Conflict In Darfur And Southern Sudan example essay topic

Is the Government of Sudan to Blame for the Events in Darfur? I. Introduction: The future of Sudan is uncertain because of the violence of recent years. Its past is consistent with the exploitation of the "New World" by the old. Colonialism left its mark on the country, and finally it gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963. At that time the new government tried to transform the political system that had worked for the British into one that would serve the ethnically diverse country. The main problem with Sudan is no matter how well the government and the minority Christian party worked out their problems the minority party would still feel as if the current system is working against them. In the years during the Emperor Justinian the country would be "rapidly Christianized" (Embassy).

It had ties to the Coptic Church in Egypt, and then around the year 650 C.E. the Muslim conquest overtook the northern half of the country. This would lead to conflicts throughout history between the north and south. The divisions among the religions would allow for the country to be occupied by Turkish forces at the turn of the 19th century, after the fall of the Fun kingdom. "In 1820 Muhammad Ali, the Turkish Pasha of Egypt, sent two military expeditions south and westward into Sudan, capturing Sennar and El Obe id in the following year" (Embassy). When the Turkish state declined from power at the end of the 19th century, it would be the British, pushing from the north down through Egypt that would come to dominate Sudan. In the 1880's the northern half of the country came under Anglo-Egyptian control.

In 1885, at the Battle of Khartoum, British General Charles George Gordon was killed, resulting in a removal of Egyptian, and therefore, British control over the region. The freedom form Britain would last for some time, until the British decided to return to the area a few years before the turn of the 20th century. In 1899, following the Battle of Omdurman between the Sudanese and Anglo- Egyptian forces, the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was established (Sudan). In theory it was a protectorate of Egypt, but in reality the governor-general was appointed by Egypt with British oversight, effecting giving the control to Britain. To keep the religious differences that now ravage the country, the British governed the colony as two halves, north and south. The northern part of the country is mostly Arab, while the south is Christian.

That gave the Arabs control over their part of Sudan, and the Christians and natives control over the south. It is only after independence from Britain that the country was welded into one effective political unit, the conflicts would be "rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese" (Sudan). Currently, the government has taken about a series of "Arab ization" of the country to unite the various tribes behind the government in Khartoum. One of the programs was to make Arabic the official language on Sudan, while trying to stamp out the indigenous languages, and English. According to the peace agreements that ended the civil war in 2005, the south was to develop its own legal system, apart from Islamic law. However, Darfur, with a large Christian minority, was to come under Islamic laws, which are where most of the conflict is rooted in, that and the competition over scare resources.

Also, in Sudan, the elections in December 2000 were largely boycotted by popular opposition parties, as the current president won 86.5% of the vote, the elections were viewed as rigged (Sudan), and the people have a lack of faith in elected officials. The struggling economy, combined with the Darfur conflict, has guaranteed that much of the population will remain in poverty for years. II. Opposing Viewpoints: A. Yes, the government is responsible for the current events in Darfur. 1.

The roots of the conflict Currently, the "NIF government is directly responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the non-Arab people of Darfur" (Mahmoud 4). Since 1989 with the coup that brought the regime of al-Bashir to power, the conflict has taken on an increasing Arab-centric Islamic stance of the government (Mahmoud 4). It is against this that the people of Darfur have become the victims in their own homes, attacked at will by the Janjaweed. This conflict has lead to killings, rape, well contamination, and the destruction of entire villages of people suspected of anti-government activity. Of course, their main reason to suspect the villagers of anti-government activity is the abundance of arms and the unease with the government whom evicted them from their homes. The current conflict in Darfur dates back to 2003 when Africans "took up arms against the Arab-dominated government... charging it with neglect" and then responding with the Janjaweed Arab militia (Osman) 2.

