strife and Secession in Sudan." Journal of Democracy 22.3 (2011):
135-149. Project MUSE. Web. 4 Nov. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Qualifications:
Dr. Khalid Mustafa Medani is an assistant professor of Political Science and Islamic
Studies at McGill University. Most of his published work include the political economy of
Islamic fundamentalism and civil war in Sudan. He holds a PhD in political science from the
University of California, Berkeley. He has also worked as a researcher at the Brookings
Institution, and served as a research consultant for a number of United Nations agencies in the
Horn of Africa. In 2002, he conducted an evaluation of UN and non-governmental organizations’
humanitarian relief efforts in Northern and Western Darfur, Sudan. His research interests include
the relationship between economic globalization, political Islam and civil conflict in the Middle
East and Africa.
Main Claim:
The main claim of the article is that the inevitable separation of two new nation-states has
been influenced by two factors: 1) the rise of political Islam and 2) the failure of
democratization, and flaws with the carrying out of the 2005 peace agreement.
Sub Claim 1:
Most people in South Sudan wanted independence from Sudan.
Evidence: “Between 9 and 15 January 2011, the people of the southern states of oil-rich
Sudan—Africa's largest country by land area—voted almost unanimously (about 98 percent of
the South's eight-million voters) to become formally independent of the North as of 9 July 2011
(Medani 135).”
My Response: My parents are both from Sudan so I have gotten the opportunity to see
what goes on for myself. Many of the now South Sudanese citizens (who were supposed to be
treated as Sudanese citizens prior to the secession) wanted to be independent. “The referendum
Bushra 2
was the culmination of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the longest
civil conflict on the continent (Medani 135).”
Sub Claim 2:
Both countries were at fault for the ongoing conflict.
Evidence: “Not surprisingly, the regime in Khartoum has been reluctant to hand over oil
revenue. So far, South Sudan has received only half its allotted share, and the lack of
transparency surrounding these transfers has badly strained relations between Khartoum and the
SPLM. With revenue-sharing issues unresolved and no agreement on borders, the oil question
promises to be a thorny one for a long time and could easily lead to another North-South war.
Once again, external actors—particularly foreign stakeholders in Sudan's oil industry—could
help to end the impasse. Although China refuses to get involved, India—a multiethnic state, the
world's largest democracy, and a country with firsthand experience of partition and its troubles—
could, along with Western powers and neighboring Arab and African states, assume the role of
mediator and peacemaker (Medani 148).”
My Response: I completely agree that both sides had a lot to do with the problem. “In
the end, however, both parties must understand that the only way to secure a stable flow of oil
revenue—and to secure a lasting peace—is through cooperation. They have more to gain by
working together than by fighting, if only they would see it (Medani 148).” My goal is to find as
much research as possible in order to conclude what side instigated more of the conflict.
Why Use This Source?
First of all, the author is very credible. He has spent a lot of time researching this topic
and it his main focus. He also has an unbiased view on the situation. He gives both sides’ views.
Overall, the source was very informative and effective in answering my research question.
Medani focuses on both sides’ failures and gives specific reasons on why peace was impossible
between the two sides. He addresses the fact that fighting would lead nowhere and that is exactly
what happened.
Research Question:
Was Sudan the cause of the secession of South Sudan from Sudan? If so, what social, political,
and economic actions did they take to drive South Sudan away?
Source 2:
“Secession and precedent in Sudan and Africa” by Jonathan Temin
MLA:
Temin, Jonathan, and United States Institute of Peace, Issuing Body. Secession and Precedent in
Sudan and Africa. 2010. Peace Brief ; 68. Web.
Qualifications:
Bushra 3
Jon Temin is a senior program officer in USIP’s Center for Mediation and Conflict
Resolution. He mainly focuses on Sudan and leads the Institute’s Sudan team. He travels to
Sudan frequently and has a plethora experience in other regions of Africa.
Main Claim:
The main claim of the article is that the combination of factors giving Southern Sudanese
the option to secede is unlikely to be repeated elsewhere in Africa any time soon.
Sub Claim 1:
The secession of South Sudan will have a huge impact geographically.
Evidence: “If Southern Sudanese vote to secede and gain their independence, it will be
the most significant redrawing of African borders since decolonization. Eritrea, though
strategically located given its access to the Red Sea, is small and somewhat peripheral to the rest
of the continent. Sudan, on the contrary, is the largest physical country on the continent and
borders nine other states. Dividing it in two would be a seismic cartographic shift (Temin1).”
My Response: This article was written before the referendum that was to decide if South
Sudan was to secede or not. The article pretty much laid out the consequences. “Predictions of
disaster following Eritrea’s secession were overstated—the Ethiopia-Eritrea war that followed
was catastrophic, but there was no subsequent surge in secessionist efforts elsewhere in Africa. Is
there likely to be such a surge if Southern Sudanese vote to secede? (Temin1).”
Why Use This Source?
This source specifically focuses on the consequences of Sudan seceding. This comes to
play with who is at fault because obviously (since these consequences were easy to foresee prior
to the secession) the two sides knew that separating would bring out a dramatic change. This
source looks at the situation at another perspective that is valuable in answering my research
question.
Research Question:
Was Sudan the cause of the secession of South Sudan from Sudan? If so, what social, political,
and economic actions did they take to drive South Sudan away?
Source 3:
“Toward a new Republic of Sudan” by Jonathan Temin and Theodore Murphy
MLA:
Temin, Jonathan., Murphy, Theodore, and United States Institute of Peace. Toward a New
Republic of Sudan. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2011. Special Report
(United States Institute of Peace) ; 278. Web.
