Sudan and the Darfur conflict form another example of a fight for resources under the image of an ethnic conflict. .
Susanne Velke looks at the background of the Darfur conflict and the new nature of wars.
 Not only Darfur, but the whole of Sudan has been subject to ethnic conflicts since medieval times. Ethnically divided into a non-Arab South and an Arab dominated North, both parts were governed separately during British colonialism. In the 1940s the British succumbed to pressure from the northern Sudanese forces and merged both parts of the country.
After decolonisation in the mid-1960s, the South fought to regain autonomy from the northern military government. The northern Arab government with its Islamist policy and the oppressed non-Arab South clashed on two occasions between 1955 and 1972 and again between 1983 and 2003. At first sight the two civil wars seem like an ethnic conflict, but a closer look reveals that both wars were more a fight for resources than for religious autonomy.
The civil wars were fought for legal autonomy of the South, control over the Southern oil-rich fields and the fertile arable soil and access to water resources. The second of the two civil wars was concluded in 2003 with an agreement by the government to share state revenue (mainly from the oil exports which account for 70% of the total export) with the Southern regions. However, this agreement did not lead to peace in Sudan.
The Darfur region felt particularly disadvantaged by the agreement and reneged on the deal. This disquiet caused the evolution of rebel groups. The region itself had been the scene of clashes between farming communities for years, the tribes of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa and nomadic groups such as the Baggara tribe. Competition over resources and access to them was the official reason for the conflict. After the 2003 agreement, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) emerged, asserting marginalisation and neglect of the needs of the regional farming communities.
The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) emerged shortly after and is largely associated with the nomadic Zaghawa tribe in the North of Darfur. Attacking government forces and installations, the rebellious actions of the two groups caused a disproportionate reaction by the government. Aerial bombardment paved the way for actions by the unofficial government militia, the Janjaweed. Members of this militia are recruited from the region itself and, although the government denies any association with them, the coordination between the aerial bombardments by government forces and subsequent devastating ground attacks by the Janjaweed militia cannot be overlooked.
The SLA, the JEM as well as the Janjaweed are accused of serious human rights violations. However, government support soon ensured domination of the Janjaweed. Mass murder, rape and looting mainly concentrate against non-Arab communities by now. It is obvious that the aim of the attacks is to evict the non-Arab population from the territory as Arab villages remained untouched during the attacks. United Nations observer teams stated that 'ÂÂIn some locations, the distance between a destroyed Fur village and an Arab village is less than 500 metres.'“ (UN Interagency Report, 25 April 2004). Still, the term 'ÂÂgenocide'“ or 'ÂÂethnic cleansing'“ has been handled carefully in the international realm. The humanitarian disaster in the region lacks exact numbers and figures.
Official estimates range from 71,000 (WHO) to 300,000 (British Parliamentary Report) deaths. The psychological effects of rape and expulsion are uncountable. Large areas of Darfur have been depopulated and one million people are seeking refuge in refugee camps around the cities and in the neighbouring countries" border regions. The situation in the camps is neither safe nor is there enough supply of medical aid or food. Humanitarian aid supply is difficult and hindered by the government. International action is slow and the African Union military forces recently sent to the region are insufficient to contain the fights and their mandate does not include the protection of civilians.
The Sudan civil wars are a prototype of a war for resources as the whole world may face in future. The Darfur conflict is a conflict that has evolved from the bigger picture of a fight for resources. On the surface, the conflict seemingly fits into the range of ethnic and religious conflicts that replaced communism as the global threat: an Arab Islamist government fights a non-Arab South or, as in Darfur, the Arab forces (the Janjaweed) against the non-Arab rebel groups. But underneath it is a war for control over common resources. The rebellious groups claimed a bigger share in Sudan"s common resources and now they have to pay for this claim. The exclusion from the value of common resources is not just. Humankind has fought for land for centuries.
Today, we fight not only for the simple possession of land but for control over the resources of the land. The level of political and economic power is not related to the size of the territory but the value of it. Nowadays, in the realm of the international struggle for power, the value of land consists of resources like oil, water and minerals. Eastern and Western powers are involved in these struggles in various ways. The US and European countries intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, allegedly in their fight against terrorism. While Russia and China provide the Sudan with arms, western powers consider economic sanctions against the Sudanese government.
In this increasingly complex system of international interests and relations, different story lines evolve, interpretations and explanations of conflicts whose basic concern is the most essential and common since humankind exists: the securing and control of resources to survive in a world of scarcity. The price for these resources is high and often paid in human blood. Attributing the word 'ÂÂethnic'“ to a conflict or war is an easy way to conceal the underlying interest in resources. The term 'ÂÂcommon resources'“ needs to be redefined in this world. But will 'ÂÂcommon'“ mean 'ÂÂcommon to those in charge'“ in the future?
|
