It is now 20 months or perhaps more, since the International Community began shedding crocodile tears over the pogrom taking place in Sudan precisely in Darfur, located in the Western part of that large country.
It is also more than 20 months now that since Darfur became a household name in Western countries.
As usual, Africa hits the airwaves during negative things.
That said, the following statement might sound cruel to most readers.
But however morbid the coming statement is, it is a child’s play compared to all atrocities that have been going on in Africa especially in Western Sudan.
The fact about the matter is that some good could come out of the Sudan after all. The on going war has permitted the world to know about the Sudan otherwise such knowledge would have been the exclusive preserve of anthropologists and those interested in the origins of man on earth.
The same thing could be said of the September 19 2002 civil war in Ivory Coast, a once prosperous French-speaking West African country.
By Elie Smith
The war in that West African country permitted most people to know names of towns like Mann and Bouake.
The on going situation in the Darfur has given the world an opportunity to understand the operational mechanics of those at the helm of affairs in Khartoum.
In order to distance itself from planned crimes, the government of Khartoum not reputed for human rights respect, decided this time around to subcontract the dirty job to the Janjaweed – the Negro Arab militia known for nothing than it cruelty.
The Janjaweed had earlier plied their sinister trade in Southern Sudan. At that time, these fundamentalists were against other fellow blacks whose only crime was that they were not Moslems.
The current situation in Sudan’s Darfur regions bears the hallmark of Rwanda, under late General Juvenile Habyarimana.
Habyarimana was, as usual, supported by France and observed helplessly by fellow African leaders. The non-intervention gave Juvenile’s regime wings just as it is the case today with the Islamic regime in Khartoum led by Beshir.
The in-action of most African governments has made the government of Khartoum confident in carrying out its killing spree on the people it is supposed to protect.
Good governance cannot be africanised.
The problem in Sudan today could happen anywhere in Africa or the Middle East.
It is not just the proverbial feud between black Arabs and non-Arabic blacks. It is a far more complex palaver.
There is precedence to such Moslem and Moslem African feuds. In 1989, a similar conflict occurred in Mauritania.
In that conflict, the Maures, who claimed to be “Whites” killed millions of Negro Mauritanians who were also Moslems.
The government supervised the genocide in Mauritania.
In the realm of heathen governments
African feuds have many causes.
The absence of good governance and the absence of real multi party democracies in African countries are prime causes of feuds.
The lack of real democracy has made Africa to be a nest of instability.
Sudan’s procrastination in solving he Darfur crisis has boosted the raison d’être of the recent calls made by President George Bush for the promotion of multiparty democracy in the Greater Middle East and most of the Arab world.
Sudan, though a predominantly black African country operated like any of the feudal Greater Middle East states. Small wonder most Arab and African governments are making only low noises about the horrors of the governments of Khartoum.
Sudan, like most African countries, has closed the door to self-determination. The African Union seems to have taken over the bad manners of the Organisation of African Unity which never due consideration to self-determination.
Colonisation forced disparate peoples to live together in geographic expressions called. States. Those striving to opt out of such forced marriages are persecuted.
The results is the 20 months and more of mayhem, installed and institutionalised in Darfur by the government of Sudan; 50 thousand or more dead, one or more million presently displaced and about two hundred thousand Sudanese languishing on the borders of Chad.
Before Darfur, the people of Southern Sudan who the majority Animist and the Christians were the ones who suffered in the hands of the Janjaweeds.
Their respite only came when George Bush came to power and decided to talk tough with the authorities in Khartoum.
It is certain that, had Bush and his Republicans lost the November 2 presidential elections, fighting would have resumed in the South.
Because John Kerry would not have had the same interest in blacks and Christians of Southern Sudan as does the current occupant of the White House.
The attitude of President Beshir is very defiant, because instead of accepting negotiations and negotiators, he is trying to, as published in the French daily Le Figaro (1) trying to pick and choose.
The Irony
In spite of all the atrocities going on in the Darfur region, some people think that the people of that region should be sacrificed on the altar of unity.
It is as though the preservation of the unity of Sudan will change the fate of its victims. On the contrary if Sudan disintegrates, those currently suffering would not face the current afflictions.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is existing today because of the unity swan song and making life miserable for its citizen.
Even the present government of the Kingdom of Belgium is aware that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a sad case (2)...
As usual, like all African governments, the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is always quick to react with violence when accused of any shortcoming in the area of governance.
