جنوب السودان قد فرِغنا منهُ ، ماذا هُناك بعد؟ نعم .. هُناك غرب السودان ... فاليكُن إذن

Quote: © 2004, IRED.Com, Inc., Simeon Mitropolitski Simeon Mitropolitski. Almost all African countries try to wrestle with the legacies inherited from their colonial periods. The former masters did little to help their former subjects to adapt to the modern technologies. European powers didn't care much about the education of the millions. Colonization wasn't intended to do anything else than promoting glory of the Europeans, extracting raw materials and making the life of the masters as pleasant as possible at the expense of all those who had to dig in the mines and supply cheap labor and bullet meal during war times. Sudan in this respect isn't a different story from many other countries in Africa. Its borders weren't restricted to any ethnic and religious borders existing before the major push of the European powers to Africa during the 19th century. Some say that the colonial powers wanted to create mix ethnic and religious empires in order to control better the indigenous populations. By forcing anyone against anyone else they could strengthen their administrative control, some argue. If this was the principle reasoning, if there was a detailed blueprint for colonization, it wasn't applied everywhere. Instead the major delimitation force of any colonial adventure was the power of some other colonial empire. Sudan is no exception to this rule. With no clear ethnic majority and large religious minorities it was created as a British colony surrounded by friendly and not so friendly European possessions. Squeezed between French, Belgium and Italian colonial domains and some still existing independent local authorities on the east, Sudan has been administered as it was - a world of coexisting Islamic, Christian and animalist beliefs, and also of different and traditionally conflicting ethnic groups*. It's true that during the final years of the British empire London began to use this diversity in order to delay the inevitable decolonization. The result was that the former masters made the transition to independence and national unity even more difficult, in some newborn countries even impossible without some additional territorial rearrangements. The last almost 50 years of independence of Sudan has seen but civil and religious wars and animosities. The will of the central authorities in Khartoum to impose to all the narrow Arab-Muslim version of national identity has met a strong and armed resistance by many other ethnic and religious groups in virtually every part of the country except the central and northern areas, controlled by the military regime. Some confrontations are said to be near final peaceful solution. Others are still in the mid of their active military phases. The prospects of encouraging the economy through exporting oil are limited. Given the proved oil reserves and the world oil prices, these reserves can hardly pay off the huge external debt of the country. By all international standards, it remains one of the poorest inhabited territories in the world. The conflicting views on the identity prove it's not yet fully a nation; the lack of legitimate and unique authority over the whole territory doesn't support even the claim that this is fully a state. ------ ..... * - The Arabs since 8th century took black slaves from Sub-Sahara Africa and sold them to Europe and to the Ottoman Empire. Later on since 13-14th century the Europeans as true businesspersons decided to cut the middlemen, by establishing their own transport system to import and re-export African slaves. The Ottoman tactic was more radical, they simply occupied the Arab lands in Africa and took the business in their hands. The Europeans adopted this idea later and occupied the whole continent. The Europeans proved to be excellent pupils. Unfortunately for them the times of slavery by then have gone http://www.ired.com/news/mkt/sudan.htm