Skip to main content

Darfur: Africa's Palestine... or Iraq?

With the appointment of "wanted" clerics in the newly-formed parliament, and the peace accord signed with several warlords, Somalia's situation is looking more or less brighter by the day. Then you've got the corruption in Egypt, with big, fat Mubarak hogging the pResidential throne, which is already accustomed to his pompous posterior, and stays on that chair of his as long as he receives military aid from big ol' U.S.A., so he can keep political reform from jumping into his bedroom every single day. And then there's Bono's tour, where he goes around and helps AIDS victims; I lost my respect for the guy when he stood side by side with Bush Jr. But you have to admit: the "Dark Continent" of Africa is surely "getting back" into the "light" these days. But let's switch out views to a certain place in a certain country.

I'm talking about the Western Darfur region in Sudan, which has seen much violence in the past few years. Darfur is lined with resources, among them oil and natural gas, and one can see why such a region, which borders Chad, has much strategic importance. The situation in Darfur is much like Palestine of 1948, where ethnic cleansing was rife: men were killed, women were raped, children were molested, and homes were being destroyed, which all resulted in many people being displaced from their homes. Instead of Haganah/Irgun/Stern/Palmach troops doing their bidding, we see the so-called "Janjaweed" militias, sponsored by the Sudanese government of Omar al Bashir, travelling in groups to the area, and attack villages that are supposedly on top of natural resources or are in strategic locations.

It is often argued that the crisis in Darfur is a case of racism against non-Arab blacks. While I may agree with this, one must highlight the disputes between certain tribes in Africa, such as the Pygmies and Masai of Kenya. However, unlike the Kenyan matter, the Darfur crisis has taken a political level that has sparked worldwide outrage, most of it coming from, not surprisingly, the United States (what's hypocritical is that pro-Israeli groups are the biggest critics of such racism and ethnic cleansing when in fact their state has been founded on such depraved actions against the Palestinian people, and Israel still continues its racist policies till today). To justify such depravity, the Sudanese government made use of the presence of Darfur rebels that are resisting the Janjaweed militias, which is akin to the "IDF"'s allegations that civilians are being killed "in crossfires". Like the Palestine situation, you're not just facing bullets, but also bulldozers (literally) and violators of human rights.

When taking a look at BBC's Q&A roundup of the issues surrounding the Darfur conflict, one can see striking similarities between it and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The violence started allegedly when rebels started attacking governmental areas on the pretext of Khartoum's neglect for the Darfur region that is in fact part of Sudan proper (though I reckon that Chad might want to grab it and make it sound disputed, which would make any subsequent occupation of Darfur by Janjaweed "just"). The Sudanese government actually denied links with the Janjaweed, but has placed self-defense militias. And I suppose the "IDF" is not an Israeli unit, as are the settler terrorists who terrorize Palestinians living in West Bank towns? Returning to Darfur, we can see that there has been an effort to cleanse it from non-Arab blacks. Whether it is supported by the government or not remains to be seen, but the neglection of Darfur's residents is inherently racist, just like the neglection of Palestinian political representation by the Israelis is also racist is nature.

However, like the Iraq war, the Darfur situation is messed up. The Human Rights Watch released a report on this issue, claiming that the tension in the region involves more than just the Janjaweed and the Darfur rebels. Darfur, like much of Iraq, has experienced unstable fluctuations in development, and this led to its eventual neglect by the Khartoum government. The report states,
Almost all of Darfur’s population has been affected by the conflict, either directly through attacks on villages, killings, rape, looting and destruction of property and forced displacement, or indirectly through the near total collapse of the region’s economy. An estimated two million people have been displaced in less than two years of conflict. An accurate estimate of the total number of conflict-related civilian deaths—including mortality from violence as well as from disease and malnutrition related to displacement—is unavailable, but is likely to surpass 100,000.
What one has to put in mind is the nature of the conflict. We're talking about ethnic cleansing on a huge scale in such a large region on part of Janjaweed militias. Whether the Janjaweed are linked to the government or not is a matter of debate. However, according to another report from the Human Rights Watch, the Janjaweed militias are indeed recruited by the government, though skepticism is still brought into the issue in that the "militia" mentioned in the report might easily be the "self-defence" forces brought in by the Sudanese government. On the other hand, there has obviously been a favoring towards the Janjaweed on part of the government; one such allegation came from the Washington Post. The basis of such an allegation comes from the notion that after the rebels struck a few victories, the government decided to arm the Janjaweed in demoralizing the rebellion by attacking civilian centers instead of military targets, according to the International Crisis Group (excellent source, by the way).

The mess of the situation makes it dangerous to draw parallels from other cases like Palestine and Iraq. The notion is that the region itself is being neglected by the Sudanese government, and a revolt ensued. This is akin to the "Arab revolts" of the 1930's against the Balfour Declaration, which contradicted the Hussein-MacMahon and Sykes-Picot agreements. But you also have ethnic cleansing committed by a governmentally-sponsored force, which is a lot like the ethnic cleansing being committed against the Iraqi Sunnites on part of the Shi'ite death squads that have been running rampant in cities like Baghdad and Mosul. But we're talking mass displacement: during the 1948 War of Conquest, the Zionists displaced over 700,000 Palestinians and depopulated over 400 villages. However, the situation involves displacement from their ancestral homes, but no building sites over the depopulated areas, so this is pretty much like, again, Iraq, where people are being displaced from their homes and still are running homeless in Iraq proper. The fact that many of Darfur's refugees fled to Chad is reminiscient of Palestinians fleeing to Jordan and other Arab countries for safety from the oncoming Zionist onslaught. Seeing all this, one can see that the comparisons are drawn out, but it would be dangerous to compare this case solely to one of the cases mentioned above.

Whatever the reason, I believe that the Sudanese government, intentional or not, is at fault, and has the bigger responsibility in all this mess, second only to the militias it supports. It should disarm and disband the militias, succinctly provide for the refugees, and rebuild the civilian infrastructure in Darfur. Furthermore, I believe that Darfur should be rebuilt by the Darfur's tribes with some help from the government. It is also the government's obligation to improve the lives of Darfur's populace, and re-establish peace talks with the rebel leaders; this can give them a voice of representation in the Sudanese government, and hopefully the years of neglect will be made up for. But what are you waiting for? Take action! There are many people in this world, but only one is all it takes to make a difference.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un