Whats Going On In Darfur?

[Racoon]

Can anyone help explain what's really going on in Darfur province? .. Perhaps our media here in the United States might be a little bias.

 

It sounds like another refugeee masacre and rival authority trying to take over.

 

Refugees ambushed in Darfur - Africa - MSNBC.com

 

KHARTOUM, Sudan - Militiamen on horseback ambushed a refugee convoy in Sudan’s western Darfur region, killing some 30 civilians, the United Nations and aid workers said Sunday, and African Union peacekeepers called to investigate were briefly taken hostage by other refugees.

 

With violence in the region worsening, aid workers in El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, and the U.N. said pro-government janjaweed militiamen ambushed a truck Saturday outside Sirba on a road near the border with Chad and executed about 30 civilians.

 

Why are so few international bodies willing to act on African crisis?

 

:)

[maikeru]

I suggest the Wiki article on Darfur:

 

Darfur conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I've been following it for the last 2 years or so, when it started to pop up in the news, but sometimes it's hard to get all the facts straight. I think the Wiki article does a pretty good job. What is clear is that this is a bad situation, and that if things don't improve soon, a lot more people are going to die. Estimates of people already dead are around 300,000 to 400,000, possibly more.

[Qfwfq]

The UN has been quite limited in providing help, especially due to influence of some of the biggies among member countries.

[Buffy]

Being overly simplistic, there's no advantage to be gained economically or politically by getting involved: There are no oil or other resources in Sudan, its mostly hostile to developed nations (especially due to the fact that they sided mostly with the rebellious Christian south against the Muslim central government in the earlier civil war mentioned in the wiki), and politically it would be seen as further "Somalia-like" interference in a conflict that is complexly Muslim-only in nature (although I have read articles that indicate that the "facts" presented in the article about the religious alliances may not be entirely accurate, but I don't have the time at the moment to do the research: left to you as an exercise....).

 

Intractably,

Buffy

[Racoon]

With a war raging in Iraq and around the globe on Terrorism, I don't think people really care much about whats going on in Darfur, to be honest..

 

Africa seems to be last on the list of global priorities.

 

I realize I could just google some info on Darfur, but I thought that a view not coming from an American media source would perhaps be more enlightening

 

news-darfur

 

Uprising and Repression

 

The present conflict started in February 2003 and has rapidly developed into one of the most violent military confrontations on the continent. There have been an estimated 30,000 casualties, one million people are displaced within the province and over 120,000 have fled into neighboring Chad. The fight is basically between black African insurgents and the Khartoum government and its local agents, the Arab militias. The deep causes of the rebellion lie in the feeling of superiority and cultural elitism of the “Arabs”, and of resentment and perceived oppression and neglect on the part of the “Africans”. The “African” rebels point out that in spite of being a loyal part of the Muslim north, Darfur is in fact as badly off in terms of lack of infrastructure, neglect of education and economic underdevelopment as the Christian south.

 

There are two rebel movements struggling against the Khartoum forces. One is the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), which was initially named the Darfur Liberation Movement but chose the broader appeal of a “national” name to increase its potential reach. The SLM is based mostly on the Fur and Masaleet tribes and is politically moderate. It has tried to ally itself with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Asmara-based umbrella organization which unites all Sudanese opposition groups, whether North or South.

 

The second rebel group is the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), based mostly on the Zaghawa tribe. It is linked with the radical Popular Patriotic Congress party led by the veteran Islamist Hassan al-Turabi who has now fallen out with his former NIF disciples. (At the end of March 2004, Sudanese authorities arrested al-Turabi, ostensibly for involvement in a plot to overthrow the country's president.) The relationship between JEM and SLM remains one of the obscure points of the Darfur conflict, even if the two organizations claim to be collaborating militarily. The JEM is by far the richer of the two and the one with the greater international media exposure, even if its radical Islamist connections make it an unlikely candidate for fighting a radical Islamist government.

 

 

[Racoon]

I also believe this to be another example of Islamic Jihad and expansion in the world.

 

Should people favor and be tolerant of Islam in its current global practice? Be as politically correct as you want, but I think that Islamic Fundamentalism is behind most major conflicts in this world, and it is uncompromising with their agenda.

 

One could clearly argue the same about Christianity and the United States, and other Western governments.

 

But being from the United States, I tend to be against the Islamic Jihad, and side with many of the politics here that Islam is the greatest threat to world civilization ...