Uncontrolled arms in Sudan The arms have become numerous in the region due to an attempted coup on the military government in July 1976. The ethnic warfare in the region was prompted by the GoS using means to displace the villagers for the "region [that] is equally endowed with mineral resources... particularly in the oil-rich areas of the south, [displacing] the indigenous populations" (Mahmoud 3). This caused a disregard for ethnic boundaries in Sudan, and the people whom normally would have brief quarrels a few times a year found themselves in close contact for most of the year. The relocation of the people was caused by the oil in the area.

"Oil buys weapons for Khartoum" which turn brings more violence to the Darfur region (Mahmoud 3). 3. Infighting leads to instability in Sudan As the violence in Darfur increased in early 2003, Sudan saw the emergence of "two non-Arab political parties: the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement ", both of which sought to liberate themselves from the oppressive rule of the GoS. In response to the succession movement in Darfur, the government turned to the one thing it knew how to use, and that was violence. It was at this point that the Janjaweed emerged, and has taken part is mass killings in Darfur. These terror tactics which include, but are not limited to "killings, rape, abduction, torching of villages and crops, and cattle looting" (Mahmoud 6), which it seems the government has not stepped in to stop the conflict, when it was the GoS who armed them in the first place.

When the conflict takes part inside the sovereign nation of Sudan, who is willing to step in and try to work out their problems? "State sovereignty implies responsibility... for the protection of its people" (Udombana 1156). The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which gave rise to the modern state also put for the idea to remove the intervention of one that in another state's internal affairs. So when Khartoum refuses to allow outside intervention in their conflict, no legal right can be afford to another state who wants to intervene for the Darfurians. The United Nations Security Council has also delayed intervention "for the human protection purposes" (Udombana 1172).

With the UNSC unwilling to act, who will maintain peace for the people in Darfur? 4. Sudan is closed to foreigners Khartoum currently is denying access to foreigners to Darfur because it also believes that "it can defeat the Darfur rebels" (Mortimer). They would see any invasion by either A.U. or U.N. forces as a "colonialist attempt to subjugate the country" (Mortimer), so they see themselves as protecting their rights by allowing the killing in Darfur to continue. The UNSC has requested a deployment of 22,000 UN troops to Darfur, where so far "450,000 people have died of disease and violence and 2.5 million have fled their homes" (Mortimer). This was set to take place in August 2007, but with the GoS's inaction with the matter and refusal to allow outside troops in what they see as an internal conflict, that date is likely to come and pass with little action.

Is the government doing all they can to corral the conflict? It would seem not, as they have recently have used "aerial bombings that have killed innocent civilians" (Mortimer). 5. An attempt to hold onto power. As long as there is a conflict in Darfur, the NIF can maintain extend their emergency powers over the people. This allows them to develop their tactics to turn Sudan into an Islamic state, which is one of the main goals of the NIF (Mahmoud 7).

As is another problem in the LDCs, the military could engage in a coup and overthrow the NIF government, in order to avoid such an action, the conflict in Darfur and southern Sudan keeps the forces busy. If the genocide in Darfur was to come to a stop, they would also have to implement the Kenyan peace protocols, so by continuing the conflict the NIF is able to stay in power longer and maintain the iron grip over the people of Darfur and the rest of Sudan. 6. State-started Holy War One way the GoS has managed to get around the conflict is to follow the NIF's example with the genocide. The Muslim Brotherhood, under the leadership of Dr. Mohamed Saleem al-'Awa and Dr. You sif al-Qaradawi was to "suppress their consciences to the point of denying the Darfur holocaust" (Mahmoud 8). While seeking to promote the Islamic way of life in Sudan, they must avoid the topic of the killings in Darfur as it is outside of the scope of their "ideological dogmatism" (Mahmoud 8).

