Sudan and South Sudan

Giving divorce a bad name

South Sudan has invaded parts of the north less than a year after its secession

See article

Readers' comments



The problem with dividing and creating a new country without trying to solve the issues is you turn internal issues into and international one! The fact remains though is that the South was subjected to internal colonialism, why not create a Federalist or a a consociational state, in which at leats all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stage.


this is a pathetic ploy by both governments to divert attention from the real issue; which is their obscene failure to translate oil revenues into real and tangible benefit to the poor souls in both countries. They opted to bang the drum of war, which they know very well will rally people behind them and embarrass their opposition not to attack the regimes.


Please note that the PCA decision did not address the status of any of the disputed areas other than Abyei, whose borders it determined.

It most emphatically did not determine that Heglig lies in Sudanese territory, but merely that it did not form part of the Abyei Area. This is a critical distinction. The PCA deliberations were narrowly focused on demarcating the Abyei Area and did not address the status of any other territory.

SN Dream

South Sudan don't want independence, they want the whole damn country, it will be so funny if they lost the war they restarted.


Great article. BUT I hope that someone edits the article because it is very misleading. South Sudan is not a member of the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), as the article alleges. SRF was formed by some Darfur rebels with the Sudan People Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), a northern arm of the rebel movement that used to fight for the South before the independence of South Sudan in 2011.


Western countries always like to see other countries in divided situation.In this way no other emerging countries will be a powerful ones.

I can give you a few examples for this:

In 1947 India was split into India and Pakistan.

From 1949 Uncle Sam supports Taiwan to confront Mainland China.

In a word Western countries were eager to export democracy,the only aim is to mess up other countries in order to safeguard their own interests.

It is no wonder that Sudan is split into two countries for the same reason.

Deebles in reply to zmjh

I would say that the West screwed up Sudan in exactly the opposite way to what you describe. At the time of independence (1953), the North and South had distinct cultures, religions, ethnic groups and histories of administration; the North demanded unification, however, and the British caved in. What followed in Sudan's 58 year history was dominated by two large civil wars (the first lasting 17 years, the second 22) and many other internal conflicts. Partly, this was the result of many external players d***ing about (the USA, the USSR, China, neighbouring countries, even Al Qaeda...), but primarily, it was the nigh-inevitable result of a northern elite living off resources taken from the south, and the resentment that that inspired.

Sudan should never have been one country, and southern independence seemed to offer the best hope for peace (leaving aside further internal conflicts, such as those in Nuba and Darfur). But now, peace is not on the cards, and the two sides seem to be destroying the very resources they are fighting over:

Albertican in reply to zmjh

This is a stupid, trolling comment. Do you really think the Sudan, divided or not, is ever likely to be a "powerful country" that the West would worry about? Did you miss the part about the North and South killing each other for generations?

Even your examples are ridiculous - the British weren't trying to weaken the subcontinent with the partition of India and Pakistan they were trying to give two rival religious groups their own sovereign nations, hell I'm not even sure it was a British idea in the first place, are you? Mainland China is about 80 times bigger population-wise than Taiwan, how exactly did separating them weaken China in any significant way?


Sudan's (which is known now as North Sudan) government performed enormous number of terrible crimes. Their activity in the Darfur region was defined as genocide. Strange that somebody is blaming South Sudan for protecting itself and its relatives under North Sudan attack. Even more strange that some organizations in the far cold north (in Europe) still dare to decide for Africans, which assets belong to whom. The Colonialism still lives deep in the European heart.

Deebles in reply to Barbaris1

It isn't just Europe. The African Union and the UN are among the external parties calling for South Sudan to withdraw its troops (alongside calling for Sudan to cease its aerial bombardment of the South).


This crisis did not give divorce a bad name. Whom it did give bad name to are the divorce lawyers (the western NGOs who largely engineered south's secession). Oh well, they don't have a good name to begin with anyway, and that must be the reasons that Arab Springers, from Egypt to Bahrain, are all kicking them out.

Kimemia in reply to Houshu

South Sudan is hardly an NGO project. Look at the circumstances in which on Independence was granted to Sudan with sovereingnity over Southerners placed in the hands of Northerners in Khartoum. Them look at the list of broken agreements and attempted impositions of Northern culture on the South. The marriage was bad, neither side really tried to make it work and because I'm an optimist my hope is the Divorce will enable both peoples to live in peace. Even in the height of all these provocations

Kimemia in reply to Houshu



kxbxo and sadsid both make good points. In the 1950s-1960s the border problems between Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were frozen by the creation of “International Zones.” This should be considered for Sudan and any area with a similar situation.