 

:)

 

 

This is a crazy world and we're all just living in it,

Rac

[adjective]

Being overly simplistic, there's no advantage to be gained economically or politically by getting involved: There are no oil or other resources in Sudan, its mostly hostile to developed nations (especially due to the fact that they sided mostly with the rebellious Christian south against the Muslim central government in the earlier civil war mentioned in the wiki), and politically it would be seen as further "Somalia-like" interference in a conflict that is complexly Muslim-only in nature (although I have read articles that indicate that the "facts" presented in the article about the religious alliances may not be entirely accurate, but I don't have the time at the moment to do the research: left to you as an exercise....).

 

Intractably,

Buffy

 

The majority of this post is simply wrong. Sudan has oil--but the U.S. has placed sanctions on it because of its links to terrorism. China, in lieu of the U.S.' acquisition, buys most of Sudan's oil. A number of U.S. companies have been upset by this as Sudan's oil industry is doing quite well--it turned Sudan's economy around, in fact. Sudan is also the world's primary producer of gum arabic. In fact, in the earlier mentioned sanctions, the U.S. excluded gum arabic by name because of pressure from business lobby groups, arguing they would be unfairly punished by losing access to the world's largest producer--as well as the best quality producer--of gum arabic.

 

Second, the assertion of Sudan's "hostility" is groundless. Sudan may not be as cooperative as it could, but the fact remains that Sudan has cooperated on the issue of terrorism after 9/11 enough to be conspicuous in this regard. Sudan's diplomats are not stupid--they realize it is in their best interest to cooperate and they have. They are shrewd, cunning people who are more interested in maintaining their power than inanely angering other governments.

 

It should be noted here that Sudan's non-cooperation on the Darfur issue is more greatly tied to its oil industry. It is widely believed that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil--and the U.S. has made it known that it is looking to diversify its oil resources. Sudan may well be fearing a similar invasion. Note that the U.S. is using the word "genocide" while the U.N. is using the softer "humanitarian crisis."

 

Third, the North/South split has been settled. The South got higher autonomy and profit-sharing in the oil industry.

 

While I would agree that what is happening in Darfur is horrendous, let's keep the facts straight. Let's also note that, while death by violence is horrible, death by disease is far more prevalent on the African continent--and far more preventable. How much money would be spent on saving the Darfur province? How much of that could better spent in long-term educational and technological investments in the region to help them join the ranks of industrialized countries? Just think how much things would change if the majority of the people were aware of germ theory and how many lives that in itself would save.

[Buffy]

I stand corrected. However the oil industry there is only getting started: while it has gone from zero to causing a trade surplus in just 5 years, it is tiny at the present time compared to the rest of the world, and does not have *proven* reserves, so the huge investment going on is very risky, but exactly what the Chinese are into right now.

 

Lest anyone thinks that things are just hunky dory there, last week's Economist (which I'm just now reading) has a long article on the situation there. A few excerpts:

Behind the fast-rising glittering towers lies a region that has been ignored: Sudan's south, where 80% of the oil lies. After 1956, when the country gained independence, the south, which is Christian and animist, was in an almost permanent state of rebellion against the Muslim Arab north, demanding a bigger share of the national wealth and a greater degree of self-rule. This region, which holds the key to the development of Sudan, also holds the key to its peace in future; not only in the south, but also in the war-ravaged western region of Darfur.

....

in 2011, southerners are meant to decide whether they want to stay as part of Sudan, or found their own independent state.

....

Their own state would mean their own oil industry. Riek Machar, South Sudan's vice-president, eagerly outlines a plan for a refinery just east of Juba and pipelines through Congo to the Atlantic and Kenya to the Indian Ocean.

...

Mr Machar's plans, combined with the election schedule, mean that the northern government may have only five years to extract as much oil from the south as it can before it loses control. And this deadline puts the peace in jeopardy.

...

Two years ago, Chinese oil workers arrived [at a small village in Southern Sudan]. They were escorted by armed men in T-shirts, whom locals later identified as Sudanese soldiers. They stayed for six months, sank four wells and cleared access roads, all without talking to the villagers or asking their permission. A pool of slimy water beside one of the capped wells shows where the surplus oil was dumped. A hundred cows, the villagers say, died from drinking that water. When the oilmen came back last April, the local people—furious that they had got neither jobs from the project, nor compensation for their losses—refused to let them in.

 

The southern government has just begun to fight back; it recently impounded two oil-company helicopters that were carrying out unauthorised seismic tests. Individual villages and militias have also begun to mount their own attacks on oil workers and installations.

