Integration and Fragmentation of the Sudan: an African Renaissance

© 2011 Mawut Achiecque Mach Guarak. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 2/17/2011

ISBN: 978-1-4567-2355-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4567-2357-6 (dj)

ISBN: 978-1-4567-2356-9 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011902372

Printed in the United States of America

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Mawut Achiecque Mach Guarak is a former child soldier in South Sudan’s War of Liberation. He served in the Sudan People’s Liberation Army as a foot soldier for many years before attending a refugee school in northern Kenya. Eventually he relocated to New York in the United States, where he completed his undergraduate and graduate studies. Despite relocation to the United States, distance did not keep him from contributing to Sudan’s change for freedom, justice, equality, and progress; he is an activist. He focuses his attention on educating the world about the fundamental problem of the Sudan, and rallying international support to ensure permanent peace in Sudan. In addition to educating the international community on the fundamental problem of the Sudan, Mr. Guarak helped organized the Sudanese Diaspora to gain international support. He organized several demonstrations in the United States including ones at the United Nations in Manhattan.

About the Book

As a comprehensive, profound, and accurate book detailing the history of modern Sudan, Integration and Fragmentation of the Sudan: An African Renaissance is an encyclopedia of ancient and modern history, as well as of the politics of Sudan. It can also serve as a library of data that discusses Sudan from its economic, political, and social standpoints since the Arab discovery of the territory and their use of the term Bilad es Sudan (Land of the Black); it continues up through the modern republic of the Sudan, after which South and North Sudan collided in 1947. Written to correct misinformation and fabrications, this book provides a foundation on which future histories of the Sudanese can rely. It provides feasible solutions to the fundamental problems of the Sudan that ruptured the country from the time of the Berlin Conference to the post-independence era.

For centuries, the Sudanese and the international community have been fed an idealistic version of history, as though Sudan came into being when the Arabs arrived in the fourteenth century. That viewpoint persisted, mainly due to the lack of educational resources and formal schooling for African native people. Khartoum’s incorrect and unreasonable version of genuine history is one among the many causes of mistrust and division in Sudan. The indigenous Africans found themselves peripheral to the successful development of Khartoum, where economic and political power is concentrated.

It is a reliable source of knowledge for the public at large and for students of Sudanese politics in particular. With the referendum and popular consultation approaching in January 2011, this book provides a head start for the marginalized black Africans to make an informed decision between oppression and liberty. Examples and testimonies provided in the text are reasons for the affected regions to permanently determine their future. For freedom diehards, this book lays the foundation on which to celebrate the birth of Africa’s newest sovereign nation on the Nile River.

Dedication

Forever indebted to the bravery of many gallant fighters, the future of Sudan is in the hands of the rightful citizens. To those who shaped Sudan for the better, among them former Radio SPLA anchors Dut Kat and Chau Mayen; the best composer and singer, A/Cdr. Luol Deng, former SPLM/A spokesman Dr. Samson Lakure Kwaje; and my beloved father and former SPLA fighter, Achiecque Mach Guarak; and to our martyrs and disabled whom blood cemented the foundation of our liberty.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I am thankful to Almighty God, the Giver of Life, Protector of souls, and the Most Merciful. Thanks to many contributors whose knowledge, ideas, and contributions made this book possible. My heartfelt thanks to my brother Looc Achiecque Mach Guarak and my mother Abuk Atem de Lual for their courage, inspiration, and support throughout the process of getting this book published.

Many thanks to my editorial team: Nancy Williams, Joseph Lewis, Elizabeth Costello, and Ann Mayes. While it is hard to mention everyone that deserves appreciation herein, I am especially honored to thank my dearest friends and colleagues Ruben Guguei Panchol Duot and the Rev. Dr. Darius Makuja. Thank you all.

Contents

Part I

The Making of Sudan

Chapter 1 Ancient Sudan

Religious and Scientific Explanations

Geographical Location

Who are the Sudanese?

Nubian Kingdoms

Funj Sultanate

Fur Sultanate

South Sudan

Nuba Mountains

Who is who in Sudan?

Chapter 2 Annexation, Integration, and the Making of Sudan

Integration of Nuba and the Funj Sultanates

Annexation of Darfur

The Quest for Condominium

The Condominium

South Sudan’s Reaction to Condominium

Jieng: The Genesis of Gel Wong, Tit Baai, and War against Britain

Naath: National Defense and the Start of Jiesh Mabor

Zande: Traditional Militia and the Genesis of Arrow Boys

The Unification159 of Sudan

Chapter 3 Conflict of Identities

Pillars of Sudan’s National Identity

Race and Ethnicity

Religion and Religious Affiliation

Part II

Wars and Fragmentation of the Sudan

Chapter 4 Rise of Nationalism and the First Civil War

Dissatisfaction, Independence, and the African Renaissance

Preparation for Armed Struggle

The Torit Mutiny

Anya Nya268 and the First Civil War

Power and Tribalism: The Crumbing of Anya Nya

Reunification of the Movement

The Road to Peace

Chapter 5 Africans’ Factionalism and the North’s Divide and Rule Subterfuge

Foundation of Political Division

The First Test of African Nationalism

Nimeiri’s Political Propaganda against Joseph Lagu and Abel Alier

Kokora326 and Division of the South

Anya Nya II and the SPLM/A

Catastrophe at the Crossroads: Hallucination and Split of the SPLM/A

The South-South Civil War

Formation and Disintegration of SPLM/A-United

Effect of Fragmentation on South Sudan

Chapter 6 Sudan’s Second Civil War

Root Causes of the Renewed Armed Conflict

The Bor Mutiny

The Journey to Bilpam

The Founding of SPLM/SPLA

The Founding Fathers

The Leadership Hierarchy

Military Recruitment

Media as Weapon to Fight the War

Military Training and Preparation for War

The War to End Wars: Start of Hostilities and the SPLA First Military Offensives

SPLA-Civilian Relations

Officers Training College and Restructuring of the PMHC

The SPLA Military Draft Policy

The Creation of Unaccompanied Minor Camps

Chapter 7 The SPLA-SAF/NIF War Strategy

SPLA National Impetus

SPLA Military Offensive

Khartoum Reaction to SPLA’s Momentum

Sudan’s Last Dictator577 and the North-South last Phase of war

The SPLA-SAF/NIF Skirmish

Chapter 8 Role of International Community in the Conflict

Literal foundation of Sudan’s calamities

The Arab-Israeli War’s Effect on Sudan

Effects of the Cold War

The Post-Cold War Era: 1990-2005

Peace Agreement and the Interim Period

Part III

The Future of Sudan after CPA

Chapter 9 National economy and Social Contention

Economic Development

Cash and Subsistence Crop Farming

Animal Resources

Wildlife

Water Resources

The Jonglei Canal

Industrial Revolution

Oil Discovery in South Sudan

Oil, Unequal Development, and the War

Economic Development during the Interim Period

Chapter 10 The Peace Agreements

What Went Wrong?

