As some University students begin a campaign for divestment from Sudan due to humanitarian abuses such as slavery, the north-central African nation is struggling to end a 19-year civil war that propagates the country's use of slave labor.
Peace talks between northern and southern Sudan, which resume later this month, offer the best chance yet to end the war, policy and history experts at Duke said.
"This is the most promise there's been in 20 years," said Peter Feaver, associate professor of political science. "There's a good chance that [peace will come] this year."
The optimism stems from a July agreement between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army/Movement affording the south two major concessions: freedom of religion and the promise of a referendum on southern independence after a six-year interim period of peace.
In 1983, the Sudanese government, situated in the primarily Islamic north, declared country-wide Shariah, Islamic law. The south, comprising mostly non-Muslim African tribes, took arms against the northern army.
The war, however, is more than a religious conflict and the problems date back to before the 19th century. The resource-rich north has steadily gained dominance over the south during the last two centuries. Colonial policies in the 1800s and 1900s developed the infrastructure of the north while neglecting the south.
In response to northern oppression, southern guerrillas have loosely organized themselves into the Sudanese People's Liberation Army to fight the Sudanese government's northern armies. Northern militias, not officially sanctioned by the government, also attack the south.
"If the government really wanted to stop them, they could," Feaver said. "Northern militias are the ones really doing the dirty work, like the slave trade."
The slave trade, which the war aggravates, began in 1820 in response to Egyptian demand for gold and soldiers. After 1840, international demand for slaves fell, but because of continuing violence within Sudan, slaves were abundant, said Janet Ewald, associate professor of history. "Slaves became so inexpensive that people in north and central Sudan began to use slaves more than they had in the past."
Armed uprisings between the north and the south were common after Sudan gained its independence from an Anglo-Egyptian regime in 1953. A tenuous peace, granting the south local autonomy throughout the 1970s, was held in place by both sides' inability to win the war. Meanwhile, the north continued to gain developmental dominance over the south.
"When there was this social crisis [in the 1970s], the leaders allied themselves with Islamic fundamentalists," Ewald said.
Around the same time, the north began to exploit oil recently found in the south, giving them money to resume the war and increased support in the West.
"In the 19th century, the people and the land were exploited for gold. In the 20th, for petroleum," Ewald said. "It's like this horrible sense of deja vu."
Feaver said that since neither side believes it can win the war, prospects for peace are more promising. "All the south can do is keep the war going," he said. "And if the north gets peace, they could really exploit the oil."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.