The British Soldiers in South Sudan: The historical perspective
By Steve Paterno
The last British soldiers who ever served and stepped feet in South Sudan were South Sudanese, people not of British origins, but typical South Sudanese.
When Great Britain entered the Sudan in late ninetieth century with the aim of colonizing the land, they ended inheriting South Sudanese soldiers who were serving under the fledgling Ottoman Empire. The British immediately noted the bravery, discipline and dedication of those newly discovered South Sudanese soldiers in the continent. Therefore, to the advantage and manipulation of British, those brave soldiers could help them accomplish their primary goal. That primary goal was the defeat of Mahdiyah regime. When those soldiers put their skills into work, without doubt, the Mahdist’s Dervishes, who by then overran the Ottoman Empire out of the country, were crashed without much contest and in no time at all.
Contingents of those soldiers were then used to establish an expansion of British colony in Eastern Africa. In today’s East African; in countries like Uganda and Kenya, the decedents of those soldiers are very much visible. Their distinctive community is referred to as the “Nubi.” To this day, this unmistakable community of distinctive South Sudanese maintains their culture, speaks colloquial Arabic, and of course, they are considered outsiders within those East African countries, for obvious reason that they are typical South Sudanese. For they are South Sudanese who just happened to end up somewhere else as a result of British dominance during scrambled for Africa.
During World War I and II, those brave South Sudanese soldiers played pivotal role in winning victories in favour of allies forces. For examples, they successfully defeated the Mussolini’s fascist soldiers along Abyssinia’s frontier. Some of them went as far as Burma, deep in heart of Asia to confront and defeat axis forces, led by fiercest Japanese imperialism soldiers.
As the British were preparing for the hasty independence of Sudan, it was then obvious that the betrayal of the South Sudanese soldiers who for decades were standing alongside British soldiers was being put into motion. It was already cleared, by August 18, 1955, that the British were leaving the country and in process leaving their decades long allies under the mercy of Northern Sudanese Arab rule. As such, the South Sudanese soldiers reacted in the famous Torit Mutiny. The Torit Mutiny ignited like a wildfire, engulfing the entire major South Sudanese towns. The result of which was the dispersion of all the Northern Sudanese out of the entire South Sudan territorial region. South Sudan was free for a moment. A sense of a temporary freedom was ushered in.
The British, who were by then packing to get out of the country, decided mistakenly to intervene in most callous ways. They began to airlift Northern Sudanese soldiers, with more superior firepower, into hot spots in South Sudan. The British established contacts with the leaders of mutineers in South Sudan. The British then convinced those leaders of mutineers to surrender with guarantees to address their legitimate grievances.
Unfortunately, after mutinying and surrendering, the British participated into the arrest of those brave soldiers and jetted out of the country, abandoning the mutineers to rot under detention and mercy of the Northern Arabs. This act marked the beginning of the long Sudan’s civil war. Since, then, the country has been embroiled in a vicious war, with South Sudan bearing much of the brunt of the violence. The British, particularly British troops never ever showed up in South Sudan at any point since then.
Now, it is ironic that the country, which abandoned South Sudan, their long time ally, is trying to come back after six decades. Surprisingly, Great Britain has just announced that it is intending to send peacekeepers troops into South Sudan. In a more serious manner, such ironic news must be viewed with skepticism and suspicion. First of all, Great Britain record in deploying peacekeepers around the world is pathetic, for a country that once claimed an ‘imperialism where the sun never sets.’ Britain only has few finger counts of peacekeepers in history who are being deployed for peacekeeping force. Second of all, Britain financial contributions into peacekeeping forces around the world is near no any of the world powers. Third, Great Britain troops disappeared of South Sudan since 1955. Hence, they are strangers as of today in the land that they were once respected. Fourth, they just betrayed South Sudan even though ignoring South Sudanese generosity in winning them victories for Britain’s raison d’être. By now, Great Britain must also understand that out of its struggle, South Sudan is a country and pursuing its raison d’être, either independently or in cooperation.
In conclusion, the so much suspicious intention of Britain to deploy foot on the ground in South Sudan at this time and moment needs much scrutiny, especially given the fact that the last British soldiers in South Sudan were South Sudanese, not of British origins. Great Britain help for South Sudanese is much welcomed in other forms, but otherwise, much is desired with this move of foot on ground by someone who has been MIA for six decades.