An important aspect of the Islamic tradition is to value life and all things equally, which in light of the killings in Darfur, the way around that is to deny the conflict, and pass it off as a petty tribal war in the region. 7. Taboo subjects continue violence The society the government has established also has helped to hide the true nature of the events in the Darfur region. As it is becoming more Islamic, the practice of rape by the Janjaweed has lead the women to not report the assaults on them. To do so they would need to testify in a "publicized sham by a government selected committee" of orthodox Muslims (Mahmoud 9). "Other forms of sexual violence have been reported" such as "gang rapes, during the invasions, with women and girls abducted" in the Darfur region (Udombana 1154).

These acts may be reported, but to the Muslims, if a girl has sexual relations before she is married she will have public shame, and never have children. Things such as that is genocide, they might not be mass killings, but it will still leave its mark, and ruin the lifestyle of the Africans. 8. Nationalism. Nationalism can serve as a strong mark on those it affects. From the Holocaust during the Second World War, a means to provide supremacy to one or a few ethnic groups can be seen.

This action in Sudan is the result of the blind following of a group of radicals that have sought to make their way of life the one that is followed in the country. This promotion of nationalism can also serve a duel purpose. It can remove the government from the conflict by employing a second party in the genocide which Khartoum can remove them from it. B. No, the government is not responsible for the events in Darfur. 1. Occurring for hundreds of years The war that has occurred in Darfur is nothing new to the region. Since the independence of Sudan the Darfur region, along with numerous other regions has been a source of conflict.

There are bands of bandits who have been roaming the Darfur and Kordofan regions since 1985, with the "arming [of the] contact-area tribes" (Mahmoud 5). These were an outgrowth of tribal battles that have become fiercer as guns have become more plentiful in sub-Saharan Africa. 2. Tribal warfare over scare resources The Darfur conflict has transformed from a "traditional conflict over resources and a tribal dispute... to the present crisis" (Mahmoud 8), so to have it continue today is something that has been occurring in this region for some time. Also, outside of the government's control is the culture of violence that this conflict has caused. Many of the people living in this region have gone their whole lives with conflict, and it is only natural for them to continue fighting.

The violence has also lead to the "general belief that the government only negotiates with armed groups" (Mahmoud 8), so if they want to get anything done for their village or family they must take up arms to get it done. That is what is happening in Darfur, the nomadic people want to have something done to help them in their plight with the drought, and are going about it the only way they know how to. 3. Outside of government control With six million people fighting over scarce water, there is little the GoS can do to stop the conflict.

January 13, 2007 was one of the most recent examples of the conflict in Darfur. In the prior week "more than 200 people have died in clashes" in Darfur caused by tribal conflicts (Osman). The government has taken action to reconcile the groups involved, trying to bring an end to the four-year old conflict (Osman). "Justice Minister Al-Rai Al-Aam [said that] the government has sent reconciliation missions to try to end the fighting" (Osman), so it's not as if the GoS is ignoring the problems, but is taking an active role in the peace talks.

The problem in Darfur seems to be a tribal war over scarce resources, and while Khartoum is trying to reach peace, it can do little to stop the Janjaweed killings in Darfur. 4. High Debt leads to weak police It is hard to contain violence in an area the size of France with about 6 million people. Darfur's vast size and low population makes it hard for any sizable force to maintain the peace. Sudan itself is one-quarter the size of the United States and has 40 million people; with such a low GDP it is hard for them to maintain a sizable force.

Sudan can do its best to help, but with the abundance of arms in the region and the Janjaweed roaming freely little can be done by Khartoum. Sudan does not have the force to drive out or stop the militia but does not want their sovereignty compromised by allowing an outside force such as the A.U. or U.N. to enter their borders. 5. Darwinian Survival of the Fittest With a country as big as Sudan, and with resources so scare it leaves little to the imagination as to why there is conflict in Darfur. However, as the people in Darfur continue to engage in tribal warfare, there can be only one outcome.

