Territorial Disputes

TIMEMUN 2015

Welcome Letter from the Chair

Hi my beautiful Delegates! :)

As the daughter of a diplomat, I have had the privilege to live all over the world and experience

a diverse set of cultures I would have never expected. Since the age of one, I lived in Bangladesh for

four years, Kazakhstan for two years, and finally Israel for the past ten years. Oh yeah, I’m from the

States, but don’t ask me where unless you want an hour explanation (*sigh*...the life of a diplomat).

Mainly, my interests are in math/computer science fields but I love being active ­­ whether its

playing soccer, swimming, or running. I have yet to meet someone who doesn’t like music and I am no

exception :).

From the time I was in 9th grade, I have participated in MUN at AIS. In my first year, I wrote

for the TIMEMUN newspaper during the conference as a journalist for the Strategic Affairs committee.

After having such an experience, I was inspired to participate in MUNmore significantly ­­ a delegate

and later a chair. As a delegate last year, I participated in the Spanish Congress at the YMGE

conference in Budapest and was named Honorary Delegate of Environmental Committee at

TIMEMUN. This year is my first year as a chair and am very excited to be co­chairing the Territorial

Disputes Committee with Roy as well as getting to know ya’ll. I’m expecting a heated, well­researched,

and ultimately fun debate from ya’ll. :)

The most important aspect I think you could gain from this experience is to learn how to be

diplomatic, considerate of others’ resolutions, persuasive, and to make lifelong friends from all parts of

Israel that you otherwise would not have met had you not attended this conference. MUN is a model of

the real world and the struggles we must face, so come with passion and hopefully we can leave the

conference with a resolution at which even the UN will look.

Thanks,

Waverly Harden

Welcome Letter from the Chair

Hey guys,

My name is Roy Keinan and I hail from Israel (although my mother is South African). I too am

a son of a diplomat. I wish I could say I had the privilege of living in Israel, Peru, Mexico and

Portugal, yet that would technically be plagiarism (not that there is anything wrong with those beautiful

countries, which I did live in, its just that Waverly stole my opening line…).

I have participated in MUN programs since the 7th grade, with a total of 7 conferences as a

delegate and one as a chair. I consider my best experience in this area to be a delegate in The Hague

International MUN (THIMUN), the largest MUN conference in Europe (with over 3000 delegates from

all over the world). The remainder of my conferences were held in Portugal, (including the Iberian

MUN). Furthermore, I am a co­founder of EMIS’ MUN program, which makes me better than

Waverly. (“You wish” ­ Waverly). I hope that this conference will be a great learning experience for

you just as much as it will be for Waverly and myself.

My interests are more focused on humanities (I am currently in the IB program at EMIS). I

focus my academics on Business, Economics, Marketing and Psychology (FYI: you guys are going to

be my lab rats…). I also involve myself in an array of sports, mainly basketball and martial arts. In

simplest terms, there is nothing I hate doing more than sitting in a room all day working (like now;

working on this letter withWaverly), so I hope we will be able to have an excellent flow of debate with

ALL delegates involving themselves.

I am very excited to be your chair for the upcoming conference, and I hope that you will find

MUN the great experience I find it to be. Our lives revolve around interactions with one another,

regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our views. I hope that each and every one of you

gains the skills we all need to face the future. TIMEMUN is a great and valuable opportunity. Lets

make the most of it!

Ultimately, we wish you all the best in this debate and are excited to hear what you bring forth.

Finally, we hope you got a good impression of us. However, beware as we tend to induce delegates into

a state of anxiety so powerful delegates will not have hair past their twenties (seriously, we are different

people when there is a gavel involved...).