The Juba Conference

The Round Table Conference

Addis Ababa Agreement

Koka Dam Declaration, Abuja, IGADD, and the IGAD879 Peace Talks

Khartoum Peace Agreement

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement

Chapter 11 The Post-CPA Era: Unity versus Separation

The Post-Interim Period

Formation of GONU939 and GOSS

The GONU’s Functions and Call for [Un] Attractive Unity942

The 2010 General Elections

The Future of Sudan

Chapter 12 South Sudan’s Referendum: A Case for Independence

Historic Jiffies to Remember

The Potency of African Unity

Why South Sudan Must Secede Now

Need for Self-Determination and Secession of Nuba and Ingessina Hills

Liberty versus Suppression: A Defining Moment for South Sudanese

Endnotes

Courtesy: United Nations Office for the Coordination of the Humanitarian Affairs

Introduction

The modern republic of Sudan came into existence as a result of Berlin Conference in 1884/1885. After many years of struggle among European member states for control of Africa, European authorities at the conference agreed that the continent must be fragmented and divided among Europe’s disputing member states. The division’s sole purpose was to meet the economic and military needs of each member state and to curb the military confrontation that engulfed the White Continent. Because of this singularity of purpose, the superpowers did not consult with or seek the consent of the to-be-affected citizens of the Black Continent. The conference attendees negotiated how they could divide Africa without jeopardizing each others’ economic growth and bringing military confrontation to the continent.

As a result of the Berlin Conference, Africa became a complete protectorate. Each European superpower averred ownership of specified regions of the continent. Of the countries that controlled Africa, England and France maintained larger portions of the continent. England put all of the Eastern regions of Africa under her control; under the umbrella of British East Africa. England also colonized most of the southern African region of present-day Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Zambia; in addition to the holdings in East and South Africa, England planted her presence in West and North Africa, colonizing places such as Egypt and Nigeria. As the intricacies of the colonial period spread to the countryside of Africa, Sudan accepted its territorial geography according to the Berlin Conference and was affected no differently from the rest of Africa. Hence, the conference’s effect on Sudan was unexceptional. Sudan had the same amount of trial as other African nations concerning whether or not to make its nationhood succeed or fail, of which the former prevailed.

But the Berlin Conference did not integrate South and North Sudan, although the two regions were British colonies. They remained separately administered until after World War II. In 1947, Anglo-Egyptian authorities attempted to unify South and North Sudan in what became the Condominium. But this was not the first attempt at unification. On September 2, 1898, the joint forces of Anglo-Egypt destroyed the Mahdist Army in Omdurman and established a new government in North Sudan;¹ South Sudan was still a sovereign colony of England. In the same year, the Mahdist forces advanced southward in an attempt to conquer South Sudan militarily, ending in the destruction of the invading army. The South maintained herself as a completely different and stable entity of diverse sovereign nationalities delimited by the citizens’ respect and dignity.

For many years after the invasion of South Sudan in 1898, armed conflicts became a common occurrence as Anglo-Egyptians tried to annex it to the North. The only other places where such unreasonable invasions took place were the Nuba Mountains and Ingessina Hills, both inhabited by black Africans. On the far west of Sudan, Darfur is inhabited by dark-skinned Africans, but they have been socially and culturally Arabized through Islam and Arab civilization. Hence, they were not a threat to the formation of a new country based on Arab and Islamic ideals. South Sudanese tribal leaders knew that being African was a natural gift from God that no human can alter. A person may choose to identity with other races, but one can not chose to be different from his or herself.

The unsuccessful attempt to invade and annex South Sudan to the North did not worry the Southern Sudanese in any particular way different from the rest of Africa. The invasion of each other’s territory was perceived as an act of aggression, something commonly practiced in those days. Many countries invaded foreign territories for various reasons, and these invasions went unpunished because there were no internationally recognized rules and regulations. It was up to each independent territory to defend its sovereignty if invaded by external forces, and that was exactly what happened in South Sudan.

When invaded, all tribal militias stood firm and defended the sovereignty of South Sudan, despite a lack of organization and a standing army. Each tribe stood on her borders against Turko-Egyptian soldiers. For instance, the Shilluk Kingdom organized her defensive military against Arab forces and militias along the North–South border in what is today Shilluk Kingdom. The same happened in the Dinka chiefdoms of Bahr el Ghazal and the Upper Nile region. In Bahr el Ghazal, Malwal Jiernyang, Ngok of Abyei, and Twic (Bol Chol) Mayardit resisted Arab military from entering South Sudan while in Upper Nile; the Nuer and Padang Dinka refused to accept defeat of any kind. Through their collective resistance, the enemy failed to enter South Sudan for decades and a military option faded away from the minds and hearts of the enemy.

\When enemy troops penetrated South Sudan, each tribe and nationality declared war against Arab and English invaders, turning South Sudan into a deadly war zone. For instance, the Zande and Latuko tribes of Equatoria fought an unforgettable war against the Turko-Egyptians during an invasion. In Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal, Bor and Aliab Dinka fought some of the most deadly battles in the history of defense with Chief Deng Abit of Twic area in North Bor. He led his army of shields and spears to the battle against the northern army that was equipped with modern weaponry.² The Aliab, under Chief Kon Anok, fought the same exact war as Bor against the enemy. For many years, invasion and resistance in South Sudan became the norm. The enemy believed that frequent attacks on southern tribes would weaken their solidarity and vanquish them. African tribes, however, were more organized and ready to defend their territory by any means.

