An interesting article on Darfur.


Sassylassie
#1
I found this article at www.mediaright.ca (external - login to view) I found it inciteful and interesting.

This is why there is slaughter in Darfur
By Charles Moore

(Filed: 26/09/2006)



Comment on this story (external - login to view) Read comments (external - login to view)

Both Tony Blair and David Cameron tell us from time to time that we ought to care about Darfur. Mr Blair is leading a new drive to bring peace there. Mr Cameron says it is the sort of thing "modern, compassionate Conservatives" should worry about.
They are right to worry, since genocide is taking place. The reputation of what people call "the international community" is at stake. But what is perplexing is that our leaders, and most of the media, do not really explain why Darfur is as it is.
As soon as Israel attacked Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, everyone was ready with a political explanation and a finger of blame (usually pointed at Israel). The war in Lebanon went on for 34 days, and killed about 1,300 people. The fighting in Darfur has continued since February 2003 and has cost, at the lowest reputable estimate, 180,000 lives. So Darfur hits the Lebanon total of death every 10 days.
advertisement

Yet even now, the thing is presented almost as a natural disaster. It is seen as a humanitarian crisis, and reports focus on how aid can get through. Of course it is a humanitarian crisis, but not a natural disaster.
It is not even one of those uncontrollable, anarchic situations in which rival factions of bandits charge round killing one another (though there certainly are plenty of such groups). The death in Darfur is the result of a policy.
The policy is that of the Sudan government, which is now, in effect, the government of northern Sudan. That government is Islamist and Arab. It used to harbour Osama bin Laden until bombed by Bill Clinton. Even before the Islamists came to power in 1989, the north imposed sharia everywhere.
In 1990, it declared jihad against the south. It seeks to dispossess Christians and to assert Arab dominance of the north over the black population of the whole country. In Darfur, it destroys black villages through the Janjaweed and other militias.
As with Slobodan Milosevic's Greater Serbia, Khartoum's power grab is presented in the guise of restoring national unity. In reality, Khartoum wants to kill or expel as many blacks as possible while the rest of the world wonders what to do.
This week, Omar al-Bashir, the president of the Sudan, returned from the United Nations in New York pretty well pleased. The inadequate African Union force in Darfur is extending its stay, and the UN force which has been formally resolved on is nowhere to be seen. That is how he wants it. There will be a good few more "Lebanons" before anything starts.
Last week, I was in southern Sudan. Although desperately poor, with 95 per cent illiteracy, and some armed groups still roaming the bush, the place is more or less at peace.
This is because, at the start of last year, international pressure forced a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between north and south. The largely Christian south now has a great measure of self-rule, and will be allowed to vote, in 2011, as to whether it wants to secede from the Sudan. It is certain, if it ever gets its promised chance, that it will vote to break away.
A UN force of 7,000 is in the south, trying to see that the CPA becomes a reality. The north drags its feet on key provisions – most notably the settling of the borders.
It knows that if the borders are agreed, this will show clearly that most of the oilfields which earn the country large amounts of hard currency are in the south.
The north is supposed to give half of the revenue from the southern oilfields to the southern government, but there is no independent audit of what that revenue is, so the south is being short-changed. This suits China, which is in the country, helping itself to Sudanese oil at good rates.
The leaders of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement who run the south, told me that half their budget is spent on the army, and that this is what people want. They think the way to avoid war is to be strong enough to fight it.
Southern Sudan is all but unique in the modern world in having recently overthrown sharia rule. After years of officially imposed Islam, in schools, the civil service and preferences for jobs, Christians no longer have to live in daily fear. I visited towns where mosques and churches now coexist peacefully.
Yet one Anglican prelate I met, who said that he survived 20 years of persecution because "it is not so easy to kill a bishop", told me that "the Arab Muslim is not a giving-up sort of person".
The blow to Arab pride if the south became independent would be tremendous. The threat to the south is, therefore, huge. "We are the wall to the penetration of the Islamic religion to the whole of Africa," Bishop Micah said.
What occurs in Darfur concerns not only the fate of its refugee, raped, hungry, dispossessed people. The outcome will also tell the north whether it can get away with what it wants. If it discovers that it can, it will start again on the much bigger prize of the south.
As they trained for their jihad against the south, the soldiers of Khartoum used to gather to hear verses telling them that Allah would make sure that the very birds in the trees directed them to the enemy camps: "And when the monkeys on the tree-tops see that the Mujahideen are coming to attack the rebels, they will swoop down upon the roads and sweep the mines. The Mujahideen will then march without difficulty until they reach the rebel camps which they will devastate… God is great. God is great."
There are reasons of high politics, to do with the influence of Egypt, and our Foreign Office's obsession with hunting for non-existent "moderates" among extreme Muslim governments, which stop the West taking a clear stand on the Sudan.
So expect more expressions of concern, little action and more deaths – well beyond the borders of Darfur.