Sincerely,

Your Dream/Nightmare Chairs: Waverly Harden & Roy Keinan

Chair’s Contact Information

Waverly Harding

Email: u16wharden@gmail.com

Phone: 054­353­4720

Roy Keinan

Email: roy.k@em­is.org

Phone: 050­219­2270

Officers: Ty Geri u16tgeri@wbais.net, Raphael Chew u15rchew@wbais.net and Sang­Woo Im

u15sim@wbais.net

Territorial Disputes Committee Issue Summary #1:

Settling Disputing Claims in the Ukraine: Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea

Background:

Ukraine’s crisis with Russia has become the most

prolonged and deadly crisis since Ukraine’s post­Soviet

independence. It began as a protest against Ukraine’s

government for dropping plans for closer trade ties with the EU.

After 20 years of weak governing, an oligarchy dominated

economy, heavy reliance on Russia, and vast differences

between the western and eastern Ukrainians, Ukraine has been

struggling with its identity. Since independence in 1991,

presidents have increasingly allowed oligarchs to gain more control over the economy. Thus, by 2010,

nearly half to the country’s GDP was controlled by Ukraine’s 50 richest people. Ukraine’s failure to

resolve internal disputes and weak governance has hampered its ability to implement any economic or

political reforms.

Crimea, before the crisis, was an autonomous republic of Ukraine with its own parliament and

laws, which used the Russian language. This peninsula of 2 million people only became a part of

Ukraine in 1954 when Nikita Krushchev, a Soviet leader, transferred it from Russia to Ukraine as a

symbolic move with the Soviet Union. Most of the Russian residence in Crimea continued to have

strong ties with Russia and permitted the Russian Black Sea fleet to remain based at Sevastopol, the

Crimean port. The estimated population percentage is 59% Russian and 23% Ukrainian.

In 2004, the Orange Revolution almost rose beyond control when a rigged presidential election

brought Viktor Yushchenko to presidency. This as well as the economic troubles with the global

economic crisis in 2008 resurfaced tensions of the divide between European­oriented western and

central Ukraine and Russian­oriented southern and eastern Ukraine. Yanukovich won presidency in

2010 based on his campaign to form closer ties with Russia. He then reverted to corruption, embezzling

as much as $8­10 billion each year for the next three years as well as imprisoning his 2010 presidential

opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was one of the most high­profile reformist leaders of the Orange

Revolution. Yanukovich also tried to continue talks with the EU on a trade association agreement, until

pressure from Russia caused him to drop those plans. He cited that the trade agreement would damage

Ukraine’s industry by the European competition, which then provoked protestors to demonstrate in

Kiev — called the Euromaidan. These protestors wanted to speak out against this corruption and have

Ukraine to align its future with Europe.

After three months of protest with radical demonstrations and some of the bloodiest conflicts

since Ukraine’s independence, it caused a new group of transitional leaders to remove Yanukovich

from office and hold new elections on May 25, 2014. The situation in eastern and southern Ukraine

worsened until pro­Russian separatists increasingly clashed with government forces and citizens loyal

to the government. Moscow moved about 40,000 troops to the border of eastern Ukraine as Ukraine

deployed 11,000 troops.

U.S. officials believe that Russia’s actions to annex Crimea, as a part of Russia is against

international law, including the 1997 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and

Ukraine. The U.S. officials wish Ukraine to become a stable democracy, including economic and

political connections with the EU. Thus, the EU and U.S. have begun many steps in response to

Russia’s annexation. The EU has stated that on the condition for Ukraine to reach an agreement with

the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and ending gas subsidies, they will provide $15 billion over the

next coming years. The U.S. has promised $1 billion for technical assistance. The IMF has also

approved to provide $17 billion in the next two years. In terms of sanctions, the U.S., EU, Japan, and

Canada have put more than 70 sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian businesses linked to the Crimea

crisis. The EU and U.S. have also provided energy and military aid for Ukraine’s advantage.

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, armed conflicts have heightened between separatist

forces of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic (primarily lead by 15­80% of proclaimed

Russian citizens) and the Ukrainian government. By August of 2014, Russian troops, ammunition, and

humanitarian convoys were reported to have crossed into pro­Russian controlled regions as well as

non­controlled regions like northern Donetsk oblast in Western Ukraine. The Head of Security Service

of Ukraine (SBU), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, stated that this was a “direct invasion of Russia by

Ukraine,” and thus caused the Ukrainian army to shell western regions of Russia until the Minsk

Protocol called for a ceasefire.