As time passed, the war between the southern tribes and Turko-Egyptians dragged into social, religious, and racial conflicts. The Turko-Egyptians, also known as the Anglo-Egyptians, became very close to Arab tribes in what is today North Sudan; both had an interest in conquering the South for economic gain. In 1930, South Sudan fell to the joint forces of English and Egyptian troops. South Sudanese tribes had no choice but to accept colonial domination, but they did not accept assimilation. Each tribe maintained her sovereign and cultural identity, including language and animism.

Seventeen years later, the Anglo-Egyptian government that had jointly colonized North Sudan agreed to annex South Sudan into the North. At the time, South Sudan was colonized solely by Great Britain like the rest of East Africa, but North Sudan was under the joint custody of Egyptian and British authorities, resulting in the name Anglo-Egyptian.

The deal to converge South and North Sudan surfaced in spring 1947. In June, British authorities appointed Sir Robert George Howe governor-general of Sudan. The new governor-general agreed to call for a national convention in Juba, South Sudan, to discuss the joint ruling of the two nations under a condominium of British and Egyptian governments. The Juba Conference of 1947 started and ended with false statements, as no true discussion had taken place. It was a planned tactic to annex the South to the North without the consent of the governed. On the northern side, the meeting was attended by expert lawyers and civil administrators, while southern tribes were represented by randomly picked, uneducated tribal chiefs and local authorities who were no comparison to their northern counterparts in terms of formal education. It was a forced marriage that held no legitimacy.

South Sudan took the outcome of the Juba Conference very seriously and established a joint viable state with the north. In order to form a viable state, both parties had to build confidence and trust through respect and promotion of one another. But before anything developed, Anglo-Egyptian authorities and North Sudanese authorities secretly convened and concluded agreement to form a condominium that did not recognize South Sudan. The deal made the South the property of the North for economic gains. The South had been deceived and betrayed because the condominium did not acknowledge the inalienable right of existence for African indigenous tribes in a confederation of traditional nationalities. It favored Afro-Arabs in the North, causing unwavering and unresolved armed strife lasting for decades.

As a result, South Sudan voiced her concern, calling for separate colonial territories in what became the Sudan. It was easier for the South to deal with European colonies without North Sudan’s interference. But because British, Egyptian, and Arab North Sudanese authorities needed South Sudan’s land, not her people, these countries confronted any attempt to leave the condominium with joint military forces. The Anglo-Egyptian authorities needed a colony in South Sudan that would be a breadbasket for the Middle East after European colonial authorities surrendered Africa. Egypt opposed the creation of new states along the Nile River, as that would lead to more sharing of the water and possible alternation of the 1929 and 1959 water treaties, by which she possessed the lion’s share of the Nile’s water.

England’s unanticipated secret deal to hand South Sudan over to Cairo and Khartoum in what was supposed to be unification of the two regions, not annexation of one region to the other, laid the foundation of mistrust, inconveniences, and armed conflict for decades. The Arabs who claimed to be the artificial heirs of African richness took the south as a protectorate, acquiring wealth at the expense of the indigenous population. The new colonization of South Sudan proved to be worse than previous European oppression. The Arabs were only interested in destroying African people to make room for public use.

In 2004, a Darfuri refugee testified that Arab government in Khartoum wants to kill all African people, Muslims or not Muslims in order to put Arabs in their places.³ For decades, Sudan has been at war with herself because of Khartoum’s inflexibility to make Sudan a country for all. This was the true genesis of instability. Consecutive Khartoum governments have always wanted to destroy and replace African populations with populations of their own. Africans would not accept destruction at the hands of recent immigrants—immigrants whom they’d welcomed to reestablish and find safe haven.

On January 1, 1956, Anglo-Egyptian authorities delivered South Sudan to Khartoum in what became known as Intisal Jumuriyyat es Sudan, or Independence of the Republic of Sudan. The so-called independence of Sudan did not include the South because the region was handed over to a new colony. Instead, a transfer of power from one to the other took place. President Omar Ahmed Hassan el Bashir acknowledged this in his speech during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement celebration on January 9, 2005, in Nairobi, Kenya, saying, The independence of Sudan on January 9, 1956, was not complete because our brothers in the South were not included.⁴ If an attempt to avoid this exclusion, the South rebelled on August 18, 1955, before formal declaration of Sudan’s independence.

While Arab soldiers abused South Sudanese nationals in and outside the region, Northern academicians disseminated distorted data to change the natural history of Sudan for their benefit. They documented—and continue to document—untruthful history that associates Sudan with Arabism and Islam. This documentation has falsely transformed Sudan into an Islamic republic in which indigenous Africans were and still are sidelined. Many world history classes in high school have informed students that the Nile River belongs to Egypt and that Sudan is an Arab state. All these fictions are created to destroy rich African history. But African people, particularly in the South, are disadvantaged by poverty and incapable of correcting this unrealistic fiction that has denied Africans their heritage and honor as heirs of the land.

It is because of this undeniable national call to free the oppressed people of South Sudan that I am compelled to write this book. Unlike other books on the Sudan, Integration and Fragmentation of the Sudan: An African Renaissance contains accurate and reliable data—both religious and scientific evidence. It is a chronological work that aims at putting records straight about the true side of Sudan’s natural history. This book comprehensively discusses Sudan from its ancient genesis as discussed in the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostle. The major divisions focus on specific facets of the Sudan’s history. Part I discusses ancient Sudan and the making of the modern Republic of the Sudan based on evidence obtained from holy books and scientific findings, including archaeological excavations. Part II discusses wars and sources of national disintegration that is now being made. Part III focuses on what Sudan has been and ought to be, given the current situation in which consecutive Khartoum regimes have forced ordinary citizens to act. It also provides my personal position on what Sudan ought to be if peace is to be given a chance.

Integration and Fragmentation of the Sudan is condensed and intensive so as to help readers and future generations comprehensively understand Sudan’s undisputable natural realities. The intensity of this work is a foundation to help South Sudanese in particular and the world at large better understand the sources of instability, the suffering of African people, and why disintegration of the country into more than one sovereign state is a better solution. With tangible evidence at hand, I have comprehensively applied the experience of the past to project the future of Sudan. This experience includes empirically written material, as well as resources I have gathered in the field during the War of Liberation in South Sudan.