The Zone should be policed by the international community [UN or OAU], resources would be used to pay for the international administration and for the local population with a portion to each claimant. After some time, when tempers have cooled, the situation can be negotiated by the principle parties to the present conflict.

It is important that the international regime be without prejudice to any of the parties.

Deebles in reply to McJakome

I'd back this idea. The precise demarcation of such a Zone might be difficult to decide on, given how much of the oil resources (vital to the economies of both countries) are around the border, but the current situation plainly isn't working. Such an enforced peace could hardly be worse than the present conflict, and might enable relief supplies to reach some of the hardest-hit populations in the area (such as in Kordofan).

McJakome in reply to Deebles

Aye, the Devil is always in the details! However, any area in dispute would have to be included by definition. The 33%/33%/33% division of resource revenue would make it doable as a "temporary measure." That would be equal parts to each party and the local area+international regime.

This would allow time for negotiation and for wounds to heal. It would also serve as a spur to cooperate in finding a final solution because:
1. Each side could reclaim some of the 33%
2. If the impasse were to continue too long, the I.Z. could decide to become autonomous and keep their 33%.

zeytun in reply to McJakome

Sounds to me like you'd be giving both parties someone else to blame for whatever did not go their way there. And, the UN or AU aren't exactly who I'd trust to run a playground, let alone a contested and expensive piece of real estate...

McJakome in reply to zeytun

What a world we live in! Unfortunately you are quite correct on both points. But who else is there? The Swiss, Swedes and Dutch wouldn't have much stomach for it, the US and UK would be distrusted by one or both sides, and other possibilities all have high negatives or selfish motivations.

I think it could be done, but setting it up and negotiating a fair to all sides agreement wouldn't be easy. What would you suggest?

zeytun in reply to McJakome

Let's start by ending usual vilifying of Sudan and lifting economic sanctions on the country.

An arms embargo on both parties makes sense as an initial measure as would be recognition of what is or not really up for dispute (e.g. Abyei which was always in contention v. Heglig which was, in my understanding, always recognized to be in the north).

Having someone act as an honest broker would be a first and this entity would have to apportion blame where and when needed and try to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. China has substantial interests on both sides of the border, isn’t burdened by a colonial past in the region and might be in a position to take a lead role here...


IMO, the "one nation, indivisible" principle applies to most nationhood formed through long historical development.

In that sense, the “divorce” or independence of South Sudan from Sudan was as ridiculous and ill advised as the talk of Scotland independence from UK currently being reported in an Economist article.

Under such separation or “divorce”, each side will almost invariably find some former common assets (land, oil, mineral rights, or religious artifices for examples) as being indispensable and worth fighting for, for them. But it’s the ordinary people who end up suffering.

Houshu in reply to Barbaris1

Yes, their fathers and grandfathers forced arranged marriages on africans, and now their sons and daughters come to teach africans how to have a civilized divorce?
I say let's have a china policy: 'you break it, you got to keep it', European powers should open immigration for residents of their respective former colonies.

Deebles in reply to Houshu

By that reasoning, should the USA, USSR and China also open their borders to residents of African countries they screwed over during the Cold War? Or should many middle eastern countries also open their borders to countries approximating to the regions they screwed over with the slave trade?

Deebles in reply to Houshu

Colonising somewhere is not the only way to screw them over. Sponsoring/buying effectively stolen goods from/selling weapons to/otherwise helping out a brutal dictator, a bloody coup, or one side in a civil war (especially while someone else is propping up the other side) can also mess the population of a country over badly. Never mind present-day financial exploitation, as described here, for instance:

When it comes to Africa, precious little of the rest of the world comes out with clean hands. (Maybe Oceania, Canada, Scandinavia, Japan, Indonesiia, much of Latin America, and various small and not very rich or powerful countries here and there).

Ranjan Kumar@Mumbai

The escalation of pressure and tension are definitely going to edge the two countries closer to a full blown war. The actions of both parties are inflaming conflict and fuelling mistrust .