 

Since [southern] rebel groups there started their own military campaign against the Islamist north, in 2003, the northern government has been trying to expel or kill the African pastoral tribes, even though most of them are Muslim. Appalling acts of barbarity have displaced over 2m people and killed about 300,000 more. The disaster in Darfur, and in particular the West's endless wrangling with Khartoum over whether or not to get a UN force into the region, is sapping the outside backing that is essential for securing the north-south peace accord.

...

Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, thinks that their problems have been overblown anyway, especially in the case of Darfur, which he presents as a distant and unimportant province. The Western media, he says, exaggerates it all. In Khartoum, at least, he has a sympathetic audience, for 70% of all the foreign money pouring into Sudan...is flowing into Khartoum state, the heart of the regime, binding people there all the more closely to the ruling National Congress Party.

 

Yet Mr Bashir's oppressive government is not popular outside Khartoum. Indeed, it is hard to see how it could win a majority in national elections. The economy may be booming, but it is also displaying all the classic symptoms of an overheating petro-economy, with a rapidly appreciating currency, rising prices and creeping corruption, both in the northern and southern governments. Not many Sudanese have a real stake in the current oil boom...

 

...too many countries now have a large financial stake in Sudan. Their wish to be nice to the regime in Khartoum means they have no interest in forcing it to mend its ways, by, for instance, imposing further sanctions over Darfur. The Chinese would never agree; but there has been little help from the Arab League either, or from India and Malaysia. They are more focused on the German pile-drivers laying the foundations of the towers of Alsunut—and on the oil concessions.

 

The article is much longer and highly enlightening: I recommend it.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

That is, of course, the reason why China has long been backing Khartoum and dissuading UN intervention to protect Darfur villages from the janjaweed attacks.

 

While I would agree that what is happening in Darfur is horrendous, let's keep the facts straight. Let's also note that, while death by violence is horrible, death by disease is far more prevalent on the African continent--and far more preventable. How much money would be spent on saving the Darfur province? How much of that could better spent in long-term educational and technological investments in the region to help them join the ranks of industrialized countries? Just think how much things would change if the majority of the people were aware of germ theory and how many lives that in itself would save.

Currently most of the Dafur population is displaced, living in precarious conditions in refugee camps with little hope of improvement any time soon.

 

UNICEF has been doing a lot to save children's lives, I got a letter from them recently and apparently, contrary to what I would have thought, they have no funding at all but work only thanks to donations. The letter included a sealed packet without it's contents, just for illustrative purposes. The would-be contents (glucose anhydrous food grade, sodium chloride BP 98, trisodium citrate dihydrate BP 98 and potassium chloride BP 98 totalling around 20 grammes) cost around €0.04 or almost 5 cents US and, unbelievably, are quite decisive in saving the life of a child with acute dehydration due to diahorrea.

 

The letter said they've been needing plenty of them in Darfur as well as other places recovering from war (mostly African countries but also Iraq) but those 4 or 5 cents times a great number of children with diahorrea mean they're needing quite a bit of cash to be able to help, and will be as long as children keep getting diahorrea. Refugees need immediate help before it makes any sense to teach them and invest in them or anything long-term. Some African countries had even been doing quite well economically before recent wars.

[Qfwfq]

P. S. you might find this interesting:

 

UNICEF - Press centre - UNICEF Statement on the Situation in Darfur, December 2006

[gribbon]

Most people haven't really got a clue just how horrific this crisis is. I hate to tell you this "racoon" and "adjective", but you are talking comlete nonsense. No offence meant.

 

It is nothing short of ridiculous that the most harmless of dictators such as Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe are vilified beyond all reason, and described by the media using sensationalist language that is entirely unjustified. A little while ago, on the eve of Fidel Castro's birthday, many letters and articles where written into national newspapers, almost all of which had headlines designed to sensationalise, and irrationalise. E.g "Brutal, tyrannical, paranoid and on his last legs-happy birthday Fidel!" and "One of the most brutal tyrants of the twentieth century clings to power whilst people suffer."

 

Similarly, the Independent, an otherwise modest and well written paper described Robert Mugabe as " the savage dictator that has destroyed what was originally amongst the most wealthy countries in Africa"

 

Never mind the fact that he allows an opposition party, and hasn't killed a single person

 

These kind of headlines are blatant rubbish. But it is not just this which makes the media so decadent, but also the allegiances which are made. Former Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad was, and still is regarded as "the most well intentioned of all middle eastern leaders". Nothing is said of the thousands of political prisoners that lingered in Syria's prisons before being freed by his later son. Let alone of the 20,000+ people murdered in Hama by his security forces.

 

It's about time the media got a grip.