As was noted by Darwin, the strongest would survive because they were the best adapted to survival or had the strongest will to survive. It seems that in Darfur the classic struggle as put forth by Darwin is playing itself out. As such, we should not intervene to stop the conflict; it's a natural turn of events, and a struggle as old as humanity itself. There has always been a conflict between the have and have-nots, and who are we to step in and play the role of God deciding who shall win and who shall die in this conflict. It will work itself out, and as the north takes no active role in it, the result will be the full and natural conclusion that is meant to occur.

6. Terrorism and Drought The attack on the Christians in the south is an act of terrorism that has been occurring outside of the state control. The Janjaweed have seen the plight they are facing in the north due to a drought that has left them without the resources to live, and the only way they can obtain these are through acts of terrorism against the Christians. Starting in 1985, the drought in northern Sudan has destroyed the farming that supported the Muslim population.

After this occurred, the Muslims were forced to find new homes and new land to support them, the only problem is that the new land was occupied by people. The result was killing, rape, pillaging, and terrorism to gain the new land so that the Muslims might be able to live.. Analysis: The government of Sudan could be responsible for the events in Darfur, or it could very well be out of their control. The differences north and south have been known to cause conflict in the country's past. Most recently this can be seen in Darfur. Does that mean that Darfur is a result of Khartoum, or violence that has been occurring for years, and now is made easier by the large amount of arms in Sudan?

In reality, the killings are tribal and religious in nature, but the GoS is not stopping the Janjaweed from attacking the Darfurians, and many are now found homeless in neighboring countries in Africa while the violence in Darfur continues to spread behind the waves of killings. What little help could go to Darfur is being used in civil wars, and conflicts amongst states, leaving Darfur to be crushed by the flood of violence brought against them by Khartoum and the Janjaweed. The true story of Darfur is one of violence and killings. Many of which have been blamed on the government, either through funding of the rebels, or refusing to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. The inaction taken by Khartoum leaves another ten thousand dead each day, as the military and Janjaweed engage in their ethnic and religious wars against the Africans. While Americans worry about college, car payments, trends, and what choice of restaurant we want to go to for dinner, they worry about basic food, shelter, survival against the constant warfare, and clean water.

They live in poverty that we can only touch the edges of here at home. With the mounting debts brought to Sudan through aid and development loans, the government is unable to provide the services needed to support the population. What began as a crisis in the late 1980's with a drought soon escalated into open war, as those who were forced off their land came into conflict with the Africans who had lived in Darfur. The government was unable to develop the resources in Darfur that would lead to an equal life for all, and Khartoum has had favoritism to the Arabs that live in the northern part of the country. With that happening, the Darfurians saw that they were being repressed and underrepresented in the government. The abundance of arms in Africa is a remnant of the Cold War the brought billions of dollars in aid to fight for the East or West while winning the ideological war.

That funding was also used to provide arms for locals to fight against the capitalist or communist forces in their own country, often leading to violent conflict. The results of neo-imperialist are stark in Africa, and in part the current war that is occurring in Darfur is a result of American and Soviet aid to the continent. With all the arms in Africa, and Darfur, when the locals saw the government as unresponsive they took up arms against Khartoum in 2003. This newest wave of violence caused the GoS to react with the Janjaweed in an ethnic and religious war seeking to establish an Islamic government in the country, while causing grave crimes against humanity in the name of nationalism. The crisis now occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan "is political and state made" (Mahmoud 3) and needs to be stopped. The policies of the government in Khartoum, while they may appear in public to favor all of the people equally, what is happening in Darfur is far from it.

The "Arab-oriented central government's biased policies" (Mahmoud 3) use armed forces against the non-Arab black Africans who make up a majority of the population of the Sudan. What would cause such treatment of people? The government ignores the plight of its people for four basic reasons, and those are misadministration, abuse of authority, ethnic conflict, and economic greed. The Africans in Darfur find themselves powerless in a struggle against a government who has employed terror tactics to scare the natives off of their land and allowed the Janjaweed to attack them unopposed. It should be noted, however that Khartoum has denied any links between them and the Janjaweed and that the GoS is fighting them for the good of the Africans.