At first, when the government of Khartoum directed its guns on the Animists and Christians of the South there were some people who made philosophical conclusions to justify the savage war waged on Southern Sudanese.
Nevertheless, now that the guns have turn on fellow Moslems in the Darfur, what will the defenders of the undefendable now say?
That is why the well worded resolutions of the Security Council of 30th of July 2004 sounded as a passport handed to the government of Khartoum to polish off the gruesome job in Darfur.
In addition, what many observers cannot understand is why the government of Sudan is being handled like a spoiled brat with resolutions against her regularly postponed.
It is as if the World Body directed by Koffi Atta Annan is busy rewriting a tragic comedy to be staged on the rostrums of a new theatre called Sudan.
The first drama was written and played out in Rwanda in 1994. At the time Koffi Annan was a junior officer at the UN. He is still an unwilling actor in the theatre called Sudan.
In Rwanda, the UN procrastinated and the results we all know, more than a million Tutsi and moderates Hutus were killed.
Immediately after the genocide in Rwanda, the International community behaved like a satisfied audience that has just finished watching a well-written play.
The situation in Sudan is really a shame and needs an urgent action.
Nevertheless, responsibility for Darfur should be shared equally by France, the African Continent, Britain, and the International community.
What is even more excruciating is the fact that, it seems that, in the opinion of the International Community there is now a dispute with the right adjective to describe the real situation in Sudan.
The current administration in the United States through Colin Powel has been courageous enough to call the Darfur crisis it rightful name. Genocide!
France
This country is the leading member of the European Union that always wants to be present in all places even where it has little or no influence.
However, in Africa, especially in French-speaking Africa, the EU’s lead member France, has a preponderous role and influence.
It will not be an over statement to claim that France is indirectly running French-speaking African colonies now independent states for the sake of the 1960 trends.
However, in other regions of Africa and also the Middle East, France has little or no influence and in order to draw or drum up support or even sympathies, she acts as a professional rabble rouser.
In addition, when that stratagem does not work, France always tries to throw monkey wrench in the works.
Sudan is one of such places in Africa and in the world where France through her President Jacques Chirac has gone haywire.
Again
France it should be recalled, challenged the “Niavasha Negotiations” (2) that was being brokered by John Danforth, only to come back and support it when it stratagems to derail it failed.
Furthermore, in the heat of the Sudanese crisis, Jacques Chirac announced that he wanted to visit Sudan.
This has made the Sudan government to grow more confident, because they know that, there is a deep division within the western camp.
This double standards from France (although it has recently sent its troops to Chad) is equally enigmatic, as it is also worrying (9).
No wonder it was in France that, Mustapha Osman Ismail, the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs started challenging the British proposition of sending troops to Darfur (3).
He knew he was in France and in Europe, a continent of faint-hearted pleasures seeking political leaders and citizens.
France it is known has always given cruel Arab leaders and all other countries with impressive records in human rights violations strong support.
Therefore it was not a surprise that the first African country that manifested its support to the French when they decided to send their forces on the eastern borders of Chad was Egypt.
Egypt is has never hidden its feelings to see the people of Southern Sudan crushed or even those of Darfur annihilated.
This is because in Cairo the problems of Darfur are regarded just as an extension of the Southern Sudan conflict.
The act of France to send its troops to the Eastern Chadian borders has clearly indicated where the interest of France lies.
Paris is clearly in support of predominantly Arab North Africa against black Africa just as it has done in crisis between Israel and the Arab world.
It is the same game it played and made Saddam Hussein to read the wrong signals until his country was invaded in March 2003.
The action of France did not only give wrong signals to its friends at that time in Baghdad, it also set havoc in the minds of countries that wanted to joint the coalition aimed at freeing the Iraqi people from the stranglehold of Saddam Hussein.
Africa
There is no justification to the passivity of African states toward the situation in Darfur.
This is because; some African states are giving flimsy excuses to their inaction in Darfur, one of them being their endemic lack of funds.
The African continent has a continental governing body that has just changed its name from OAU (4) to AU (5).
Nevertheless, it is just the same old wine in a new bottle.
However, can the OAU or now the AU be blamed for all the inefficiency of African governments in crisis management? The answer is yes and no.
When the continental body was created, in the early 60’s it objective was first to fight for the independence of most of the continent which could be said today to have been partly achieved, although Western Sahara is still the last remaining African colony.
