Can a country's persistent pursuit of Western-style democracy and freedom solve development problems? Before answering this question, we may wish to recall the referendum held in southern Sudan in 2011, in which one person, one vote determined the future of Sudan. As a result, more than 99% of the voters approved of southern independence, and South Sudan broke away from Sudan to become the 54th country on the African continent. Now that ten years have passed, South Sudan, which originally practiced the Western concept of "national self-determination" and "one nation", has not gone to prosperity, but has fallen into the strange circle of poverty and war.
After a referendum in southern Sudan in 2011, South Sudan seceded from Sudan to become the 54th country on the African continent.
Also in 2011, the "Arab Spring" was a thunderclap compared to the attention raised by the referendum in southern Sudan. The "revolution" that broke out from Tunisia then spread to Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and almost all Arab countries, of which Egypt suffered heavy losses. You know, whether in Africa or in the Middle East Arab world, Egypt is a benchmark country. But after the outbreak of the Arab Spring, Mubarak, who had been in power for three decades, was ousted, and the new order was not established, but became the beginning of chaos.
Egyptian youth who revere democracy but do not really understand the meaning of democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood of religious conservatism, and the democratically elected president Morsi have sung and appeared.
Egyptian youth, religiously conservative Muslim Brotherhood, and democratically elected President Morsi, who revere democracy but do not really understand the meaning of democracy, were forced to step down after becoming a hurried visitor. First, the "revolutionaries" who took to the streets to overthrow the original regime were not ready to govern and were squeezed out at the beginning of the reconstruction of power; second, although the elite of the original regime intended to participate in the reconstruction but did not gain people's trust, coupled with the long-term inertia of governing, they found that it was easier to return to the original model; third, the religious conservative forces represented by the Muslim Brotherhood did not understand the economy and lacked the ability to govern, and only wanted to realize their religious ideals as soon as possible. As a result, egypt was plagued by civil unrest.
South Sudan voted for independence in 2011.
When the country is in a state of instability, let alone development, failure becomes inevitable, but this is not the case with Sudan, which is adjacent to Egypt. Since independence in 1956, Sudan has been thwarted by the 1969 Nimeri military coup, the 1985 Dahab military coup, the 1989 Bashir military coup, and three coups in 2004, during which 22 years of civil war. This unusual state of regime existence is a concentrated manifestation of many internal contradictions in Sudan, so when South Sudan voted for independence in 2011, it became unforeseen.
Nubia was the predecessor of the Sultan in the classical period and has since ancient times been regarded as the junction between Egypt in the Mediterranean and the black african region.
But why has Sudan endured such instability for so long? This also begins with the "birth" of Sudan. In the last issue of "The Death of The Sultan - Part I", we said that the Sultan had another name in ancient times: Nubia, in fact, Nubia's control was only in the northern part of Sudan, and the southernmost part was also a hundred kilometers south of present-day Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, which meant that southern Sudan was not ruled by Nubia for a long time, and it was the territory of the dark-skinned Dink and Nuer tribes. So how did South Sudan join Sudan?
From the 16th century to the 19th century, Western powers such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, France, and Belgium gradually turned Africa into colonies.
This begins with the British expansion into Sudan in the 1870s. At that time, with the opening of new shipping routes, navigation technology and capitalist economy developed rapidly, and Western powers such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, France, and Belgium gradually turned Africa into their colonies from the 16th century to the 19th century. Britain and France, in particular, controlled Africa's fertile resources and economic lifeline, and in the colonial competition of the 19th century, they adopted vertical expansion and horizontal expansion strategies to establish exclusive colonial spheres of influence.
In the colonial competition of the 19th century, Britain and France adopted vertical expansion and horizontal expansion strategies respectively, establishing exclusive colonial spheres of influence.
Specifically, The British attempted to control the continent vertically, from egypt in the far north to South Africa in the south, through the entire continent. France, on the other hand, expanded horizontally from Senegal in West Africa (France's earliest West African colony) via Algeria in North Africa to Djibouti in East Africa (invasion began in 1850 and is still home to France's largest overseas military base).