The root of this can be traced to the difference of Sudan between the north and the south, and the various tribal differences that are in the country. The north of the country, which is now controlled by the Khartoum government, is mostly Arabic in people and culture, while the south and west of the country is made up of Africans. The "religious ideology of Arab supremacy" (Mahmoud 3) has proven deadly in Sudan, and the crisis continues to grow. Currently the government has almost no plans in place to help the people of Darfur, who have been suffering from drought since the 1980's. This drought has been a severe economic drain for Darfur since 65 percent of the inhabitants live on agriculture, with most of "the non-Arab tribes engage [ing] in farming and cultivation" (Mahmoud 3). The drought started in the northern part of Darfur, but the problem did not start there.

It was when the nomadic Arab people who lived in the north had to move to Darfur to support their herds on what little vegetation was left. When the northerners moved into Darfur there was stress placed on the limited resources such as water, arable land, and other resources needed to survive in the harsh climate of Darfur. Its not that the government is ignoring the plight of Darfur, but the GoS has, since colonial times, been centered on Khartoum. It has been strongly influenced by the Umma Party and the Democratic Unionist Party, both of which "have supported the traditional, ethnically organized native administration" (Mahmoud 4) centered on pro-Arab policies. That was government that was organized before the independence of Sudan. Following a series of democratic and military governments, in the mid 1980's the National Islamic Front under the direction of General Ja " far Nimeiri would transform the country into one with an Arab centered ideology, and would begin a slow campaign against the southern part of the country and Darfur.

It was under Nimeiri that the state law "would be transformed... into a strict version of the shari'a " (Mahmoud 4). At the heart of the conflict is religion, but it has been supplemented by natural crisis, government inaction, and conflict over natural resources. With all that has happened in Darfur, is the GoS to blame for the conflict, or is it a result of actions and events outside of their control? The UNGA has seen the conflict in Sudan and has tried to intervene in the mounting conflict in Darfur.

Sanctions have been put in place to try to stop the violence in Sudan, but have met with little success. The response from the strong states on the issue has been slim to none, as they see the conflict in Sudan as not pertinent to their self-interest. For the most part the north has tried to allow an UN force to enter the country, and has only recently met with success. It seems that currently the north has more pressing matters to be dealt with such as Iran or Iraq to have any time for the suffering in Sudan. The international community has however tried to bring an end to the fighting in Darfur.

In 2004 the UN and other organizations tried to alleviate the shortages of medical and food supplies to the region (Sudan). The GoS in the past has refused to allow outside forces into their borders. In addition on March 29, 2007, the GoS has allowed a force of UN and African Union forces into the country at a meeting in Riyadh (Reuters). The UNGA has stopped short of blaming Sudan for the current events, but has strongly urged for and end to the violence in Sudan. With the new force of non-Sudanese entering the country, it may lead "immediately to a solution to the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur as soon as possible" (Reuters). This would bring in a hybrid UN-AU force of roughly 10,000 troops to police the region to hem in the violence.

Regardless of how it is looked at, the current conflict is not being hemmed in by Khartoum, and the people of Darfur are not being protected. If the conflict can be stopped, the people deserve rights that are taken for granted in the developed world. Those people responsible in the NIF should be brought to justice for the crimes they have committed and peace restored to Darfur. The genocide in Darfur was started by acts of nature on the native people, and already occurring conflict in Darfur among various tribes.

The GoS's failure to act and funding of the Janjaweed have escalated the conflict causing over 400,000 deaths. This is an event in this world in crisis that if not stopped, could spread and destroy the integrity of Africa. Darfur is a wound on Africa, and if not healed, will fester and spread like a cancer to the rest mostly healthy continent. The conflict is caused by the differences in the lifestyle in the various sections of Sudan.