There is much to write about Sudan, too much to fit in one manuscript, and there is much that cannot be left out. For that reason, I have dedicated each part of the book to a number of interrelated issues that build upon one another making Sudan what it has become. This ranges from Part I in which I devoted great attention to ancient Sudan. Chapter 1 discusses religious and scientific evidence, about the development of ancient Sudan and transference of such a name to the modern republic of the Sudan. Ancient Sudan was a giant land mass that extended from Ghana to Eritrea; in other words, it is the Sahel region immediately south of Saharan Africa from the continent’s west to east coasts. This chapter thoroughly discusses topics that Arabs once altered to fit their desire to turn this African heaven into their own. For quite some time, misinformed or dishonest historians have claimed that the people of the Nubian Kingdom are Arabic by ethnicity and culture and Islamic by faith when, in fact, the opposite is correct. The Nubian Kingdom is one of the oldest civilizations in Africa. It is and shall never be Arab. But due to the Islamic Revolution and expansion in Africa the kingdom has changed from Christianity to Islam, allowing it to be described as Islamic by religion. Like the Nubian Kingdom, Funj and Darfur sultanates cannot change their African identifies but adopted the Islamic faith and artificial Arabic civilization, making them Arabic through assimilation.

Because of the Arabic and Islamic introduction on the continent, in particular present-day Sudan, the definition of Sudan changed, and it became quite challenging to have a concrete and undisputable noun in reference to who real Sudanese are in terms of race and ethnicity. Indigenous Africans claim they are the legitimate Sudanese, while Arab immigrants dispute such understanding, claiming legitimacy for themselves. Ancient Sudan does not differentiate nationalities because of language or skin color because the region was inhabited by a diverse population with diverse cultures and customs. However, this has changed over the years.

Given that Sudan was never a unified state and with current fabricated information that provides an unjustified history of the Sudan, I found it more than necessary to enclose fundamental information on integration of the Sudan. To do this, I acknowledge a few African tribes as examples and a representative of all other nationalities found in and around what is now Sudan. These tribes are only examples of all others who stood up against unproved occupants. Previous authors, most especially Afro-Arab authors, have claimed that Sudan is an Arab nation, despite these undisputable facts.

The last chapter of Part I elaborates on the identity conflict that emerged as a result of the incomprehensible and unacceptable involuntary integration of Sudan. On the one hand, Arabs compulsorily introduced Islam and their civilization against the will of indigenous inhabitants. But on the other hand, Africans refused to accept Islam as an all people religion. Frustration evolved from social resistance to military confrontation between the two major ethnicities—Black Africans and Arabs. Though coexistence and unity of Sudan was threatened, the oppressor did not change to safeguard the future of the country. Instead, the Afro-Arabs furthered their intention to dominate by forcefully introducing Islam as the sole religion of the country. Gradually and effectively, citizens of the Ingessina Hills and most ethnicities in Darfur adopted Islam at gunpoint.

Lately, there has been news about Sudan almost everywhere. Turn on your television or read a print or online newspaper, and you should come across a clip of news regarding Sudan—South Sudan or Darfur! The news on Sudan differs from other news that covers the various regions of the world. In Sudan, all there is to discuss is war and death because of the involuntary unification of the country and Khartoum’s unreasonable self-imposition as heir of Sudan against the will of the vast majority of African tribes. Although South Sudan is a composition of diverse nationalities that acted independently against invading forces, the Arabs’ destruction of South Sudanese people helped African tribes to unite and defend their common interest.

In Part II, I discuss the rise of nationalism in the South and the formal establishment of a southern entity as a political organization. The people of South Sudan, as discussed in chapter 4, expressed dissatisfaction with the newly created state of Sudan and went to the bush demanding independence and freedom. This was the genesis of African renaissance in Sudan. With a consistent demand for freedom and equality, South Sudan’s gallant fighters launched an armed struggle against Khartoum government and Anglo-Egyptian forces in the town of Torit. The Torit Mutiny, as it became known in Sudan, led to the First Sudanese Civil War, killing approximately a million people over seventeen years of armed struggle.⁵

After nearly two decades of armed conflict, the Khartoum government failed to acknowledge and address South Sudanese grievances, despite a fraudulent peace accord in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in February 1972. Instead of eliminating the causes of the African renunciation of and refusal to accept the Khartoum regime, the same government imposed more regulations that only recognized Afro-Arabs in Khartoum and other northern cities and provinces.

Part II discusses details of the renewed conflict from May 16, 1983, to January 9, 2005, when a final peace agreement was signed in Nairobi, Kenya. It not only focuses on the armed conflict between the South and the North, it discusses selected scenarios in which real civil war took place between South Sudanese organizations. After seven years and three months, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) leadership officials disagreed on the vision of the movement, causing a split in the rank and file of the SPLM/A’s highest organ, the Politico-Military High Command (PMHC) on August 28, 1991. Dr. Riek’s Nasir Declaration, as it was known, was a task of purpose for African people in South Sudan. From that date to January 2001, the SPLM/A—both mainstream and Nasir—engaged in tribal conflicts, causing havoc and instability in the region. The war that started in Nasir as a political difference between Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. John Garang transferred into tribal conflict, during which unarmed civilians suffered the most.

After decades of uncompromising unity, the future of Sudan as a united state is in question—very much at risk. The SPLM/A took up arms in 1983 with the same vision of freedom for the oppressed but with a slightly different methodology to achieve that vision. The movement, in its manifesto, called for free and inclusive government in Khartoum, in which Sudan remains united within her current geographical borders, not independence of the South as once demanded by the Anya Nya I.

Part III reveals some of the untold problems that persuaded the marginalized to resume military confrontation against the Khartoum government. Imbalance and unequal distribution of economic resources were, in fact, the primacy of renewed civil war in the South. The South has been marginalized, while the North developed on the expenses of the former. It was not exclusively the South that economically suffered by the hands of Khartoum but all African inhabited regions of the country.

In 1983, both Nuba and Ingessina citizens joined their brothers and sisters in the South against Khartoum, in hope that the movement would succeed in the liberation of the whole of Sudan and the establishment of a new Sudan.