The vertical division of the African continent from India, Britain's important colony in Asia, could form a corner, which would facilitate the control of the vast Indian Ocean region
The completely different African expansion strategy is related to the maritime power and colonial distribution of Britain and France, Britain has a maritime power that is proud of the world, and the vertical division of the African continent and the British important colony in Asia, India, can form a corner, which is conducive to controlling the vast Indian Ocean region; while France is the land hegemon, and Algeria in North Africa is only 700 kilometers away from the French mainland, the Mediterranean Sea, which has been regarded as an extension of the French mainland, so the result of the gradual encroachment nearby is undoubtedly the embodiment of horizontal expansion. The place where the two intersect vertically and horizontally is Sudan, which became the key fulcrum of British and French expansion.
France's colonies in Africa are mainly concentrated in West Africa and Central Africa, and they still maintain a strong influence in the region, which is also an important foundation for France's ranking among the five permanents.
When we look at the administrative map of Africa, we will find that the borders of many African countries are divided in blocks where longitude and latitude intersect, rather than the natural geographical features such as mountains and rivers that we often see, which is the result of the artificial division of the Western colonial powers. This artificial division, while beneficial to the administration of the colonies, can have serious divisive effects on the african tribes. It is conceivable that the same tribe was forcibly divided into two countries, and if the tribe had contradictions and disputes with the main ethnic group of the host country, it would be easy to cause a geopolitical rift within a country, and if it was not properly resolved, the final result would be civil war and separatism and independence.
Sudan has three very different climatic types, tropical deserts, savannahs and rainforests, from north to south.
So it is no accident that the great Sultan was divided in two. Although we mentioned in the last issue of "The Death of Sudan - Part I", Sudan has three very different climatic types from north to south, tropical deserts, savannahs and tropical rainforests, and has also developed very different industrial economies, and the topographic structure of "three mountains and two basins" will also cause geopolitical cracks, but this natural factor will only play a role in people or tribes that act on the inside. So behind the division of Sudan, the legacy of colonial history is a great sin.
The northern part of Sudan is an Area of Islamic Civilization dominated by Arabs, and the southern part is a Christian civilization area dominated by black ethnic groups such as Dinks and Nuers.
It is conceivable that when the British colonists expanded along the Nile River, Nubia in northern Sudan was originally a region dominated by Islam, and South Sudan was a region mixed with primitive religions in Christianity, not belonging to the same country, each living a small life, and did not intersect too much, but because of colonial expansion, it was forcibly integrated into different colonies, under the administration of different colonial powers, coupled with the British's habit of supporting local forces for indirect management. The relatively civilized Arabs of northern Sudan became the representatives of the British who ruled the country. Of course, there is also a layer of divide-and-rule considerations for forcibly blending Nubia and South Sudan, a "mine-laying" tactic that the British have played skillfully and tried and tested in British India and British Burma.
Forced confluence leads to civil wars and conflicts between different religions and ethnicities, which are exploited by neighboring countries and even extraterritorial powers to become larger conflicts.
But this forced conjunction has led to successive civil wars and conflicts between different religions and ethnicities, which have been exploited by neighboring countries and even extraterritorial powers as part of a larger conflict. But again, external factors have to act on the internal specific "people" to play a role, so the division of Sudan is both the poison of colonial history, not exactly, digging deeper will find that behind the factors of ethnic and religious contradictions, mutual distrust between the North and the South governments, and sudan's fatal blow of being misled by Western-style democratic national theory.
We'll talk about this in the next issue.
In view of the fact that the special article "The Death of The Sultan" that interprets the geography of Sudan is too long, it is divided into three parts: the upper, middle and lower parts, which are serialized every other day, and this article is "Novella".
Previous: The Death of Sudan: There are water sources, oil and ports, but why is it the most unstable country in the world?
Remarks: This article is only a word, welcome to share and correct. In addition, the picture in the article is quoted from the Internet, if there is a copyright private link, please delete.