As the Cold War came to a close Sudan along with much of Africa found itself inundated with arms, allowing the conflict to start up as soon as the funding was cut. With the plethora of arms, and the constant din of fighting, the violence soon found its way to Sudan, leaving the country torn between rival factions each competing for power. In an attempt to hold onto the power the GoS hired an Islamic militia, the Janjaweed to attack the Africans in Darfur to prosecute the people who rose up against the government. This was all put forth in the name of Sudan, nationalism to make the country an Islamic state at the expense of the Darfurians. The violence has been occurring for hundreds of years but it should be stopped, the only question is when. IV.

Policy Prescription: There are many ideas that would help to stop the fighting and killings in the Darfur region. Outside involvement, while going against state sovereignty is one of the best options, especially with the U.S. willing to invade other sovereign nations to bring about peace. Such an intervention would "bring an end to the killings, rapes, and pillages in Darfur" and also would "send a clear, enforceable message to Khartoum" (Udombana 1190). Doing so would force them to protect their citizens by ending the discrimination that has plagues the country in recent years (Udombana 1190). With the international force in Darfur, the Janjaweed would finally be reigned in and the refuges who have fled to Chad and the CAR could return. While the international force was in Sudan they could also bring those responsible to justice for the crimes against humanity that have caused the suffering to most of the six million inhabitants in Darfur.

Since the conflict in Darfur seems to be caused by the religious conflict between the Muslim south and Christian or native south; one way to solve the conflict would be to divide the nation of Sudan in half giving each group their own part to rule. Division must be done carefully however, as seen with the partition of India; the border must be drawn to avoid a mass migration and confusion. The governments would then be in charge of people with a similar culture and heritage, and the multi-national state of Sudan would be a thing of the past, giving each nation their own state. The conflict in Sudan is causing a regional crisis that if stopped, would bring greater peace to Africa and often the simplest solution is the best. The current problems in Sudan can be resolved if the international community can join in to try and stop the violence. The UNGA would need to work with the African Union to put a force into Sudan.

Currently there are plans for ten thousand troops to enter on the ground to stop the Janjaweed from continuing their acts of violence against the Christians in Darfur. It seems that the global north has no interest in stopping the genocide in Sudan however since 2004 over one hundred thousand have been killed (Sudan), and with documented attacks they are still not inclined to act to stop it. An idea that might help to stop the violence would be to put sanctions on Sudan, or offer the GoS economic aid to counteract the effects of the drought, so the main cause of the fighting over resources might stop. If they people of Sudan have what they need to survive and lead a productive life, then they might not engage in warfare against each other like what is seen in Darfur.

Bibliography

Boustany, Nora and Mcrummen, Stephanie. "Sudanese Pair Accused of War Crimes" Washington Post Foreign Service. 28 Feb. 2007: A 13 Embassy of the Republic of Sudan in London.
2002.
Republic of Sudan. 29 Mar. 2007 web Kessler, Glenn.
Sudan's Peace Deal, Seen as a Bush Success, Is Endangered" Washington Post. 28 Jan. 2008: A 18 Mahmoud, Mahgoub El-Tiga ni Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24.
2 (2004) 3-17 McCrummen, Stephanie.
In Darfur, a Journalist Branches Out" Washington Post Foreign Service. 4 Mar. 2007: A 14 Mortimer, Jasper.
Sudan Opposition Leader Speaks Out". Washington Post 1 Mar. 2007: A 14 Osman, Mohamed.
UN: Militia Kill at Least 11 in Darfur" Washington Post. 17 May 2006.
Reuters "Sudan Agrees to U.N. -African Union force: Saudi" Washington Post 29 Mar. 2007.
Smith, Dan. The Penguin Atlas of War and Peace. New York: Penguin, 2003.
Sudan" A Dictionary of Contemporary World History. Jan Palmowski. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Aquinas College. 30 March 2007 web Udombana, Nsongurua Human Rights Quarterly 27.
4 (2005) 1149-1199.