After the Ukrainian revolution, pro­Russian protesters began to resist against the attempt of

rebuilding the Donetsk Regional State Administration (RSA). By March these pro­Russians occupied

the RSA for 6 days until the Security Service of Ukraine removed them. By April, 1,000­2,000 people

demonstrated in Donetsk to hold a referendum similar to the one held in Crimea in March. They not

only stormed the first two floors of the RSA, but they demanded that if the regional officials did not

officially organize the referendum, they would take over with a “people’s mandate” by dismissing all

elected officials. Since these measures were not met, these activists stormed the RSA, voted for

independence, and proclaimed themselves as the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

Similarly, the SBU in the Luhansk oblast was occupied by 1,000 pro­Russian activists. These

protesters demanded that all the separatist leaders arrested should be released. After being removed by

the police, these rioters gathered, forming a “people’s government,” outside the building demanding to

join Russia. The elected Valery Bolotov as the “People’s Governor” and held two referendums to

determine the independence of the Luhansk Oblast region. OnMay 12, the Lugansk People’s Republic

(LPR) was declared independence, without Ukraine’s compliance, and 12 days later signed an

agreement to form a confederation with the DPR.

Failing to cooperate through diplomacy on economic, political, and law­abiding levels will

most likely leave unresolved chaos and bitter relationships between Ukraine and Russia as well as the

internal pro­Russian separatists and other Ukrainians.

Current Situation:

Today, the Donbass region constitutes the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, which are unlikely to

get international recognition any time soon. Many Ukrainians believe though that even in these regions,

that the majority vote has not been represented. Only 16% of Ukrainians are pleased with Poroshenko’s

(the current president’s) handle on the situation and 94% in the Donbass region agree that in the past

six months “the situation [has become] somewhat worse,” according to the poll done by the

International Foundation for Electoral Situations. This primarily reflects the economic decline of the

region. Although the Donbass region is having difficulty gaining support for legitimacy, most of its

imported materials and support by Russia. The two governments of Luhansk and Donetsk have merged

to form an unrecognized confederation called the Federal State of Novorossiya. Only South Ossetia

internationally recognizes the Republic, while Ukraine classifies it as a terrorist organization.

Currently, Ukraine and the majority of the public agree that Crimea is a subregion of Ukraine

whereas Russia and a few other nations understand this territory to be under the Russian federal district.

Thus, after Russia’s annexation of the “independent” region called the Republic of Crimea, Ukraine

along with most of the international community will not recognize Crimea’s independence and merge

with Russia. As time passes the relations between Ukraine and Russia as well as the international

community are becoming increasingly more tense as these issues are slow to being resolved.

Questions to Consider:

­ Should regions such as Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk be considered a part of Ukraine, Russia,

or as independent states?

­ Are the majority of the people within these regions actually wishing to be a part of Russia or is

it just the Russian military and pro­Russian activists that have entered their region?

­ How do the Ukrainians feel towards the pro­Russian activists as well as the local government

in their region?

­ Should Russia be continually boycotted for annexing these regions?

­ How should the international community respond to Russia’s sudden regional growth?

­ Is there a solution that could possibly benefit both Ukraine and Russia, which determines the

status of these regions?

­ How has this issue affected people in these regions with family either in Ukraine or Russia?

