The events of September 11 came as a great shock that was meshed with feelings of fear and uneasiness for the American population and the greater international community as well. Since then Washington has rhetorically pledged to make the promotion of democracy a primary goal in America’s foreign policy objectives.  Through this, the United States has expressed its desire to revive the ideals of the liberal systems that were made popular in the 20th century and advance them in the developing world so the global South community can engage fully in the global agenda.

At the core of liberal theory is the commitment to the individual and the progression toward a society in which the individual can thrive. Beyond its preoccupation with the individual, liberals contend that freedom is the chief individualist value. However Liberal theory upholds that security and progressive leadership can only be ensured by the state, which is in turn regulated through the constitution (Heywood: 2007: 23). 

While international politics is inherently anarchic, the distribution of power among states provides a great deal of insight into how states are likely to respond to certain influences (Nye:2003; 42).  The whole world over, people are embracing democracy. The populations of countries with small and deteriorating economies also desire democracy.  For a long time the conflict situation in Darfur was seen as just another model of the war predicament in Africa. It is interesting to observe how this attitude changed when the ‘Darfur crisis’ started making the headlines of international news networks and newspapers, and moreover how this transformed the situation into a ‘humanitarian crisis’. 

Darfur lies in the most western part of the country in North Sudan. The conflict in Darfur is commonly classified as an opposition of ethnic African and Arab groups on the basis of a patriarchal lineage and tribal hardships. However in reality the human rights abuses, ineffective local law enforcement, tribal disputes and conflict over land and other resources contribute to instability of Darfur (Bogema and Beard: 2009: 8). Maitre (2009:54) reported that the number of people killed in the civil unrest in Darfur between 2003 and 2009 has been estimated to be 450 000.

The first step at a negotiated resolution was the Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, which was fostered by the government of Chad on April 8th 2004. When the rebellious faction in the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) camp declined to sign the ceasefire further violence ensued and escalated the humanitarian crisis. The next attempt at a ceasefire was the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), which was launched by the USA on behalf of the AU, and signed on May 2006. 

Following the independence of South Sudan as sovereign state and the newest member of the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th of July 2011, both North and South Sudan have been faced with significant challenges. For the North, the major challenge has been the conflict situation in Darfur. While the international community has been consistent in its peace-keeping efforts, in particular with the efforts of the AU-UN combined peace-keeping forces that were deployed in the region in 2008, the resistance of rebel groups has been strong.  The most significant hindrance in the peace-keeping efforts occurred when the 2010 peace talks delayed and the ceasefire agreements that had brokered began to breakdown.  However rebel groups in Darfur have since shown greater willingness to cooperate, both politically and in terms of military action. Although progress continues sporadically, the threat of conflict has not been done yet been done away with. 

The pronouncement of Sudan as a failed state by various international organisations, including Amnesty International comes as no surprise if one considers the reports on the death toll in country and vast human rights abuses. The order of the international system today observes the condition of war as a deviation from the expected course of governance and statehood. Yet Maitre (2009:53) has emphasised that when assessing the functionality of states it is important to consider that what starts a war is not necessarily what sustains it.  However it is also evident that the framework of democracy is postulated on Western postulations.
On this basis the international community awards sovereignty exclusively on the terms of territorial borders without taking into consideration the institutions in place as well as the historical identity of the communities that inhabit those territories.  Therefore although democracy has proven to be a viable reliant model for good state governance and the maintenance of international peace, its framework needs to be broadened in order to cater to historical traditions and grievances that play a significant role in informing strategies for good governance.

 

Bibliography
 Bogema, S. and Beard, V., 2009. “Women’s movement, state building, growth and civil society”. Midwestern Political Science Association, P1-29
Heywood, A., 2007.Political Ideologies. Palgrave Macmillan. New York
Insight on Conflict, 2011. “Sudan: Conflict profile”. Insightconflict.org, Internet source, accessed 17 August, 2011.
http://www.insightconflict.org/conflict/sudan/conflictprofile/?gclid=cTKTe7LmN3KoCFsQOfdOT7u7w
Maitre, B. R., “What sustains ‘Internal Wars’? The dynamics of conflict in the state of Sudan”.  Thirds Wold Quarterly. Vol (30) 1
Mcfaul, M., 2004. “Democracy promotion as a value”. The Washington Quarterly. Vol 28(1)
Nye, J.S., 2003. Understanding International Conflict.  Pearson,New York