 

Anyway, here's an article I posted on a different forum ages ago, and here it is again. It mainly focuses on Sudan's dictator, but that alone should be enough for you to get the picture. Here it is..please take it all in...

 

Sudan is in many ways unique. For a start, it is amongst the most dangerous of destinations for any western traveller to visit. Indeed, one would have to be mad to be found travelling to the Sudan. It has a fundamentalist government. It is an isolated regime as the result of international support for terrorism.

 

Since seizing power in a military coup, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the incumbent president, has maintained a strong hold on power, and has found his individual ways of controlling the deadly conflict between the Northern Arab government, and the Southern black Africans himself.

 

People, most women and children, are seized at gun-point form the Dinka tribes in the south, and are either kept as militias or sold north. International human rights groups have for some time been concerned about the evident slavery in the Sudan. It is even reputed that Lt. Omar Hassan al-Bashir has Dinka and Nuer slaves living in his office,

 

The Bashir regime was unrelenting in it’s brutal treatment of blacks and non-Muslims In 1992, the government drove 400,00 squatters-mostly black refugees fleeing the genocide in the south, out of Khartoum and into the desert where temperatures reach over 135 degrees. At least a dozen who resisted where shot.

 

During the famine, the government also used food as a weapon, blockading supplies to the south. Even relief workers had their camps bombed. In 19990, the government also exported 300,00 tons of staple crops to Iraq and Libya in exchange for arms. Nevertheless, Bashir attended the Children’s summit in New York, and even won applause when he stated that his governments priority. As he spoke, warplanes and helicopter gun ship’s in southern Sudan attacked and bombed starving children.

 

To this day, routine bombing raids are carried out on settlements.

 

The fundamentalist regime has also imposed fundamentalist Sharia law. Under this law, a person may be hanged for possessing any foreign currency, and theft is punished by the amputation of the right hand, or if more than one person is involved, cross amputation. (Right hand left foot for both). Adultery is punished by stoning to death.

 

Other African countries have attempted to help by sponsoring SDPLA, a defence faction in the south, and each have been punished severely by the Sudanese government for their good intentions.

 

The leader has also allowed the LRA, buy far the most brutal terrorist organisation one earth to use the south of the country and borders a s a base for it’s raids and attacks.

 

Whilst the world focuses on Iraq, a far more serious issue is clearly at hand: Bear this in mind: No government tried to stop the massacre of Armenians in eastern Europe until that was too late, no government tried to stop the Holocaust until that was all but completely over, no government tried to stop the massacre of Bosnians and Albanians in Yugoslavia until thousands had died, no government tried to stop the Herero Genocide until the blood was already spilt, no government tried to stop the Rwandanese genocide until a million had been murdered, no government tried to stop the vicious tribal massacres in Somalia until the country was destroyed beyond all recognition, no government tried to stop the Khmer rouge until “the streets were slippery with human fat”.

 

Are we to see another repeat?

[adjective]

I fail to see how I am "talking complete nonsense." I never said that Darfur should be ignored--rather, I pointed out salient economic ties and the fact that Sudan has been important in terms of intelligence to the U.S. post-9/11 (though this isn't truly the case--the intelligence has been largely useless, but the U.S. government has still sought it out and tacitly given Sudan a stay of execution in light of it).

 

I might also note the Western bias and lack of informed political opinions you spout. Yes, it is true that what is happening in Darfur is condemnable beyond all comparisons--and I would whole-heartedly support military intervention to put an end to the bloodshed. However, the fact of the matter is that the government in Khartoum is, more or less, attempting to establish a new state--as Machiavelli informed us, this is _the_ most difficult endeavor a human being can undertake.

 

Political societies--civiliations--are built on a tremendous sacrifice: be that in human lives, environmental damage, and so forth. Think of the cost that our life of leisure and the ability to speak of our "greater virtue" has been bought.

 

Thus my pointing out the problem of disease on the African continent and the necessity of educational and technological investments. If the world wants to sit by and judge Sudan, the world should be working harder to bring them up to speed with the rest of the world--and monetary investments are not going to do that. Money will only help to buy the paradigm change necessary in the same way we bought ours. Providing education and technology (and education in terms of the technology) will impose the new paradigm upon them and help them circumvent the dark period that precedes industrialization.

 

If we don't push these policies, sure, we may stop Darfur. But for what? It will happen again. What needs to be done is an investment in stopping it from ever happening again--and just sending troops in to stop the ephemeral violence will categorically fail in this regard.

[gribbon]

Sorry if I was a bit rude; I was just in a bit of a bad mood when I wrote my response...