Qualifications:
Bushra 4
Jon Temin is a senior program officer in USIP’s Center for Mediation and Conflict
Resolution. He mainly focuses on Sudan and leads the Institute’s Sudan team. He travels to
Sudan frequently and has a plethora experience in other regions of Africa.
Main Claim:
The main claim of the article is that Sudanese and international efforts should focus on
addressing the central issue of governance through a process of national dialogue that leads to a
new constitution.
Sub Claim 1:
North Sudan should take agreements more seriously.
Evidence: “To achieve this, existing processes and finalized agreements cannot be
ceased or disavowed. But a new conceptual approach can be adopted that would see its final
product as national reform. To do this requires a shift in ongoing local processes (Temin 1).”
My Response: I am starting to shift more towards the idea that Sudan holds the blame for
the secession. “Northern Sudan is at a turning point. Its leadership needs to articulate a vision of
what the country will look like in the years to come, something that goes beyond the rhetoric of
its If goodwill and serious efforts are not exerted in the first stage of settling local Darfur issues,
the chance for a wider national process will be lost. Islamic, Arab character. Former South
African president Thabo Mbeki has suggested that such a vision could be more African in
orientation: We hold firmly to the view that northern Sudan is no less “African” than southern
Sudan, and that Islam is a religion of Africa, just as the Arabs of Sudan and the Mahgreb are
people of Africa. As pan-Africans we are proud of the achievements of the Arab and Muslim
civilizations on this continent, which we regard as an integral part of our heritage (Temin 1).”
Why Use This Source?
Since I have already used another one of this author’s sources, I already know he has an
unbiased opinion. He merely has a lot of knowledge on the subject. This article specifically
focuses on the North’s faults on the conflict. The source is very detailed and has a lot of
information that has everything to do with my research question.
Research Question:
Was Sudan the cause of the secession of South Sudan from Sudan? If so, what social, political,
and economic actions did they take to drive South Sudan away?
Source 4:
“Learning from Sudan's 2011 Referendum” by Jonathan Temin and Lawrence Woocher
MLA:
Bushra 5
Temin, Jonathan., Woocher, Lawrence, and United States Institute of Peace. Learning from
Sudan's 2011 Referendum. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2012. Special
Report (United States Institute of Peace) ; 303. Web.
Qualifications:
Jon Temin is a senior program officer in USIP’s Center for Mediation and Conflict
Resolution. He mainly focuses on Sudan and leads the Institute’s Sudan team. He travels to
Sudan frequently and has a plethora experience in other regions of Africa.
Main Claim:
The main claim of the article is that attention to preventing violent conflict, rather than
just managing and ending it, has grown substantially around the globe in recent decades.
Sub Claim 1:
The Sudanese referendum became a huge topic
Evidence: “The referendum rose to a level of international importance that is rare for
African issues. The culmination of international engagement was probably the high-level
meeting in September 2010, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, convened by
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which emphasized the primacy of the referendum. Speaker
after speaker— many of them heads of state, including President Obama—affirmed their
expectations for a timely and credible referendum. In this and other venues, the NCP and SPLM
were repeatedly compelled to publicly commit to the referendum and its result. With each public
commitment, it became increasingly difficult to back away from the pledge. (Temin 1).”
My Response: This author has been very consistent with saying that the two sides were
fighting rather than fixing the problem. Secession pretty much became inevitable and it became
the trending topic in the United Nations.
Why Use This Source?
The source has a lot of information that has everything to do with my research question.
It is very clear that not many measures were taken on both ends to solve the solution. This source
gave me more information in helping me see who was more to blame.
Research Question:
Was Sudan the cause of the secession of South Sudan from Sudan? If so, what social, political,
and economic actions did they take to drive South Sudan away?
Source 5:
“Improving natural resource management in Sudan a strategy for effective state building and
conflict resolution” by Paul J. Sullivan and Natalie Narsallah
MLA:
Bushra 6
Sullivan, Paul J., Nasrallah, Natalie, and United States Institute of Peace. Improving Natural
Resource Management in Sudan a Strategy for Effective State Building and Conflict
Resolution. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2010. Special Report (United States
Institute of Peace) ; 242. Web.
Qualifications:
Dr. Paul J. Sullivan teaches at National Defense University and Georgetown University.
Natalie Nasrallah, a consultant for the United States Institute of Peace on this study, has an MS
in violence, conflict, and development.
Main Claim:
The main claim of the article is that “the referendum date approaches, the management of
oil, land, and water will require particular attention because of their central position in
determining the health of Sudan’s economy. And if secession is to be the outcome, the onus is on
the NCP and the GoSS to begin immediately the serious negotiations on how to divide their
natural resources fairly (Sullivan, Narsallah 16).”
Sub Claim 1:
The Sudanese referendum became a huge topic
Evidence: “Both north and south should engage community and regional leaders in
resolving some of the many difficult and tension-filled issues likely to arise over land and water.
Needed steps include developing national land and water policies that better enforce oil, land,
and water management laws; investing in research to improve water delivery systems and
environmental management; making commitments not to instigate or support proxy land
grabbing; initiating land demarcation processes as a confidence-building measure; articulating
policies on the rights of IDPs; and preparing draft proposals for modifications to the
Nile Basin Agreement (Sullivan, Narsallah 15).”
My Response: This article was written prior to the referendum and predicted that bad
consequences would take place; South Sudan did end up seceding.
Why Use This Source?
The source has a lot of information that has to do with my research question. It suggests
that both sides need to take effort at restoring peace or else bad consequences will happen. It is
also unbiased and looks at both sides.