­ What implementations could the international community do to help find a middle ground

Helpful Resources:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline­ukraine­political­crisis­201431143722854652

.html

http://news.usni.org/2014/03/11/brief­history­conflict­ukraine

http://www.cfr.org/ukraine/ukraine­crisis/p32540

http://www.bbc.com/news/world­europe­28817347

http://qha.com.ua/en

http://www.kyivpost.com/newspaper/

Territorial Disputes Committee Issue Summary #2:

Establishing a framework for control of Abyei & Heglig in South Sudan

Background:

Up until Sudan became an independent state on

January 1st, 1956, the Anglo­Egyptian Condominium (the

joint British and Egyptian government controlling Sudan) had

ruled North and South Sudan separately. However, once the

state gained its independence, the brand new constitution

failed to address two crucial issues: Firstly, there had been no

indication as to whether Sudan would become an Islamic state

(as the north is, to this day, is predominantly Muslim, while

the south is mainly Christian and animist). Secondly, the

state’s federal structure was unclear, meaning that there was

no legal separation between north and south Sudan. This

would lead to the first of the two Sudanese Civil Wars.

Before South Sudan’s separation from Sudan, the country had undergone a series of conflicts.

The first Civil War (1955 – 1972), between the Sudanese authorities and southern insurgents/rebels

(called the Anya Nya) originated when the rebels demanded greater autonomy for southern Sudan. The

war eventually ended in 1972 when southern Sudan was given greater autonomy through the Addis

Abba Agreement.

However, while the agreement halted hostilities between the Sudanese government and the

rebels, the peace was short­lived. In 1983, the second civil war erupted due to President Jaafar

Nimeiri’s decision to introduce Sharia Law. For the next six years, the Sudan People’s Liberation

Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Arab­led Government of Sudan (GOS) fought one another until

finally a truce was declared due to the suspension of Sharia Law. Regardless, on June 30th of 1989, a

military coup led by General Omar Al­Bashir managed to overthrow the Sudanese government, once

again throwing the country into a state of violence. The war lasted until the National Congress Party

(NCP) and SPLM/A, both agreed to and signed the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. However,

this was only after approximately 2.5 million casualties had been caused by the second civil war.

After decades of bloodshed, on July 2011, Sudan and South Sudan separated into two

individual states. Sudanese President Omar Bashir agreed to this after a referendum held in South

Sudan showed an overwhelming majority of citizens wanted independence. However, before splitting

in 2011, Sudan had become the second largest oil producer in Africa outside of the Organization of the

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). However, after the split, Sudan as well as South Sudan

decreased to be the fourth largest non­OPEC oil producer in Africa in 2013. Now that South Sudan

holds most of the oil production capacity, arguments and even armed conflicts have caused both Sudan

and South Sudan to curtail in a vast amount of oil production. In short, the control of oil and mineral ­

rich areas such as the Abyei Area (shown in the map above) are the center reasons for the current

conflict between Sudan and South Sudan (further emphasized through the ineffectiveness of peace

treaties and bilateral talks).

While there are clear hostilities between the two states, internal conflicts to both Sudan South

Sudan have risen and undoubtedly affected the situation as well. Sudan is faced with several internal

conflicts, among them is the South Kordofan and Blue Nile crisis. On June 2011, following the

severely questioned and heavily disputed state­level elections, violence erupted between the South

Kordofan SPML­N forces (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement­North) and the Sudanese

government. Furthermore, while individual observers are forbidden entry to South Kordofan and the

Blue Nile, the U.N. estimates an approximate 300,000 civilians have been displaced from their homes

and 200,000 refugees have fled to camps in Ethiopia and even South Sudan. Furthermore, several

recent conflicts such as the Darfur crisis and issues arising in Eastern Sudan. In conclusion, while the

ongoing hostilities between Sudan and South Sudan are ongoing, Sudan itself is at a weakened state

due to severe internal conflicts draining its resources and negatively affecting the country’s stability in

general.

At the same time that Sudan is facing its internal issues, South Sudan has experienced similar

struggles. The South Sudan Civil War (December 2013 ­ November 2014), caused by South Sudan’s

ex­vice alleged president’s attempt at overthrowing President Salva Kiir. According to organizations

such as Amnesty International, who documented incidents of mass shootings in a police base in Juba (a

city in the region). Furthermore, after the entry of multiple parties to this conflict (such as IGAD, the

leading regional body peace negotiations), there was little impact seen as the country was struck by

severe issues such as famine and tensions arising from the involvement of Ugandan troops. Although

the war only recently ended, there has been a clear impact the stability of South Sudan. In conclusion,

South Sudan has been subject to many internal issues such as massive­scaled famine (which has been

improved through recent efforts yet may not continue to be as such should the violence continue) and a

civil war. This clearly illustrates how the social and economic stability of the nation, of not the general

stability of South Sudan, has been severely weakened.

