Political Science Observations

North vs. South Divide in Sudan

Understanding the historical divisions, proxy war patrons, and international involvement

Overview

The north versus south divide in Sudan is a complex historical, religious, ethnic, and political issue that has shaped the country's conflicts, including civil wars and eventual secession. This presentation breaks down the key aspects of this divide, the patrons in the proxy war, and the involvement of British and other Western states.

Historical Context

The divide between northern and southern Sudan has its roots in British colonial rule (1899–1956), which administered the north and south separately, favoring the north for development and marginalizing the south.

This policy entrenched regional inequalities and created structural divisions that persist to this day, contributing to decades of conflict.

Religious & Ethnic Differences

Northern Sudan is predominantly Arab and Muslim, while the south is largely composed of non-Arab ethnic groups practicing Christianity or animism.

This religious and ethnic divide was exacerbated by post-colonial policies that imposed Islamic laws on non-Muslim southerners.

Key Factors in the North-South Divide

Economic Disparities

The north historically controlled Sudan's political and economic resources, including oil reserves located in the south.

This led to resentment and demands for autonomy or independence in the south, culminating in the secession of South Sudan in 2011.

Civil Wars

Two prolonged civil wars were fought between the northern-dominated government and southern rebels:

First Civil War (1955–1972)
Second Civil War (1983–2005)

These conflicts resulted in millions of deaths and displacements before South Sudan gained independence.

Proxy War Patrons and Their Interests

Faction	Primary Patrons	Secondary Patrons	Interests
SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces)	Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran	Russia, Turkey, Qatar	Secure Red Sea access, counter rivals, resource control (oil, agriculture)
RSF (Rapid Support Forces)	UAE, Russia (Wagner)	Chad, Libya, Ethiopia	Control gold mines, regional influence, smuggling networks

International Involvement

British & Western Role

Britain's colonial policy (1899–1956) entrenched the north-south divide by administering the regions separately and favoring the north.

Western states (e.g., U.S., UK) have largely avoided direct military intervention but have engaged in diplomatic efforts and humanitarian aid.

Current Involvement

Western NGOs provide aid to displaced populations but have limited influence over the conflict.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia hosted peace talks in Jeddah, but these failed to achieve lasting ceasefire. Western sanctions have been imposed on both SAF and RSF for human rights abuses.

Conclusion

The north-south divide in Sudan is rooted in colonial-era policies and perpetuated by economic and religious disparities. The current proxy war involves regional powers (UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran) and global actors (Russia) seeking resource access and geopolitical influence. Western states, including Britain, have limited direct involvement but bear historical responsibility for the structural divisions. The conflict remains exacerbated by external arms flows and competing interests, deepening Sudan's humanitarian crisis.