This particular part of the book highlights previous peace agreements that have been negotiated and signed throughout the war years. It discloses untold facts about the Juba Conference, in which unity was involuntarily imposed on South Sudanese. It considers the Round Table Conference in which the North planned to deceive the South into another fake agreement. The South refused and continued the war until it was partially resolved in Ethiopia, in what became known as the Addis Ababa Agreement. This agreement did not bring a solution to resolve the Problem of the South. It further complicated the situation by enlarging the racial and religious gap between Arabs and Africans in the South Sudan. Previously, the people of the Nuba Mountains and Ingessina Hills sided with the north as they were, politically, part of the North. But because of the widening gap between Arabs and black Africans, artificial geographical division played no role in 1983. The Nuba and African tribes in the Blue Nile willingly joined their brothers and sisters in the SPLM/A, changing the definition of what used to be known as the southern problem. With these areas fighting the Khartoum government alongside the SPLM/A, the norm of British maps that differentiate South from North Sudan was violated, and the problem became musqilla es Sudan instead of musqilla Junub es Sudan. The Khartoum government, not ordinary citizens, is the problem.

As the war intensified and became more dangerous, both Khartoum regimes and many SPLM/A looked at negotiations as a possible means of bringing peace back to the country. In 1986, the SPLM convened its first face-to-face peace talks with interim authorities in Koka Dam, Ethiopia, to engage politicians in resolving musqilla es Sudan. The negotiation was called the Koka Dam Declaration. This declaration did not succeed, but it laid the foundation of future peace talks in Sudan.

The SPLM/A, on behalf of the marginalized people of Sudan, asked Khartoum junta government to create an inclusive Sudan for all her citizens. The Shari’a Law, which was passed in September 1983, had to be discontinued in order for non-Muslims to live in peace and enjoy the same quality lives as equal citizens of the Sudan. The declaration pressured the Khartoum government to resolve itself—there was, in fact, no government in Khartoum at that time because Nimeiri had just been overthrown and the regime was in the hands of military generals under the overall leadership of General Swar el Dahab—and addressed the problem of Sudan before the new government could be established. But President Nimeiri and civil administrators within the Transitional Military Command refused to accept SPLM/A’s call for equality. In the same year, Sadiq el Mahdi was elected prime minister for the second time; he’d previously held this position when he was elected in 1966. El Mahdi, who once supported SPLM/A’s position during the Koka Dam Declaration, quickly changed positions and became an opponent of the SPLM/A when he assumed government powers in Khartoum, causing the talks to fail.

Despite difficulties both parties faced in attempting successful peace negotiations, the Koka Dam Declaration became the foundation of future peace talks in Sudan. After three years in power, elements of the National Islamic Front (NIF) disposed PM Sadiq el Mahdi on June 30, 1989. The NIF came to power simply because these elements decided that el Mahdi was not fighting an effective war against the SPLM/A in South Sudan, Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile. Hence, the NIF’s rise to power came with a new method of flushing out the movement, as Omar Hassan Ahmed el Bashir, the chairman of the National Salvation Front, declared in his speech on Radio Omdurman.

To the NIF, the SPLM/A that the war was more than words. It needed action, and if so, the balance of power was in the hands of the SPLM/A. This reality forced the NIF to continue peace talks with the movement. The NIF took the initiative and negotiated several peace talks with the SPLM/A. The first serious peace negotiations took place in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, from 1991 and 1993, bearing the names Abuja I and Abuja II peace talks.

After both parties failed to agree on fundamental issues, including the SPLM/A’s call for the right to self-determination by people of the New Sudan, the Abuja peace talks were discontinued. But before many years, the warring parties resumed new phases of peace negotiations under the auspices of Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), an East African intergovernmental organization based in Djibouti.

The IGADD peace talks evolved from the Koka Dam and Abuja peace talks. In 1994, the first IGADD talks failed, and in the meantime, the organization changed its name to Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). For many years the IGAD tried to persuade Sudan’s warring parties. It helped reunite the SPLM/A in January 2001. One year later, it resumed intensive peace negotiations between a unified SPLM/A and the transformed NIF called the National Congress Party (NCP) in Khartoum. The new phase of peace talks involved all members of the IGAD community and the world at large. On July 20, 2002, SPLM/A leader Dr. John Garang de Mabior met face to face with NIF leader Omar el Bashir for the first time in Kampala, Uganda. The Garang-Bashir meeting signaled the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Sudanese problem.

In the same year, SPLM/A and NIF in the name of the government of Sudan signed the Machakos Protocol as the basis for continuing peace talks in Kenya. The Machakos Protocol granted the Southern Sudanese the right to self-determination on whether or not to voluntarily confirm the unity of Sudan. But this protocol did not resolve the problem immediately. It only paved the way for the two sides to proceed with talks and accountability on what seemed to end the war in the country. The peace talks lasted three years before all articles and protocols of the peace talks were integrated and signed on January 9, 2005.

This agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), granted the Southern Sudanese the right to choose independence or confirm the unity of Sudan. It gave the Nuba and Blue Nile people the inalienable right to confirm, if satisfied, their administration within North Sudan or opt for other possibilities; should they not be satisfied with the Khartoum government, the contested areas could, through their state legislative assemblies, join the South or ask for separate entities.

The CPA’s groundwork observed and respected formerly signed doctrines mandating that parties to the conflict abstain from military hostilities. Instead of fighting with tanks and AK-47s, the new partnership would be built on promises made during the CPA—the Khartoum government would take action to convince the South Sudanese that unification of the two countries was best. To make unity attractive, as that term became common in the political arena of Sudan, the government in Khartoum would help South Sudan, Abyei, Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile rebuild from the ashes of war. The government would build roads, hospitals, schools, and improve the overall standard of living for the people with special attention paid to New Sudan.

Whether or not the Khartoum government has made these prerequisites to attractive unity is the purpose of the last chapter in this book. The last chapter, South Sudan’s Referendum: A Case for Independence, discusses current developments since the signing of the CPA and establishment of the Government of National Unity (GONU) in Khartoum, as well as that of South Sudan in Juba.

Six years have passed, and the Khartoum government is still talking of making unity attractive without tangible outcomes on the ground. There has never been any development from the GONU that can convince Southern Sudanese people to vote for unity. The roads are messier than they were before the coming of Arabs to Sudan more than seven centuries ago. There are no hospitals, no schools, and no demonstrated will to help rebuild the country. Khartoum has, instead, turned to her old tactics of causing havoc and confusion among the South Sudanese so as to disturb the referendum in January 2011.

