| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa: Horn |
| Muslim v Muslim in Sudan |
| 2004-03-14 |
| Sudan’s 21-year civil war has long been seen as a fight between its Muslim north and its animist and Christian south. But the fighting that is wreaking havoc in the Iraq-sized Darfur region of western Sudan shows how much more fractured the country is. Sudan has an elite which is predominantly Arab and plunders the country from the North, and takes Saudi money to fight a war against the Christian south. As in the old conflict, the new one stems from a revolt by insurgents against poverty and neglect by the central government in faraway Khartoum, and a sense that as the peace bandwagon moves forward, they have to move fast to win a greater share of wealth and power for Darfur. The difference is that, in the past, the tribes in the impoverished northern desert and southern savanna of Darfur fought for their Islamic government and many joined the army. Now it’s Muslims fighting Muslims. Refugees say the government’s onslaught is ferocious. The government blames the rebels for the suffering and chaos. Its tactics could be a way of signaling that the concessions it has made to the south don’t mean it will offer the same to other restive areas of the country. "Darfur has really shaken up this regime," said Ted Dagne, an Africa specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "Where do they stop this train? If you give in to the political demands of the Darfur rebels, why not to the Beja (in eastern Sudan), why not to the Nuba (in central Sudan) and a bunch of the other marginalized areas." |
| Posted by:Man Bites Dog |
| #5 When I was involved in UN relief work the IL-76's flying the food aid down to Juba had to carry 50% arms and ammunition. The Christian Aid agencies all know their money keeps the war going but the marketing campaign benefits of an established poverty area for giving outwieigh the desire to stop the war by cutting off the money from the donors. Without the aid agencies the government would not be able to pay for the airlifts to Juba. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-3-22 4:57:11 AM |
| #4 Neo, I was trying to accentuate your point rather than contradicting it. I would think that Somalia would have more luck as three countries. At one point, I thought that Afghanistan should be partitioned as well, but didn't really like adding remote areas to countries that were having trouble controlling their central territory already. Making a land donation to Iran is a non-starter as well. Maybe the Afghans could use some coastline if Pakistan proves inept at controlling their territory. Sudan probably could be broken up, at this point, because it has a one resource economy. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-3-14 1:39:32 PM |
| #3 SH -- good point. But it continues to be recognized by the "international community" -- and by the US State Dept. -- as if it were a coherent state. That gives its government undue legitimacy. (Hardly surprising, however; same goes for Somalia.) |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2004-3-14 1:29:52 PM |
| #2 Neo, I see no evidence that the Sudan exists as a coherent state. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-3-14 12:22:54 PM |
| #1 Why is Sudan a country? Because Arab slave raiders, supperted by the Egyptian government. successful conquered the region in the mid-1800s. When the Brits took over Egypt in the late 1800s, the colony became the "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan." The Arabs of the Nile Valley have continued to form the the elite, exploiting not just the Dinka and Nuer of the south, but also the Muslim peoples of Kordofan (extraordinary linguistic and racial complexity here), Darfur, and the Beja region of the east. The country has no reason to exist. |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2004-3-14 12:09:21 PM |