But after that phase, the continental body quickly became an organisation that regularly organise annual ball room dances for so-called leaders attending waste-of-time sessions called AU Summits.
If African leaders want the AU to be taken seriously and to become financially autonomous; they would have started to try to solve ensuing problems such the current case of Darfur.
continent.
However, since leaders in most African countries know that they are themselves guilty of the ongoing crime in Darfur, there is now a mutual morbid solidarity in crime.
Nevertheless, the inefficiencies of the AU will not stop after the Darfur crisis.
Any country that is currently willing to help Africa is not doing that in the interest of Africans but defending its own interest or that of the continent or region it represent.
That is why the question that needs to be asked is: why then does the AU creates high sounding sub organisations within the existing one that doesn’t even have the means to meet with it initial objectives?
The current Darfur crisis is not the first nor will it be ironically the last one to hit the continent of Africa.
When the Rwandan crisis reached its peak of cruelty in 1994, one would have easily pardoned the continent because it was it first major experience since they came of age.
However, the problem in Sudan presently, is a repetition of Rwanda on a more brutal and refined phase whose repercussions will further deepen the divide between the two geographical divisions of the continent.
That is the predominantly Moslem, Arabo-Berbar North, and the predominantly black Negro and animist/Christian southern part of the continent.
It is however worth recalling once again that, state sponsored terror on peoples by their own governments is not new in Africa.
State sponsored terror and mass killings took place in Morocco in 1965 and in 1975-76, similar horrors took place in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and now in Sudan.
In the case of Morocco the carnage of Fez that took place in 1965 was against ordinary citizens and the pogroms in Western Sahara between 1975 and 1976 was against the people of Western Sahara who wanted the independence of the country.
Nigeria
Nigeria, South Africa, and Libya are currently trying as they best as can to participate in conflict prevention in Africa.
Nigeria is more interested and highly sensitive to matters regarding Human rights violations.
This has been made possible because the regimes in these two countries are democratic which shows that where there is real democracy, leaders can participate in solving problems.
The example of Nigeria in crisis management is remarkable, especially the leading role it played in sending troops to Liberia and Sierra Leon under the auspices of the ECOMOG (6).
Today Nigeria is ready to play the leading role in Sudan.
Surprisingly Nigeria is also ready to accept military and logistic support from France, a country that Nigerian officials know best how France contributed to sabotage the efforts of Nigeria to restore peace in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
It is even more worrying when one takes into consideration the fact that Nigeria has experiences in Peace Keeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leon but she is not able to build an autonomous logistics in case there is a sudden surge in crisis like that which currently in Darfur.
Ironically, the President of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo is calling for an African solution in the solving of the on going Darfur crisis (7).
The next questions that need to be asked are: where were the Africans when the Darfur crisis reached such a calamitous level or where else on the continent has the so-called African solution dear to the President of Nigeria worked?
The plans by the AU to send three company of troops from South Africa Rwanda and Nigeria is ridiculous and shows how Africans are unable to manage anything that even affects them.
Under normal circumstances one would have expected a large supply of soldiers from African states and also be willing to raise funds to move troops to Darfur.
.
Britain
The role of Britain in the long bloody Sudanese wars cannot be minimised.
Britain is this colonial power that never took due consideration of the problems in its former colonies, some of them created by Britain itself. The interest of Britain was essentially British interest and not those of people they were ruling. It is worth noting that in most parts of the continent people now living in the same country hated each other until they were forced together by the colonial masters.
Britain created the Sudan conflict. Uniting predominantly Moslem Northern Sudan with majority animist and Christian Southern Sudan set the pace for trouble.
The same forceful unity was carried in Cameroon and Nigeria.
After running the three Nigerian components of Nigeria – the Ibos, the Yurobas and the Hausas like independent states Britain forced them into one country.
The result was the Nigerian civil war of 1967-1970.
In Cameroon the British gave up her English speaking territory of the South to the majority French-speaking part of Cameroon, today they are a discriminated minority and there is all the potential for a civil war as well.
This haphazard scheme was tabled for Sudan.
Administered separately, the predominantly Moslem North and the predominantly Christian South were united as the independence of Sudan approached and sealed in 1956.
Since independence peace has never broken out in the Sudan.
In fact the only time peace existed in that country was during the early 11 years after independence.
Recent British manifestations only show the willingness of the government of her majesty to redeem herself in a conflict that it might have unwillfully created or orchestrated.