This book is a chronology to help the reader understand the complex and untold history of the Sudan since the creation of planet Earth. Elaboration of these facts is a fundamental base for the people of South Sudan and the contested areas to make an informed decision at the polls for the referendum. For centuries, the Arabs have shamelessly altered Sudan’s history to fit their own needs and to exclude the heirs of the Black Continent. That is why I dedicated special attention, time, and energy to providing historical facts about ancient Sudan, the first confrontation between Arabs and African tribes in 1898, the Juba Conference, and all other events that followed. Readers will be interested to see the reality of what Sudan looks like.

While readers look at the ancient history, I also elaborate on current events since the 1947 involuntary unification of Sudan. The reason for providing such brief descriptions is to help readers understand both sides of the history. Regarding the referendum, understanding the most accurate history of Sudan is fundamental in making an informed decision, as one reflects on the disadvantages and advantages of unity and disintegration of Sudan. Had the SPLM/A remained united and transformed within (if it were possible to do), the enemy would have been defeated, and more lives would have been saved. But because of those actions, it took Southern Sudanese a longer time to achieve their objectives.

The means through which one arrives at his or her destination does not matter. Driving, flying, and rowing a boat are all means of transportation and can take one there if properly used. I do not elaborate on those regrettable situations to encourage resumption of past failed attempts but to challenge every black African to avoid repetition of the past failures. Unity is strength. We are all winners if united but losers if fragmented. Therefore, it is every reader’s individual duty to be on the positive side of history.

Part I

The Making of Sudan

The plight of our country was escalated by a minority party seizing power and imposing a single identity, an Arab Muslim, on a country with multiple religions and cultures and considering [anyone] refusing to comply with this trend a rogue … This approach is the one that turned a security war into a Jihad war, deepening the national rift.

—Sadiq el Mahdi

Chapter 1

Ancient Sudan

Religious and Scientific Explanations

Archeological and religious evidences confirm human existence in the Sudan for as long as time memorial.⁶ The first scientific theory to explain human evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin, who published his work in 1859 AD.⁷ When Darwin⁸ first published his work on human evolution, he referred to East Africa as the birth place of humankind. In essence, and according to this scientific evidence, the primary place from which man originated was along the Great Rift Valley, somewhere from Eritrea to Malawi.

In the traditional African way of life, no single person or family owned land. Property belonged to the community. Today, in the traditional African countryside, land is still communal. Collectively, a community or, privately, a single person or family uses land. Whatever the reason, and however it is used, once the user—group or individual—moves out of that particular piece of land for an extended period of time and the land becomes open, any other person or group of people can take it over and use it without claiming everlasting ownership.

Although no individual person was allowed to own land under African traditional law, communities had, and still have, the right to collective ownership of the land. Kingdoms and chiefdoms such as Nubia, which shall be discussed later in this chapter, had administrative boundaries in ancient Africa. These boundaries sometimes changed, based on whether the community was a traditional nomadic pastoralist or agro-oriented farming community. Because African settlements were somewhat mobile, it is obscure to draw the ancient boundaries of current Eastern African tribes along the Rift Valley.

As a result of constant immigration in Eastern Africa and elsewhere, ethnically drawn boundaries have drastically changed. For instance, the borders of the Naath Nation in the fifteenth century are not identical to the borders in the twenty-first century. In North Sudan, Nubia, one of the oldest kingdoms in Africa, has lost its boundaries, significantly because of Pharaoh Ahmose’s, as well as subsequent Pharoahs, gradual and successful incorporation of the realm into an Egyptian kingdom between 1570 and 1100 BC. Due to various reasons, some communities, such as the Luo tribe⁹ immigrated, altogether. The Luo, originally from South Sudan’s Bhar el Ghazal region, migrated to its present-day home in Kenya around the 1500s, long before Europeans conquered the Black Continent. This movement was not confined to the nationalities of the present-day Sudan. Tribal conflict was, however, a common practice in Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania, Western, Southern, and Northern Africa.

Consequently, the people of Eastern Africa who once roamed their vast savanna forests can equally claim ancestral connection to Homo sapiens, the first man Darwin believed to have lived in the region, and who was to become the forefather of humankind—all races alike. It is obscure to identify the exact decedents of Homo sapiens but scientific evidence associate East Africa to the first human being. Although some critics of Darwin’s theory, commonly known as the Evolution Theory, remain unconvinced of its authenticity, such scientific invention, Darwinism, is taught in most, if not all public schools around the globe. In fact, archaeological evidences continue to support Evolution Theory. As a result of this and many other sources of information, and particularly if this theory holds true, the Nilotic tribes that now inhabit most of South Sudan can be directly linked to the first human that lived in the world.

Darwinism is not the only theory that explains the genesis of humankind and its existence on Earth. Many other theories are taught in primary and high schools around the globe. One of these theories is found in the Jewish and Christian holy book, the Bible. Equally and more important than scientific theories, biblical evidences are the strongest and are supported by billions of people globally to date. Religious explanation of human existence is the oldest and consistent data available today; hence, it is difficult, if not impossible, for either social or physical scientists to elaborate or change its content. Found in both the Jewish Old Testament as well as the Christian New Testament of the Bible, the theory has one thing in common with the Darwin Theory of human evolution. Both propose that man originated from the same location—Eastern Africa.

Composed and compiled in Mesopotamia between the twelfth and the second centuries BC, Tanakh¹⁰ is the single oldest document available in the world today. The edited modern Old Testament used by both Jewish and Christian communities, contains thirty-nine books.¹¹ Throughout the ten centuries in which the Old Testament was composed, its content never lost sight and has been consistent on its message. In Genesis, the first book of the Torah that explains the history of human creation, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit proposed the creation of man in their own image: Let us make man in our image.¹² And in the image of God, man was made. If man is in the image of God, and God created man out of the mud as is spelled out in the book of Genesis, would it not be worth noticing that God must look like the current African Sudanese? The color of mud, you see, predicts the color of God, who created man in his image. The Bible says everything about humankind is similar to God, except thoughts and intelligence.