Comment on this story (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by SassylassieView Post

I found this article at www.mediaright.ca (external - login to view) I found it inciteful and interesting.

This is why there is slaughter in Darfur
By Charles Moore

(Filed: 26/09/2006)



Comment on this story (external - login to view) Read comments (external - login to view)

Both Tony Blair and David Cameron tell us from time to time that we ought to care about Darfur. Mr Blair is leading a new drive to bring peace there. Mr Cameron says it is the sort of thing "modern, compassionate Conservatives" should worry about.
They are right to worry, since genocide is taking place. The reputation of what people call "the international community" is at stake. But what is perplexing is that our leaders, and most of the media, do not really explain why Darfur is as it is.
As soon as Israel attacked Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, everyone was ready with a political explanation and a finger of blame (usually pointed at Israel). The war in Lebanon went on for 34 days, and killed about 1,300 people. The fighting in Darfur has continued since February 2003 and has cost, at the lowest reputable estimate, 180,000 lives. So Darfur hits the Lebanon total of death every 10 days.
advertisement

Yet even now, the thing is presented almost as a natural disaster. It is seen as a humanitarian crisis, and reports focus on how aid can get through. Of course it is a humanitarian crisis, but not a natural disaster.
It is not even one of those uncontrollable, anarchic situations in which rival factions of bandits charge round killing one another (though there certainly are plenty of such groups). The death in Darfur is the result of a policy.
The policy is that of the Sudan government, which is now, in effect, the government of northern Sudan. That government is Islamist and Arab. It used to harbour Osama bin Laden until bombed by Bill Clinton. Even before the Islamists came to power in 1989, the north imposed sharia everywhere.
In 1990, it declared jihad against the south. It seeks to dispossess Christians and to assert Arab dominance of the north over the black population of the whole country. In Darfur, it destroys black villages through the Janjaweed and other militias.
As with Slobodan Milosevic's Greater Serbia, Khartoum's power grab is presented in the guise of restoring national unity. In reality, Khartoum wants to kill or expel as many blacks as possible while the rest of the world wonders what to do.
This week, Omar al-Bashir, the president of the Sudan, returned from the United Nations in New York pretty well pleased. The inadequate African Union force in Darfur is extending its stay, and the UN force which has been formally resolved on is nowhere to be seen. That is how he wants it. There will be a good few more "Lebanons" before anything starts.
Last week, I was in southern Sudan. Although desperately poor, with 95 per cent illiteracy, and some armed groups still roaming the bush, the place is more or less at peace.
This is because, at the start of last year, international pressure forced a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between north and south. The largely Christian south now has a great measure of self-rule, and will be allowed to vote, in 2011, as to whether it wants to secede from the Sudan. It is certain, if it ever gets its promised chance, that it will vote to break away.
A UN force of 7,000 is in the south, trying to see that the CPA becomes a reality. The north drags its feet on key provisions – most notably the settling of the borders.
It knows that if the borders are agreed, this will show clearly that most of the oilfields which earn the country large amounts of hard currency are in the south.
The north is supposed to give half of the revenue from the southern oilfields to the southern government, but there is no independent audit of what that revenue is, so the south is being short-changed. This suits China, which is in the country, helping itself to Sudanese oil at good rates.
The leaders of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement who run the south, told me that half their budget is spent on the army, and that this is what people want. They think the way to avoid war is to be strong enough to fight it.
Southern Sudan is all but unique in the modern world in having recently overthrown sharia rule. After years of officially imposed Islam, in schools, the civil service and preferences for jobs, Christians no longer have to live in daily fear. I visited towns where mosques and churches now coexist peacefully.
Yet one Anglican prelate I met, who said that he survived 20 years of persecution because "it is not so easy to kill a bishop", told me that "the Arab Muslim is not a giving-up sort of person".
The blow to Arab pride if the south became independent would be tremendous. The threat to the south is, therefore, huge. "We are the wall to the penetration of the Islamic religion to the whole of Africa," Bishop Micah said.
What occurs in Darfur concerns not only the fate of its refugee, raped, hungry, dispossessed people. The outcome will also tell the north whether it can get away with what it wants. If it discovers that it can, it will start again on the much bigger prize of the south.
As they trained for their jihad against the south, the soldiers of Khartoum used to gather to hear verses telling them that Allah would make sure that the very birds in the trees directed them to the enemy camps: "And when the monkeys on the tree-tops see that the Mujahideen are coming to attack the rebels, they will swoop down upon the roads and sweep the mines. The Mujahideen will then march without difficulty until they reach the rebel camps which they will devastate… God is great. God is great."
There are reasons of high politics, to do with the influence of Egypt, and our Foreign Office's obsession with hunting for non-existent "moderates" among extreme Muslim governments, which stop the West taking a clear stand on the Sudan.
So expect more expressions of concern, little action and more deaths – well beyond the borders of Darfur.

