Some Notes on the Crisis in Darfur
Posted on: Thursday, January 1, 2004
Some Notes on the Crisis in Darfur
Since March 2003, tens of thousands of men, women and children have been murdered in Darfur, western Sudan. Communities are under attack by the janjaweed militias, who kill entire families, systematically rape and mutilate women and girls, burn down villages, destroy food crops, and poison wells. The death toll had climbed to 1,000 people a day by fall 2004 and is expected to reach 300,000 within months if emergency action is not taken. In addition, a million and a half people have been made homeless by the janjaweed. Most are subsisting in overcrowded, dangerously unhygienic camps without sufficient food, water or basic health care.
AN ETHNIC WAR?
• Mainstream media’s portrayal of the crisis as an ethnic war between Africans and Arabs obscures a more complex reality. Because ethnicity is a fluid, partial, and somewhat subjective facet of identity, ethnic divisions are sometimes created (not merely reflected) when ethnicity is invoked to mobilize people for political ends.
• In Darfur, the Sudanese government has fomented an ideology of Arab supremacism, siding mainly with “Arab” nomads against “African” tribes. Arabism was appealing to Darfur’s nomadic communities because of their extreme poverty, even by Sudanese standards. In reaction to Arabism, opponents of the government gradually adopted the “African” label.
• All of Darfur’s communities are Muslim, black, Arabic-speaking, African and indigenous to the region. While historical differences do exist between “Africans” and “Arabs” in Darfur, these are as much political as ethnic labels, delineating communities that have been pitted against each other by scarcity and an abusive national government.
THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS
• The roots of the conflict lie in competition over land and water between “Arab” nomadic communities who turned to farming in the 1980s and 1990s and “African” agrarian tribes fighting to keep resources for themselves. Sudan’s government exploited this conflict in a divide-and-rule strategy aimed at preventing Darfur as a whole from seeking redress for decades of neglect and under-development.
• Since 1989, Sudan has been ruled by an autocratic clique of generals, more committed to perpetuating their own power than to the Islamist ideology they claim to espouse. In recent years, the US and Europe have pressed for an end to a 20-year civil war in Sudan, engineering peace talks between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), based in southern Sudan.
• Political parties representing Darfur demanded participation in the peace talks. When the government refused, the Darfurians concluded that their grievances would only be addressed if they took up arms like the SPLA. In early 2003, Darfurian rebels attacked a government army base. The government deployed the janjaweed militias to crush the Darfur rebellion, triggering mass killing and displacement.
THE ROLE OF THE US
• A year and a half after the crisis began, the US intervened in Darfur, dispatching Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region and sponsoring UN Security Council Resolution 1564, to investigate allegations of genocide and threaten sanctions against Sudan if the government did not cooperate.
• But after the illegal invasion of Iraq and the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison, US credibility to intervene in a human rights crisis has never been lower. In fact, many people in the world see that:
o The US has a keen interest in Sudan’s plentiful oil reserves, especially now that lessening dependency on oil from the Middle East is a US priority.
o The Darfur crisis threatened the peace agreement between Sudan’s government and the SPLA. This settlement was a singular opportunity for the Bush Administration to project an image of Bush as a diplomat and peacemaker and gain favor with fundamentalist Christian and African-American voters. (Bush’s evangelical base saw in the conflict an Islamic regime persecuting Christians; while some African-Americans saw it as an “Arab” regime attacking black “African” communities).
Archives"Press Room" Home June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 July 2006 June 2006 April 2006 March 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 April 2005 March 2005 November 2004 October 2004 April 2004 March 2004 January 2004 December 2003 October 2003 September 2003 June 2003 April 2003 January 2003 September 2002 June 2002 January 2002 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 January 2001
Kaitlyn Soligan, Media Coordinator
PHONE: +1 212 627 0444
MADRE Makes News
The G8's PR Strategy on Rape in Conflict (Women Under Siege, June 18, 2013)
Peace advocates speak out against U.S. military intervention in Syria (Women News Network, June 14, 2013)
Syrie : Fuir les combats armés pour faire face aux violences sexuelles dans les camps de réfugiés (Opinion Internationale, June 5, 2013)
Historic Guatemala Dictator Conviction Thrown Out for Now (AlterNet, May 27, 2013)
Women in post-earthquake Haiti: moving beyond survival (Open Democracy, May 26, 2013)