Both Sudan and South Sudan must understand and contemplate on what needs to be done to improve their struggling economy so that their people can have better life and better air to breathe. They already have infinite problems to work on. Instead they are focusing on add up one or more problems each days.

The greddy move made by these regions must be criticized and there must be someone to take responsibility on current situation as commented by someone. The UN Security Council needs to be chip in to calm down the situation before it gets uncontrollable.

Sudan,kindly stop fighting and urging both the need to respect the sovereignty of Sudan!!


1. The conflict between Sudan and the newly formed South Sudan dates back over six decades and if the developed and developing world thinks that generations of spewed venom and spilled blood can be cleansed in their life times, then sadly but surely, they are grievously mistaken.

2. As a matter of fact, both these nations shall be further split up into one or two more nations to make them more viable, more homogenous, more tolerant and less bleeding. Dafrur and Nuba in the north and Dinka and Neur lands in the South are a case in point and creation of these nations is a certainity at some point in future but alas more lives would be lost, more men would be maimed, more children would be imfamished to acheive this and moreover the future portends ethnic cleansing and genocide which shall eclipse the similar crisis witness in Rwanda.

3. The world has to act and act fast and if the future, as anybody who has travelled to these parts can say with authority,is dark and needs to be crafted less miserable and more tolerant, then this skirmish has to end and both these adversaries have to resolve their disputes diplomatically and now, else it would be never, for the feelings are too bitter and scars too deep to be left to heal on their own.

Joe Marlowe

The basic problem is that the original deal was unfair. It ignored the wishes of the majority of the population in regions that still remain formally within the Sudan. Those regions ethnically, culturally, and historically belong with the south, not the north.

As others have pointed out, the addition of oil and gas reserves to the problem - the very reason the settlement line was drawn illogically in the first place - only complicates and aggravates the problem.

The currently drawn border is based on a lie.
The fighting will continue until that historical injustice is corrected, whatever the UN or any court may say.

As for extending sympathy to the Sudan, yes, the Sudan can argue that a deal is a deal. But the Sudan should be denied access to international tribunals until it complies with the existing requirements of international tribunals. The Sudan is already in contempt of court. Somebody needs to turn himself in to the Hague. Until then, too bad.

Deebles in reply to Joe Marlowe

"Somebody needs to turn himself in to the Hague."

Of course Al Bashir should face the charges levied against him. But equally, he's not going to.

However illogical the border, some form of borderline has to be drawn up and respected. Even if it means setting up a policed "International Zone" as described by McJakome above.


It seems that most newly minted leaders like those in Juba are more comfortable fighting in the trench than solving daily problems faced by the people. In any case, this is to be welcome by the humongous military industrial complex to make more money out of the chaos and conflicts while calling out for Bashir to be trialled in the ICC for assaulting the South.

Roy junior

All the world-hee-hee Lee, who were to Rangrang the world.

human is not always feeling content with what he has got. the greedy move South Sudanese(not referring to all of them) did should be criticized and there must be someone to take the responsibility for their evil act in the future.

QXrtVbd3CR in reply to Roy junior

How simplistic. Too bad you would rather conclude so cheaply on your minimal knowledge of goings-on in Sudan. I feel you haven't taken time to understand the real reasons the south has seceded. It would be good for you to take time to read more on it, I think the economist can provide you with more resources in this direction.

QXrtVbd3CR in reply to Roy junior



Bashir Must go for there to be meaningful talks between NCP-Sudan and SPLA-Sudan. Then again if Bashir goes NCP might just walk away from the negotiating table. Where's that Supreme Military command that Nkrumah asked for 50 years ago now that we need it.


It's asinine to call this a 'divorce'. Is there ever a happy divorce where afterwards the couple still lives under the same roof (turned into a duplex) and becomes amiable neighbors?

One party, or both, has to move away. So there will be no happy divorce unless either Palestine is moved out of West Bank, or Israel is moved to Bavaria, or, both.

Maximiliano Herrera

But this was everything WRITTEN, guys. Is anybody surprised ?
There are lots of disputed areas , oil fields, Sudan sponsoring a military rebellion in the South, a forced change of capital for security reason, etc. This war was already written much before the separation. Just like Ethiopia and Eritrea. And this will not be a skermish, this is the begin of a long period of conflict, death, desperation, etc... Things MIGHT get more hopeful only if the butcher Al Bashir is removed from power, but I underline MIGHT.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

