Why are there so many Sudanese people in Australia? Part one

An investigation into the history of Sudan and the Sudanese Community in Australia by Thomas Russell

It is true when people say that Australia is a largely multicultural society as our nation consists of far more than its original indigenous inhabitants and the ancestors of British colonists. This multiculturalism adds new dimensions to our nation in the form of religious perspectives, food, music, culture and global understanding. But why are they here? Each community has its own story to tell, most are people who have immigrated as skilled workers, but some of which have been granted residency on humanitarian grounds. For many people, the reasons for which an ethnic community is in Australia may be obvious. For example, most Indian, Chinese and European people in Australia are skilled workers. The Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan communities in Australia have their origins which trace back to their own respective wars. But what of the Sudanese people? They make up the largest African community in Australia, but the reason for which they are here is scarcely understood more than “it was just one of those African conflicts”. The purpose of this article is to enlighten those who wish to understand more about the past of their Sudanese neighbours in Australia, and who they are. Part one of the article provides a short history of modern Sudan and its conflicts and part two is a discussion about the Australian Sudanese community.

Part 1: A short history of modern Sudan

Sudan is a nation in north east Africa. It is geographically characterised by the Deserts of the north and west, the Nile River in the east and the Tropical Rainforests in the south. Being in eastern Africa (the birthplace of humankind), Sudan is home to some of the oldest societies of people in the world. Before the major Religions Christianity and Islam took hold in the region, the indigenous people of Sudan followed numerous native religions and spoke a diverse range of languages. Like many African populations, the Sudanese people have a tribal based society.

In 1899, the British Empire laid colonial claim over Sudan through the rule of the Egyptians. Like all other colonial powers in Africa, their rule was detrimental and their actions still have heavy political ramifications, especially in relation to ethnic lines. In 1956 after over half a century of Egyptian and British Governance, Sudan gained its independence.

Sudan’s economy has historically been dependent on the oil fields in the South. For many years, oil has been pumped from Southern Sudan through a system of pipelines and made its way to Port Sudan on the northern coast for export.

Map of Sudan and South Sudan

(http://thecasualtruth.com/files/images/Map%20of%20Sudan.jpg)

The North-South Civil War

The history of post-colonial Sudan has been marred by a bloody conflict between the Northern Government and Southern Rebels. The root causes of the war are that the Governance of Sudan fell exclusively into a sect of Arabic Islamic Elites in the capital city of Khartoum. This is a result of the transition from the Egyptian/British colonial rule which gave favour to Arabic Muslim people when leadership was considered. They made numerous attempts to enforce Sharia law onto Christian populations and neglected the allocation of oil money to the outer regions of the state (predominately the South and Darfur in the west). For many years, Oil pumped out of the southern regions (where 98% of Sudan’s oil is) but money never came back. The corrupt Government elites under numerous non-transitional regimes stole or allocated finances in unfair and greedy ways. This was the fuel for civil conflict in Southern Sudan, enacted by a people who felt oppressed both religiously and economically and that their place within the Sudan was second-class.

This civil war is defined in two parts, although both were fought over the same reason. The First Sudanese civil war began in 1955 and stretched until 1972, and the second started in 1987 and ended in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The North/South civil war is one of the bloodiest human conflicts since World War II, claiming between 1 and 2 million lives. The second Civil war was fought between the SPLA/M (Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement) and the Khartoum Government. Throughout the duration of the conflict, there was division amongst the ranks of the SPLA/M about their goals for the future. Some were fighting for a new Sudan that had equal representation and an end to religious and economic oppression from the Khartoum Government through national unity, and others were fighting for separation from the Sudanese state.

In the period leading up to the CPA which ended the fighting, the idea of a unified Sudan gained popularity under the SPLM’s leader John Garang. The CPA was an agreement that gave Southern Sudan a 6 year period of ceasefire in which they could work out together if they wanted to unify or separate, with a vote held in 2011. After Garang’s death in a helicopter crash in 2005, the latter idea of separation took hold and eventually a landslide result of 98% of people voted for separation from the North. Thus, the Republic of South Sudan was formed and remains the youngest state in the world today.

The conflict in Darfur

The Darfur conflict began in 1987 as the Nomadic and agricultural tribes of the region began to violently clash over the lack of resources. Over the past century, the Sahara Desert has been expanding into Sudan. This has meant that the amount of liveable ground is decreasing, and the previously co-existing tribes have needed to compete to survive. In 2003, the Sudanese Government from Khartoum began a counter-insurgency to end the civil war between the Arab Nomads and Black villagers. This counter-insurgency took the form of violent attacks which saw indiscriminate murder amongst innocent people and caused extreme levels of conflict related deaths.

Sudan came into the global spotlight in 2006 with the widely reaching “Save Darfur” campaign, a US grassroots movement of people and intellectuals for the “end of the Genocide in Darfur”. It was based on the work of Brian Steidle, an ex-US marine turned African Union photographer. Although the movement appeared well intentioned, they extrapolated the data that was collected in Darfur and spread claims that Genocide had taken place, resulting in the murder of between 300 and 400 thousand people. However, the most accurate figure according to a panel of African Union experts, which was published by the “Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters” (CRED) is approximately 120 thousand. Only 20-30% of which was caused by direct violence. The rest are due to the desertification that Darfur is suffering, meaning that it is easy to disrupt people’s ability to have access to food and clean drinking water if there is a violent conflict taking place. Although these deaths are still as a result of the conflict and are not blameless, it is interesting to observe the enormous difference in the claims of the “Save Darfur” campaign and the statistics as outlined by the World Health Organisation’s affiliate the CRED. It is also interesting to note that the campaign began in 2006 and called for a US intervention on the ground (“Out of Iraq, into Darfur”), even though the African Union had intervened and stabilised the situation over a year earlier. The important point on Darfur and wider African conflicts that can be learned from the “Save Darfur” movement is that it is easy to misrepresent humanitarian crises for your own gain. This discussion of “gain” for the “Save Darfur” movement will not be discussed in this article. This paragraph has been added to dispel the glaring popular view of the conflict in Darfur as a genocide that has murderously claimed up to 400,000 lives since 2003. Although the difference between 400,000 and 120,000 deaths is arbitrary in relation to severity and the importance of the conflict, it is historically and politically important to understand the reputable realities and truths. This line of argument has been taken from Ugandan born academic Mahmood Mamdani’s book, “Saviours and Survivors”.

Leaving behind discussion of misrepresentation, it is true that Darfur was in a crisis between 2003 and 2005, and no one was safe from persecution. Islamic people and Christians all the same were indiscriminately swept up in violence. Since the counter-insurgency ended, the violence in Darfur has been existent but does not constitute a crisis according to the UN. Darfur still lacks ethnic unity and a proper stable economy in the midst of an expanding Sahara desert. Sadly, many Darfuris still live in the deplorable conditions of the desert refugee camps. They are subject to illness, violence, malnutrition and rape. For these reasons, it is of great importance that Refugees are granted asylum and aid organisations are kept funded by donors.

Although there is more to the history of Sudan than just these two modern conflicts, I chose to focus on them to be concise and to keep focus on the origin of Sudanese Refugees.