The exact place in which God placed man remains unclear. Available explanations include several theories and adjectives that describe different places of the world. One of these adjectives described the first place in which Adam and Eve were located. It was a fertile land between two rivers. This explanation is good enough for the people of Sudan or Ethiopia, as it was generally known at one point, to claim ownership of the Garden of Eden. The central point of the Sudanese claim is that Sudan matches the description provided in Genesis. With its many rivers and tributaries, the White and Blue Niles are what the Torah explained. Therefore, it was in Sudan or Ethiopia that God created and housed Adam, our forefather.

Around the eighth century BC, some four hundred years after the composition of biblical Genesis, Prophet Isaiah released his visionary work in Judea. Apart from Isaiah’s religious prophesies on Sudan, not only did Cush¹³ exist during his writing, it had a recorded civilization of its own, making it the oldest civilization on the African continent. Archaeological excavations, which we will discuss later on in this chapter, explain in more detail how humanity lived in Sudan and the process of humankind’s ancient civilization. In Isaiah chapter eighteen, the prophet referred to the people living in Cush as tall and smooth-skinned people in the land divided by two rivers, which are clearly the White and the Blue Nile. Using today’s adjective, the people then described are Nilotic—Nuer, Shilluk, or Dinka—of present day South Sudan. It is equally imperative to look at another part of the same Bible—the New Testament.

Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament¹⁴ is more recent and focuses on the work of Jesus Christ. But Jesus, as foretold in the Old Testament by Isaiah, did not come to change history. He was born to fulfill what was already stated by the Jewish prophets and prophetesses. Unlike the Old Testament, this part of the Bible is more current and was penned at a time when humankind had invented the art of writing. The New Testament explains the life of Jesus Christ, including his exile in Egypt as a refugee, the choosing of his disciples, and generally the foundation of the Christian faith. Although written more than a millennium or two after the Torah, the New Testament is another old document that mentioned Sudan and its civilization.

Some recorded information involving Sudan in the New Testament includes the works of Saint Matthew, Saint Phillip, and the earlier spread of Christianity to the kingdoms of Cush in the first century AD. In addition to his Christian mission, Saint Matthew played a significant role in the history of East Africa. After years of fellowship that earned him the title of discipleship with eleven others during Jesus Christ’s era in Asia, Saint Matthew opted for his own way of spreading Christianity. At around 35 AD, he became the first disciple to put foot on African soil since Jesus himself had lived in Egypt as a refugee during the years of King Herod¹⁵. Theologians and historians believe that Matthew was assassinated in the African territory of Ethiopia.¹⁶ These historical records are robust and undeniable, live references that define the region in its genuine stance. Within years of the Christian mission, the eleven (before Mathias was appointed to replace Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus) appointed a new deacon named Phillip. Phillip walked his way to Africa and baptized the first African from the Meroean Kingdom. The newly baptized African, who Saint Paul referred to as the Eunuch of Ethiopia,¹⁷ was indeed a Sudanese because Ethiopia in its modern boundaries had no kingdom of that name. A full history of Phillip and the Eunuch of Ethiopia is narrated in the Acts of the Apostles.

Although it is obscure to state exact dates on which humankind first moved to Sudan, it is undeniably true that humans have lived in Sudan for a very long time. This history is self-evident, confirming that the first man might have lived in the present-day Sudan and was black. What is imperative and should be taken from this short history is that Sudan, and New Sudan¹⁸ in particular, is not as recent as some politicians would want to state for their political gains. It is a country that has a root in the most respectful theories of humankind. However, it is neither my intention to experiment or attest to the authenticity of these theories. Their authenticity is beyond the scope of this book, and it has never been the intention of this work to modify them.

The purpose of this text is to correct the political maneuvering of realities in the Sudan. For a very long time, the self-claimed Arabs in Northern Sudan have written numerous incorrect histories of what Sudan is, ignoring unchangeable facts about this magnificent piece of land. For over a century, most Arab writers have written incorrectly and purposely to distort the true history of Sudan so as to fit their own artificial definition of it as an Arab and Islamic state. The combination of these historical facts along with recent history equally proves Sudan’s Africanism. The land, before it even had an official name, was occupied by numerous African nations or tribes. Many kingdoms and chiefdoms coexisted before the arrival of Christianity and Islam. Therefore, any writing, previous, current, or future, that claims Sudan to be Arab or its synonym is fabricated, incorrect, and unjustified. As its name suggests, Sudan is what it has always been—the Land of the Black.

When Arabs came to this part of Africa, there was no united Sudan. The land consisted of numerous kingdoms and chiefdoms that operated independently. It was not only in the present-day Sudan that there was no amalgamated political system. This was common all over the world. In Europe, there existed what used to be called nation-states. Some of the prominent nation-states were found in Italy and parts of Western Europe. Many nation-states were also found along the East African Indian Ocean coastline from Mombasa in Kenya all the way to Dar as Salaam in Tanganyika and further south to Mozambique.

The Sudanese nation-states were organized along tribal lines. Every nation or tribe had its own tribal organization and organized militia for defense of its territory in case of external aggression. These tribal armies or militias invaded foreign nation-states to extend their geographical territories and to acquire more wealth, which in most cases consisted of cattle and other livestock. Where kingdoms existed, kings or queens were the supreme leaders of the land. In kingdoms like the Shilluk and Anyuak, kings ruled like those in Europe and Asia. In chiefdoms, like those found in the Nuba Mountains, Bhar el Ghazal, parts of Upper Nile and Equatoria, election of local and paramount chiefs was a common practice. It was conducted in the same way modern elections are conducted today.

In what is now South Sudan, Anyuak, Shilluk, and Latuko are some of the ancient kingdoms. Major nations like the Jieng, Naath, Bari, Shilluk, Zande, and Madi, among other Nilotic and Bantu tribes, practiced traditional democracy. But before looking at a more in-depth discussion on modern kingdoms and chiefdoms of Sudan, it is imperative to study and understand ancient Sudan in more detail, as this will help in understanding the current problem.