 

Sudan has been important in terms of intelligence to the U.S. post-9/11

 

Only to achieve their own interests, not to benefit westerners like us. Sudan was pressured into helping, they didn't volounteer.

 

Political societies--civiliations--are built on a tremendous sacrifice: be that in human lives, environmental damage, and so forth. Think of the cost that our life of leisure and the ability to speak of our "greater virtue" has been bought.

 

Thus my pointing out the problem of disease on the African continent and the necessity of educational and technological investments. If the world wants to sit by and judge Sudan, the world should be working harder to bring them up to speed with the rest of the world--and monetary investments are not going to do that.

 

True. But if another repeat of such sacrifice is made, I would like to see how this benefits the economy of Sudan. You see, what you haven't quite understood, is that sacrfice has to be in exchange for something. Should trade unions be crushed, workers exploited, and health expenditures slashed all for the benefit of the macreeconomic index, then such sacrfice of life has provided the next generation with an improved world. Otherwise, every death is a waste.

 

Beyond that, it is highly unlikely that this will ever become a modern country, should it be trapped in a civil war. It is very rare for a country to make progress whilst conflict is still rife.

[Chacmool]

It is nothing short of ridiculous that the most harmless of dictators such as Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe are vilified beyond all reason, and described by the media using sensationalist language that is entirely unjustified.

Robert Mugabe cannot be regarded as a harmless dictator, even by his kindest critics.

 

Similarly, the Independent, an otherwise modest and well written paper described Robert Mugabe as " the savage dictator that has destroyed what was originally amongst the most wealthy countries in Africa"

 

Never mind the fact that he allows an opposition party, and hasn't killed a single person

 

These kind of headlines are blatant rubbish.

I agree entirely with the Independent's view. I live in South Africa - a neighbouring country of Zimbabwe - and therefore Mugabe's antics feature quite prominently in our media too. In addition, many people here have relatives living in Zimbabwe, providing first-hand eyewitness reports of Mugabe's tyrannical rule.

 

The opposition is basically only allowed in theory, since voters are intimidated and members of the opposition don't enjoy most of the freedoms and priviliges of the ruling party. The president has also expelled all journalist with opposing views from the country.

 

Saying that Mugabe hasn't killed anyone, is utter nonsense. He has forcefully evicted hundreds of people from their farms, subsequently dishing out the land to his cronies. The country's inflation rate is out of control, and it can't provide enough food for its people (and, of course, supporters of the ruling party get bumped to the front of the queues for food).

 

This post is a bit off topic, but I just couldn't let such inaccuracies slide. If anyone wants to reply, please start a new thread.

[gribbon]

Robert Mugabe cannot be regarded as a harmless dictator, even by his kindest critics.

 

 

I agree entirely with the Independent's view. I live in South Africa - a neighbouring country of Zimbabwe - and therefore Mugabe's antics feature quite prominently in our media too. In addition, many people here have relatives living in Zimbabwe, providing first-hand eyewitness reports of Mugabe's tyrannical rule.

 

The opposition is basically only allowed in theory, since voters are intimidated and members of the opposition don't enjoy most of the freedoms and priviliges of the ruling party. The president has also expelled all journalist with opposing views from the country.

 

Saying that Mugabe hasn't killed anyone, is utter nonsense. He has forcefully evicted hundreds of people from their farms, subsequently dishing out the land to his cronies. The country's inflation rate is out of control, and it can't provide enough food for its people (and, of course, supporters of the ruling party get bumped to the front of the queues for food).

 

This post is a bit off topic, but I just couldn't let such inaccuracies slide. If anyone wants to reply, please start a new thread.

 

I can't really discuss this in detail, because my parents don't like me discussing such topics over the internet. I can only write freely when I am in school, where there is no one standing over my shoulder and breathing down my neck, but this is what I've got to say:

 

It is my understanding, that the "land reforms" imposed by Robert Mugabe have indeed caused widespread hardship. However, have the people killed by the subsequent famines been "murdered"? No. There is a difference between incompetence and murder.

 

Furthermore, the seizure of white owned farms has partly been the result of criminal activity, as a study once proved. Government launched raids have not set about with the intention of killing farm owners, but seizing their assets. The murder of white farmers has merely been condoned by Mugabe, not supported.

[gribbon]

Question:

 

Who is to be regarded as such as "brutal tyrant" or "savage dictator"?

 

What you cannot deny, is that Robert Mugabe is about as harmless as dictators get. Same goes for Fidel. Before you tell me he is not, then think who would fir this description better?

 

Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin?

 

 

Hmmm.... I wonder:hihi: