It has been three years now since I heard about the atrocities in Darfur, and the conflict does not seem to have gotten any simpler to understand. Conflicts over race, religion, resources, and political control internal to Sudan are just the beginning—-outside parties, including the United States, most certainly have strategic interests at play within the dimensions of the conflict.
In an attempt to understand the roots of this conflict in history, I looked back at the twenty year Civil War fought in Sudan which concluded (sort of) in 2005. Despite the peace agreements which have been signed, the violence does not seem to have abated.
My question is: what are the geographical and ideological roots of this war and conflict? A helpful site for my understanding of the ancient history is here. Another decent web resource is at UPenn (some outdated links)
It's crucial to understand that Sudan is home to the oldest civilization on the planet, and likely the original ancestral home of the ancient Egyptians. Then its also crucial to understand (as Dr. John Henrik Clarke and others have pointed out) the colonizing role of Islam in the history of Sudan, especially when you see how important it is for certain groups to trace their lineage back to an Arab ancestor. According to the historical sources, the kingdom of Nubia (in modern day Sudan) fought the Arabs (who had invaded Egypt in 651) for a long time and finally signed a peace treaty with them. The terms of the treaty included the obligation by Nubia to send 360 slaves each year to the Muslims in Egypt. In exchange, there would be no hostilities and there was a likely obligation to for the Arabs to send wheat and lentils in exchange.
Flash forward to the present. I am just beginning to understand this conflict, but one thing I havn’t heard from anyone on this blog so far is a real criticism of the government in Khartoum, who is avowedly committed to Islamist domination of the entire country. With respect to the borders of Sudan, I realize we are talking about colonial borders imposed by the British over heterogenous groups of people. But the actions of the government in Khartoum are performed with one goal in mind: gaining control over the land and resources of the South and forcefully subjugating those who will not submit to their authoritarian vision of an Islamic state.
Amidst all this talk on this blog of US strategic interests in the region and skepticism about motives, where is the criticism of the undeniable genocide this government is committing against the people of Southern Sudan, to the point where some in the South favor secession from the country (link)? Its important to note that John Garang was not in favor of seceding, believing that it would devastate the South, but isn't the South being devastated as is?
Please take the time and review the documents from the 2005 power sharing agreement between the Khartoum government and the SPLA rebels (on the previous website) Read the moving speech from John Garang, (RIP), former SPLA commander and a true revolutionary hero. Then try and fathom how far this thing has degenerated; there are currently two vice-presidents in Sudan, one loyal to Khartoum and one deputy of Garang’s from the South, despite the fact that this power-sharing agreement included a provision that a Southern representative be appointed as VP to facilitate resource sharing.
The US government’s current ‘War Against Islam’ notwithstanding, I tend to concur with the author below; this is genocide in the name of power and control, using Islam as an emblem. And it ought to be condemned outright, without caveat.
One of the givens in reports of the Darfur slaughter is that this is not about religion because both sides are Muslim. The audible sigh of relief is misplaced. Everything the Sudan government does is in some sense “about religion” because it is an Islamist government. In other words, its raison d’être is to impose its vision of an Islamic state on Sudan and beyond that, on the Arab world, the Islamic world, Africa and even the wider world. The fact that after 15 years of ruthless rule it has failed to impose this vision even on its own country does not (contrary to what a lot of foreign officials seem to think) mean that it has given up its dream. If you believe you are implementing God’s plan, you may not give up so easily. Religious fundamentalists of every hue have known this throughout the ages. Yet it is a hard truth to grasp for Westerners, especially Europeans living in “post-Christian” societies where faith is widely seen as a matter of personal choice, not a driving force of society, let alone of politics (link).
Post a Comment
3 comments:
Lafayette wrote a piece (here) addressing some of things you mention.
I agree that the government should be denounced. Period.
Let's not STOP there though, that's only the easy part. That's the part that even the soccer moms can do.
We must also ask, like he says in the article, how does that translate to peace for the people of Darfur?
There must almost always be a "caveat" when dealing with Africa, specifically in the sense that there must be explanation enough of the history to help us remember this is not an unconnected situation...
We've written to representatives and as far as I know didn't see any of our appeals answered or taken into serious consideration, let alone acted out.
Ironically, the Khartoum government and the U.S. government are in similar situations -- both of them have interests that cause their bureaucracies to half-ass efforts to do the one thing that matters... protect the people of Darfur.
They both are looking for ways to save face and not look like accomplices to murder, but those darn political and economic interests of the state (respectively) keep getting in the way (throw China in there too) of saving those people. Shucks.
So the common issue we're dealing with is this state interest in the resources of Sudan as a whole and the fact that none of these states are just, moral, or courageous enough to shake up the status quo.
To add... when the KKK was doing something very similar to what the Janjaweed is now doing but in THIS country... it was the same state bureaucracies that couldn't find the courage or moral ground to cut the red tape and save people's lives who were riding buses on public roads through the southern region of THESE United States.
My first reaction is that yes the south ought to succede. But now I wonder how much good it will actually do? I still lean towards it as a step in a better direction tho. But I really think what needs to be changed is bigger than succession. Because that won't help Darfur and like you suggested might even lead to more chaos in the south. I keep coming to the conclusion that this structure just doesn't work. Pretty soon you'd have outside instigators trying to stick their noses in the business of Southern Sudan via some oppossition faction. What options do that leave? Something new has to grow, something that I haven't seen. But it has to be given room to grow. And that means that peace and soverignty must be attained. Perhaps the institution of the "state" as we know it in this "modern" globalized world is no good for the people of Africa...
Thanks for the link.
With regard to your comment, I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. The only countries with the military resources to stop the genocide by imposing troops between civilians on the ground and the Khartoum government are the United States and China.
China is not going to intervene because of economic interests, while the U.S. is currently conducting an illegal occupation in the Middle East and certainly would face open hostility from Khartoum if it were to intervene militarily.
Meanwhile, both the U.N. and the African Union are too feeble and ineffective to step in.
I like how Uganda and Kenya got involved to broker a peace treaty last time, and obviously I would like to see more intra-African cooperation.
So, there are some tough choices on the line, which I don't have the answers for, and from your response, I see you are struggling with too.
I mean its like: do you call in one bully knowing he can stop another bully? Or do you stand by and let someone get beat up senselessly?
What you say about state interest is correct, although I don't see the US and Sudan's interest as being morally equivalent. What is the US interest that is causing them to 'make a half-ass effort'? Like I mentioned earlier, the US is already caught up in one occupation; they have no desire to get caught up in another one.
i think identifying the u.s. interest here is simple this: they have just as much interest in allowing the genocide to continue, or rather to "half ass" it -- i.e. denounce it while not committing 100% with the force required to stop it now -- as china does... they want those oil fields just as much as china does. funny cause i'm watching this democracy now interview on how more than a quarter of the u.s' oil will be coming from Africa and how they already use more oil from africa than from saudi arabia... check the nigeria post i updated today here on the blog for the interview...
although when lafayette wrote his article he said that Khartoum claimed they weren't equipped to stop the janjaweed, i think that there are three governments who can stop this -- Khartoum, the U.S. and China... and all of them benefit i think from being two-face tho, because all of them benefit (or believe they can benefit somewhere down the line) from a change in the face of Darfur.
Khartoum wants that oil too, the only difference is that they are seller and the U.S. and China a buyers. But oil and money are still common interests for all sides.
I think we have to see the janjaweed sort of like blackwater in iraq, or the Ethiopians in Somalia -- essentially mercenaries being backed/encouraged/enabled through inaction or pseudo-neutrality.
Post a Comment