Geographical Location

Although extensive research has been done, published, and taught in schools and places of worship and read at political rallies, very little is hitherto known about present-day Sudan. It was not until 1820 AD that much of Sudan’s history became available. This occurred when Albanian born Muhammad Ali invaded Sudan with the help of his Egyptian army. With the lack of ancient data keeping methods, it became an exertion for historians, scientists, and social scientists to keep up with the true history of the Sudan. Although much has been done to gather facts and assemble them for future references, many challenges attribute to this fundamental lack of information tracing to the ancient years of Sudan’s existence.

First, located in Africa, Sudan’s populace was uneducated and therefore had no means of data keeping, unlike ancient Western European kingdoms, chiefdoms, and empires. Until recently, African history has passed from one generation to the other through word of mouth. This has numerous weaknesses, one of which is that the information changes meaning as time passes. What was told by one’s great-grandfather some hundred years ago would not be the same exact information one can pass to his own grandchildren. Therefore, facts unintentionally were distorted. Secondly, Sudan has never been a unified entity. Most of the information we have today represents one or more nations of Sudan differently. The history of the ancient Kingdom of Cush will explain this in detail.

The only common ground to be found in Sudan is that all inhabitants of Sudan were Africans by ethnicity and black by race. Apart from that, nothing else would bring them together. Each tribe or nation¹⁹ worshiped its own god, spoke a different language, and had its own means of living—some pastoralists and others typical farmers. Finally, only inaccurate and small amounts of data on ancient Sudan are available because of Arabs and their deliberate occupation of the African land. In the years following Muhammad Ali’s invasion of Sudan, many Arabs and Arabized Africans began to distort the true history of Sudan, changing it from listing Sudan as an African to an Arabic state. Arabs, who came from the Middle East as traders, intentionally distorted the history thusly to give themselves room not only to live in Sudan but to take absolute ownership of the land.

This premeditated falsification of history and unlawful occupation of African land became the root cause of Sudan’s turbulence and mayhem for over a century. Despite such distortions, many sources give evidence backing the inalienable Africanism of the Sudan. As pointed out above, very little information on Sudan is on record prior to 1820. In order to fill that gap, historians and social scientists have relied on scientific evidence. Much of the information before that year is available thanks to archaeological excavations.

Sudan, a noun, is probably the most confusing term in African history today. It is indeed confusing globally as hundreds or even thousands of archaeologists flood Sudan for excavation of ancient sites. Without prior knowledge of Sudan, it is a great challenge for anybody to understand what the term means. When talking of Sudan, one may be talking about the modern Jumuriyyat es Sudan²⁰, of which Khartoum is the administrative center and capital city. On the other hand, one may be referring to the region extending from the modern states of Ethiopia and Eritrea in the east to Mali, Guinea, and Ghana on the far west coast of Africa. Logically, the two Sudans—the region and the Republic of the Sudan—are two completely different things. Hence, it is imperative for researchers of social science, academicians, and politicians to be cautious and to have a solid understanding of this particular terminology when using it. As I mentioned earlier in this chapter, misuse of this term and other mistakes associated with it have cost Africans millions of lives over a century. Crucial understanding and professional usage of the term Sudan is essential for the survival of the current state of Sudan and the long-term harmony in this particular region of the continent. But if people continue to misuse and distort history, conflict will continue to thrive as the factual owners of the land will persist in order to conserve their natural identity.

The word Sudan originated from Arabic sud, meaning black, and the land in which black people lived came to be known as Bilad es Sudan²¹ during Arab-African trade more than nine thousand years ago. From about 7000 BC, the Kingdom of Nubia was already developed and extended toward Lower Egypt deep into the First Cataract. In search of profitable business prospects, the Arabs from Saudi Arabia began to cross south to Africa looking for gold, ivory, fur, and other goods in exchange for salt, clothes, and other trade items.

Literally, Arab traders knew no name for this vast land. It was a land of opportunities, full of what they needed for trade. Naming it after the skin color of the inhabitants was the best they could do. Historically, this is not the first time a foreigner named land after indigenous populace. In 1492, Christopher Columbus, who many people believed to have discovered the Americas, called the new land West Indies after meeting red-skinned inhabitants that looked like Indians to him. It was, therefore, intentional for the Arab traders to call this land Sudan after its black population.

Due to its geographical immensity, Sudan was divided into three regions—Eastern, Central, and Western Sudan. Eastern Sudan conventionally referred to the modern states of Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia, where Nubian and Iksum kingdoms dominated respectively. Central Sudan covered the modern regions of Lake Chad, Darfur, Kordofan, and further east to the Western Nubian kingdom in the present-day Republic of the Sudan. The third and last region of traditional Sudan consisted of mostly of modern West Africa. It extended from the Northern Sahara Desert in what is now Libya and Mali to the tropical woodlands and grasslands of Ghana, where Ashanti and other kingdoms flourished. Because of immigration and wars among kingdoms and chiefdoms, it is very difficult to draw exact borders of the ancient Sudan. In fact, Western Sudan had no recorded borders. Some scholars argue that Western Sudan boundaries extended further south into modern Angola.

Thus far, Sudan means the geographical area found in sub-Saharan Africa. With no well-defined lines to identify where it ends, Ancient Sudan’s boundaries are left to researchers, readers, and concerned citizens of the world to draw. What is important to comprehend and utilize in all sort of works is that Sudan lies in Africa, and it is because of the black man found on this continent that it derived its name. With that in mind, there is no reason for anyone to bother looking for definite boundaries of Ancient Sudan. Given that it is in Africa and the black people are found in Africa, the Arabs might as well have no limit to what they called Bilad es Sudan. In essence, it might have been the whole of Africa to which they referred.

With this knowledge and a better understanding of the geographical location of ancient Sudan, it is vital to look unambiguously at Sudan in its modern definition. Located in Northeast Africa, Sudan is one of the fifty-three independent, sovereign states on the continent. Sudan has remained separate since the Arabs came to Sudan with Africans in the South Sudan, Blue Nile, Mountains, and some parts of Darfur. With the annexation of Darfur in 1917, Sudan quixotically drew a completely different map of world geography. Its boundaries came to current existence in 1947 following Great Britain’s unethical and illegal handing of South Sudan over to the co-colonizer Arabs, despite Africans’ rejection of union between South and North Sudan.²² Sudan maintained its inherited existing boundaries from the White colonists and became the first sub-Saharan African nation to gain