Sudan and Darfur

A good friend Anj asked that I write a post about the conflict in Darfur and try to offer some clarification of just what is going on there. Tons of articles have been written about the crisis and I plan to crib liberally from a few. I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue but I have read enough to know a good bit of the history and background. So here goes.

There are a couple of nearly universal truths in the studies of history and political science. One of my favorites is countries whose borders contain straight lines are generally going to be less stable than those having more irregular borders. When the European colonial powers were divvying up the globe, they often settled territorial disputes by having a cartographer slice an area along a negotiated and artificial line, irrespective of the situation on the ground. This arbitrarily forced different religious/ethnic/tribal/clan groups into an unnatural state of co-existence. Groups that had spent generations fighting each other into a stalemate and, hence, some stability, were again compelled to pick up old grudges. It is amazing the number of wars caused by ill-conceived borders and bad mapmaking. And Africa is a case study in bad mapmaking. Colonial indifference to ethnic homelands is a primary reason for so much of the conflict there. Countries were formed containing two, three, etc. competing groups that had no intention of cooperating for the greater good. Historical ethnic homelands were split among several nations. Tribal interests, therefore, always trumped this interest of the State because the State was artificial. Internal chaos was the result. Eventually, a strongman would rise up, seize power by usually brutal means, and subjugate the portion of the populace not of his clan. Examples abound: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Congo, Chad, and, of course, Sudan. The current Darfur conflict starts with these basic ingredients: segregated, internal groups that hate each other, sparking violence and instablility, giving rise to a dictatorship that ruthlessly tries to reign in the opposition.

Northern Sudan, historically, has been mostly Arab, Muslim and wealthier than the South. The South is more African, more Christian and animist and less well off. When the British occupied Sudan, they forcibly separated the two, preventing movement back and forth and increasing the isolation and lack of trust between the Arabs and Africans. In 1955, the South revolted, leading to a hideous civil war that lasted until 1972, when a peace accord was brokered and a reasonably representative government was formed. The nation was relatively stable until the mid 80’s when government revoked regional autonomy and established sharia law. Then the entire region was plagued by drought (remember “We Are The World”) and Sudan went to hell in a hand basket. The civil war started up again, leading to a series of military coups and the rise of the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) in Darfur. The government in Khartoum perceived the SLA to be a serious threat and responded by unleashing the Janjaweed, the notoriously vicious Arab militia, providing air support, weapons, and money. The Janjaweed proceeded to murder and rape hundreds of thousands. Entire villages were slaughtered. Whole regions were overrun and the populace fled, resulting in millions of displaced refugees. Most survivors have been herded into camps, with little or no ability to support themselves. The Sudanese government blocks most NGO aid efforts and is content to let the population die from starvation, disease, and neglect. This is the face of Darfur that we see on the news.

The sick irony here is that a peace was brokered last year between the government and the Southern opposition. The SLA and most of the rebel militias have been wiped out. A good bit of the Arab militia has been folded into the Sudanese army. The whole situation arose because of government’s desire to cling to power and it succeeded. Yet millions are homeless, helpless, and dying.

Which begs the question, why is no one doing anything? I think there are a couple of reasons. First, the UN Security Council is hamstrung by China. Sudan exports to China a huge amount of oil and Beijing is loathe to rock the boat and disturb the flow of energy. Hence, all resolutions to deal with the situation are met with a veto threat from China. In addition, Khartoum can’t address the humanitarian crisis without acknowledging its role in creating it. Dictatorships never admit wrongdoing. Introspection is usually avoided when you suck as bad as the Sudanese government. And finally, I think most countries fear attempting to pacify yet another African genocide after seeing the beating the US took in Somalia. The world did nothing about the disasters in Rwanda, the Congo, and Eritrea. Why would this be any different? Once you turn your back on this type of conflict, it gets easier each succeeding time. After a while, you get desensitized to it.

A good parallel for Darfur is finding out your neighbor beats his kid. You can report it the first time you realize there is a problem or you can ignore it and hope it goes away. But the longer you wait to report it, the harder it becomes because your lack of action indirectly implicates you. The world had the chance to step in before things got completely out of control in Darfur and we failed. Doing so now would require us all face up to this uncomfortable truth: Sometimes inaction is implicit approval. We didn’t stop the abuse when we first had the chance. With each subsequent beating, at least partially, the blood is on our hands.