Comment on this story (external - login to view)

Yeah.

I knew that, in part, the war in Sudan was a holy war against Christians by Islam.

I would love to see a force go into Sudan and shoot Janjaweed. And that is what it would be. No talk of "peacekeeping" BS, if the west goes in without prior approval, the gov't of Sudan has already said it will consider them an invading force.

Gee, I wonder what the NDP would do?
 
Sassylassie
#3
Yep Colpy the NDP didn't do their homework when they send in Peace Keepers did they. The Extremist Muslim are also killing Muslims that they deem not extreme enough, bloody awful situation.
 
jimmoyer
#4
Darfur is a real lesson.

You know how much more righteous the rest of the world is than the UNITED STATES ?

Here's your chance.

China's digging the oil in the meantime.
 
fuzzylogix
#5
Whoever wrote this article has not done their homework and is sadly lumping Darfur in with the Sudanese Civil Wars. While all events in this region are interrelated, it should be recognized by people posting on here that the Sudanese Civil Wars pitted the Northern predominantly Muslim population against the southern mainly Christian and animist population, and of course was also being fought mainly over the oil resources.

Darfur, however is a civil war, mainly between two Muslim groups, the Arabs and the nonArabs. After Britain helped the Turco- Egyptians defeat the Islamic Mahdi, they made Darfur autonomous, but later incorporated it into Sudan. During this time, resources were funnelled primarily to the Turco Egyptian Arab population in the Nile Area at the expense of the non Arabs. Unfortunately Chad and Libya further promoted the rise of Arab prominence. The famines in 1983/4 brought the plight of the area to a head. In 2003 rebel groups accused the government of favouring Arabs and starting fighting for their own rights. Unfortunately the government is backing the Janaweed Arab faction who have a genocidal approach to the nonArabs.

This is the history of a very complicated area in a nutshell. If you are going to discuss wars and take sides you should at least understand the history and geography etc.

And lest people of the West are too quick to point fingers at violent factions in Africa, let us review the synoptic history of practically every country in Africa:

1. Tribes live in their own areas in Africa, having occasional intertribal warfare keeping their territories in check.

2. Along come the European powers who decide that they want the land and are not subordinate to the natives, thus forcing natives out of their own lands into neighbouring areas bringing them into conflict with other tribes.

3. After years of repressive control and enforced poverty and slavery, the natives rise up and fight against the European powers.

4. Finally, after having created artificial borders to suit themselves, the European powers give the countries independence.

5. The countries are left with an unstable mix of poor disadvantaged natives and the coups begin.

6. After the coups begin, the civil wars start.

7. After the civil wars start and many people are killed, the European powers come back in and ask why people can't get along and maybe they should come back and sort things out.
Last edited by fuzzylogix; Sep 28th, 2006 at 06:52 PM..
 
Curiosity
#6
Fuzzy

And this anecdotal information is from ???
 
fuzzylogix
#7
Anecdotal????


Ah, if you like, google Darfur to obtain history of Darfur.

Then you might google history sites for Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya, Congo, and so on and so forth...... if you like, take notes. You only have to change a few dates and the European country, etc. Or go to your library and get a few history texts on Africa.

Here are a few to start with:
The White Nile by Alan Moorehead
The Blue Nile by Alan Moorehead
Reader's Digest Illustrated History of South Africa
The River Congo by Peter Forbath
History of Islam in Africa eds Levtzion and Pouwels
 
jimmoyer
#8
Good summary, Fuzzylogix.

Over the years, National Geographic has done excellent reporting on the subject.
I learned of the north muslim arab vs south christian african civil war involving
women slaves, raping and killing of the children for years. Years of it. And so now some semblance
of peace is held by UN troops down there I think.

Sudan might split into 3 parts.

And now we have foreign interest in oil as another overlay ----- China being the
biggest operation there. The Dutch and the Russians are also in there.
 
Curiosity
#9
Fuzzy

Thank you for the links
 

Similar Threads

30
War in Darfur
by earth_as_one | May 3rd, 2010
38
Darfur
by Socrates the Greek | Mar 14th, 2009
3
An interesting article on the Media.
by Sassylassie | Sep 28th, 2006
no new posts