Current Situation:

Two years after their first meeting in 2010 regarding the South Sudan referendum, the

negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan have been dreadfully slow. However, the lack of

cooperation between the two states has reached a critical stage, as the conflict has become of global

importance. As mentioned before, conflicts internal to the two states has, without a doubt, slowed down

the peace process, hindering negotiations and draining resources. For example, the conflicts in South

Kordofan and Blue Nile (June and September, 2011) have decreased the level of trust and cooperation

between the two states, as Sudan accuses and calls for South Sudan to halt its alleged support for

SPLM­N. In short, in order for negotiations to be of any effect, the two states must enter a state of

internal stability through ceasefires and improving life standards (possibly due to humanitarian aid).

Negotiations are very unlikely to yield any fruit unless both Sudan and South Sudan are at a state of

peace.

Due to the understanding that the conflict will never be resolved unless peace is reached, the

international community has taken action. On May 2, 2012, the U.N. passed Resolution 2046, urging

all combatants to immediately cease all hostilities and return to negotiations facilitated under the

African Union High – Level implementation Panel (or AUHIP), with the aid of chairs from the

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Furthermore, the U.N.’s Security Council stated

that, under the 41st Article of the U.N. Charter, states who violate Resolution 2046 will be subjects to

sanctions. While this has occurred a few years ago, it sets a relevant timeline for respective goals (both

for Sudan and South Sudan).

Regardless, the conflict remains ongoing, and as was stated before, it is clear how oil plays as a

driving force in this issue. During the spring of 2012, tensions on the border rose as the two states

openly carried out hostilities over the disputed border of the Heglig region (also referred to as Pathou).

The two forces first clashed on March 26th, 2012, leading to further violence, such as bombings of oil

fields and border fights. Similarly, the Abyei Area (a historically disputed territory), led to conflicts

between the two states. Both of these regions are critical to both states’ economies, as they are amongst

the richest oil sources for both states.

Expanding upon the issue in the Abyei Area (shown in the map above), there is a high

controversy as to whether Sudan has any claim of the region. Within the 2005 Comprehensive Peace

Agreement (CPA) is the Abyei Protocol. This legislation states that at the end of a six­year interim

period, citizens of the area will hold a referendum on whether they wish to maintain their current state

as a part of Sudan or become a part of newly­formed South Sudan. Furthermore, this is to be enforced

by the Abyei Boundaries Commission, or ABC. However, this referendum never occurred, and the

Sudanese government refuses to recognize its legitimacy under the Abyei Protocol (this is mostly due

to the dispute of what passes as a ‘resident’ in Abyei). This caused a chain of events which resulted in

new and redrawn borders, where oil­rich Heglig is under the control of Sudan.

Following this crisis, Sudan and South Sudan agreed to withdraw military forces from Abyei,

install Ethiopian U.N. peacekeepers and finally establish a joint administration for this specific area.

However, as of June 2012, it is clear that these conditions have not nor are likely to be properly

implemented.

Questions to Consider:

­ What could have been done to avoid the first and second Sudanese Civil Wars?

­ How has religion played a part/affected the conflict in the area?

­ How have internal conflicts in Sudan as well as South Sudan affected the issue?

­ How has this conflict affected the international community?

­ What would be (possible) economic implications for Sudan and South Sudan should the other

control Abyei & Heglig?

­ How have the actions of NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

played a part in this conflict?

­ How have the actions, or lack of actions, of bodies such as the United Nations, European Union

and other states (i.e. United States of America) impacted this issue?

