Globalaffairs

Issue 4/August-September 2007
By Mbuyi Kabunda

The biggest humanitarian crisis in the world is happening in Darfur since February 2003 in the Fur’s House, the Western and most populated region of Sudan bordering Chad (and the most discriminated and poorest area, it is the country granary). According to Mukesh Kapila, the former UN coordinator in Sudan, nowadays the only difference between Rwanda and Darfur is the number of conflict victims.

Inequality and power

This conflict started in the British policy of separate development that benefited Arabs in Sudan- a country in the crossroads of Africa horn, Central Africa and Northern Africa – against black Africans, together with an Arabization and Islamization policy of Jartum governments. Therefore it is an unequal development problem and power-sharing that dates from British colonization times.

Ethnic cleansing

The main victims of such conflict are black ethnic groups of farmers in the Eastern province of Sudan (fur, massalit, Medob, zaghawa and a ten of smaller groups). It is a real ethnic cleansing by governmental forces and nomadic militias yanyawids (they are from nomadic Arab tribes or Arabic background) supported by the governmental ones. The result is 300,000 deaths, 2,400,000 people moved and 200,000 refugees in Chad.

Agreements between South and North

Agreements signed between the Muslim-Arab North and black South, Christian and animist, (Machakos, July 2002, Naivasha, July 2004 and Nairobi, August 2004) reconsidered political structure base of Sudan when questioning the indisputable domination of Northern Arabs over the rest of the country.

The final peace agreement signed the 8th of January 2005 in Nairobi, between John Garang, who died at the end of July of 2005 and replaced by Salva Kiir and by Vice-President of Sudan, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, is the result of North American pressure on both sides. Jartum’s government that was in the North-American list of failed states –due to its international terrorist support through Al Qaida collaboration – did not want to be invaded by the USA as it happened with Iraq. Meanwhile, rebellion of The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) of John Garang, very weak due to internal dissensions and Uganda ally left, gave priority to petrol exploitation placed in the South.

Agreements for a global peace

These agreements reconsidered political issues (new political representatives), economic issues (new criteria for wealth-sharing), military issues (Army reorganization) and religious or social issues (delimitation of Sharia or Islamic law places and Arabization policies).

At that point, two armed groups emerged: the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) by black soldiers and mostly Muslim, its target was to inform in Darfur about agreements with Southern guerrilla of John Garang (political representation re-balance, equal wealth-sharing and limitation of Arabization policies). The starting point was the reality because it could not be global peace in Sudan without peace in Darfur.

The Jartum’s government – who had important military resources after the end of the war against the South – placed the best destruction and repression forces in Darfur in order to eliminate separatist rebellion in this area. The target was to avoid the domino effect of autonomy demands in other regions of the country marginalized by the central government and maintain Arab domination over black people (Christians or Muslims).

Against Internal Colonialism

The Darfur problem is seen in terms of fight between ethnic groups and the state; those who have chosen the armed solution due to lack of development perspectives in Darfur, condemning Darfur to an economic deterioration.

The government and rebel movements talked about inter-ethnic war between nomadic livestock farmers and sedentary farmers due to water resources use and pasture, and racial war between Arab tribes and black African populations. The true is it is a socio-economic problem and fight against internal colonialism by black African populations.

Attackers and victims of Islam

Opposite to Southern Sudan which is populated by Animist and Christian people, in Darfur conflict, attackers and victims belong to Islam, therefore, it is not a religious conflict. The Abuya agreement (Nigeria) signed the 5th of May 2006 between Jartum government and the main Darfur rebellion movement the SLA, and led by the African Union contained the yanyawids disarmament by the government before October 2006 as the base for peace settlement and reconciliation. However, this agreement was rejected by the JEM and the SLM, the other minority dissident movement of the SLA. The rejection of rebel movements, every one with its agenda, left tension in the region and the government rejection of foreign troops presence or the UN in Darfur crisis for substituting the African Union mission in Sudan (MUAS) until the 30th of September 2006, a mission without military and finance resources. The worst: the yanyawids continue attacking refugees’ camps using sexual abuses as war weapon.

The conflict solution

The Abuya agreement is fragile because it established the government (one conflict side) must disarm all armed militias, including yanyawids. And it points out that rebel movements must not disarm until pro-governmental militias are not disarmed and governmental troops must go home. In other words, neither one side nor the other have been disarmed.

Wealth and power distribution

In Sudan it is necessary a new project more politically, economically and culturally equal. Thus, the solution of Darfur crisis should be a better wealth and power-sharing in the country and even agreements similar to those agreed with the South (SPLA). It should not be forgotten that the crisis sprang from ethnic groups’ exclusion in this area and the new power and wealth-sharing between central government t and the South.

In other words, it is necessary to recognize the right of self-government of Darfur which is less dangerous than a war threat over the country. However, at international level it cannot be excluded the petrol embargo from Sudan that is financing the aggression war of the government.

Mbuyi Kabunda
Professor and member of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion

Article published in Safe Democracy