­ Are there any alternative solutions to this issue which do not involve either state falling further

into economic failure?

­ How has the conflict affected the civilians of both states?

Helpful Resources:

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) & South Sudan’s Independence:

http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/sudan­comprehensive­peace­agreement­and­south­sudan­in

dependence

The Anya Nya (and more):

http://www.gambellastarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=666:sother

n­sudan­anya­nya­i­ii­and­the­road­to­independent&catid=1:latest&Itemid=50

*South Sudan Timeline:*

http://www.bbc.com/news/world­africa­14019202

General Background to the Conflict:

http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/history­of­the­conflict

Internal Issues Within South Sudan:

http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/conflicts­south­sudan

Internal Issues Within Sudan:

http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/conflicts­sudan

Territorial Disputes Committee Bibliography:

Issue Summary #1:

“Backing Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity, UN Assembly Declares Crimea Referendum Invalid.”

UN News Centre 27 Mar. 2014: n. pag. UN News Centre. Web. 22 Nov. 2014

<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47443&Cr=Ukraine&Cr1=#.VHDvA_SUfno>.

Batiouk, Victor H. "Letter to the UN Security Council." United Nations (1993): n. pag. United

Nations. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/26075>.

McMahon, Robert. "Ukraine in Crisis." Council on Foreign Relations (2014): n. pag. CFR. Web.

22 Nov. 2014. <http://www.cfr.org/ukraine/ukraine­crisis/p32540>.

“Pro­Russian Activists in Donetsk Prepare Referendum for May 11.” Kyiv Post 16 Apr. 2014: n.

pag. Kyiv Post. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/pro­russian­activists­in­donetsk­prepare­referendum­

for­may­11­343857.html >.

"The People’s Republics Cast Their Votes." Current Politics in Ukraine: n. pag. Current Politics

in Ukraine. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/the­peoples­republics­cast­their­votes/>.

"Russia Warns U.S. against 'Destabilizing' Ukraine." CBS News 20 Nov. 2014: n. pag. CBS

News. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia­responds­to­blinken­on­supplying­ukraine­weapons/>.

Theime, Lt. Col. Donald, USMC. "A Brief History of Conflict in Ukraine." UNSI News 13 Mar.

2014: n. pag. UNSI News. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://news.usni.org/2014/03/11/brief­history­conflict­ukraine>.

"Timeline: Ukraine's Political Crisis." Aljazeera 20 Sept. 2014: n. pag. Aljazeera. Web. 22 Nov.

2014.

<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline­ukraine­political­crisis­20143114372

2854652.html>.

"Ukraine Crisis: Rebel Fighters 'Trained in Russia.'" BBC News 16 Aug. 2014: n. pag. BBC

News. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world­europe­28817347>.

Issue Summary #2:

Atal, Maha. "Brief Update on Sudan." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 21 Nov.

2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/mahaatal/2011/01/20/brief­update­on­sudan/>.

"Conflicts in South Sudan." Enough. © Copyright 2014 Center for American Progress, All

Rights Reserved., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/conflicts­south­sudan>.

"Conflicts in Sudan." Enough. © Copyright 2014 Center for American Progress, All Rights

Reserved., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/conflicts­sudan>.

"History of the Conflict." Enough. © Copyright 2014 Center for American Progress, All Rights

Reserved., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/history­of­the­conflict>.

"South Sudan Profile." BBC News. BBC © 2014, 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/world­africa­14019202>.

"South Sudan Vote Confirms Split." BBC News. BBC © 2014, 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/world­africa­12379431>.

"Tensions between the Two Sudans." Enough. © Copyright 2014 Center for American Progress,

All Rights Reserved., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/sudans/tension­two­sudans>.

Zapata, Mollie. "Sudan: Independence through Civil Wars, 1956­2005 | Enough Project." Sudan:

Independence through Civil Wars, 1956­2005. © Copyright 2014 Center for American

Progress, All Rights Reserved., 12 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/sudan­brief­history­1956>.