International Community
The United Nations has taken sides in the Sudan conflict. Had it not been for the Bush administration all the hue and cries made by NGO’s would have fallen on deaf ears.
Whereas EU reaction was swift in the Balkans, the European Union has not reacted to the organised killings in Western Sudan. Currently all sorts of stratagems are being hatched out as justifications of not intervening to stop the killings in Darfur.
Some are even branding the presence of Islam as a sufficient reason not to intervene in Sudan.
This position held strongly by social scientist and politicians in Brussels the Capital of the European Union.
However, the reaction of the European Union in most conflicts, is synonymous to that of the biblical Esau.
The European Union is always ready to sell it birth right not to get food this time around, but to get a position of influence.
The lacklustre behaviour of the EU has greatly influenced the UN Secretary General who enjoys the French attitude of talking a lot and doing very little.
Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, the vice President of Sudan, the leader of the Sudanese government delegation during negotiations in Kenya with the SPLA (8) is now adding his voice to the defiant posture of his regime.
The sending of French troops in Chad is no guarantee because already France has one thousand stand-troops in Chad.
Sending their forces now has some ulterior motives.
In 1994, France did send its forces to Rwanda but it was discovered latter that it was contrary to the initial objectives.
In fact the French went to Rwanda to support the regime of late Genera Juvenile Habyarimana a French-speaking ethnic Hutus while the persecuted Tutsi found no favours in the eyes of France.
The only major countries that have shown remarkable reactions are the same the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in Africa, Nigeria Rwanda and South Africa.
Solutions
However, no matter the amount of pressure mounted on the Khartoum government, the lasting solution to Africa’s many problems lies in the installation of t, genuine multi-party democracy and good governance.
Secondly, there is also a strong need for African groups to have the right to self-determination.
This is because most people are together today not because they wanted but more by the desires of the colonial masters.
Therefore, there is a deep need for people living in various African countries to feel that they are citizens of their countries not by chance but by their determined will.
The other major root causes to almost all-African conflicts are the endemic mis-management, and corruption of it leaders. The crises are not caused only by poverty as most people think.
However, as long as there is no proper democracy, which opens the way to freedoms of opinion, press, and enterprise, the continent will continue to be a theatre of horror.
Furthermore, as the absence of multi party democracy and transparency in management persist, no serious investment will be directed to Africa in its vital areas. That would have been able to employ large poll of jobless under educated youths who are easily manipulated by a handful of educated tyrants with an unmatched lust for power.
There is also the need for people living in regions such as Darfur, Somaliland, Southern Cameroons, Western Sahara, Cabinda and all other troubled spots on the continent to have the right to determined their future. The International Community must have a united approach toward Africa and its dictators.
They should not behave they way they have been acting with the government of Zimbabwe.
That is, in a divided manner.
This is because, it gives the wrong signals to pro-democracy activists and it also gives the dictators more chances to manoeuvres and also to brutalise their own citizens, just as Mugabe, Gbagbo and El Beshir are currently doing in their respectful countries.
Above all, multi-party democracy has a positive end and large dividends in countries that do practices it properly.
One showcase is Nigeria. Should President Obasanjo continue in the current trend, Nigerians in their large majority will reap form the best system of government that man has managed to invent and practice on earth.
Legend: -
-1 read Le Figaro*1 of Saturday 21st and Sunday 22nd of August 2004
-2 read the International Herald Tribune the 23rd -24th of October 2004
-3 Niavasha Negotiations: visit the website of the BBC at www.bbc.co.uk/africa/sudan
-4 read Le Figaro of Friday 23rd July 2004
-5 OAU: organisation of African unity
-6 AU: African Union
-7 ECOMOG: Ecowas* 2 Monitoring Group
-8 Visit the website of the BBC as indicated earlier
-9 SPLA: Sudan People Liberation Army
-10 read Le Figaro of Wednesday 11th august 2004
Footnotes:
-1) Le Figaro is a French language daily published in France
-2) Ecowas is the abbreviation of a regional political body in the west of Africa. It was created in 1975, its headquarters is located in Abuja the federal capital of Nigeria, and it is made of 15 countries.
The full meaning of ECOWAS is Economic Community of West African States.
Dear Sir,
I have just gone to your web site to read it interesting write ups and I must confess that things have really improved.
You now touch International subjects and it is quite impressive that your magazine has made the necessary stride.
The article that really affected me was the analysis on the situation in the Darfur.
It was really the first time that I have read an article that took time to share the responsiblity of every one in the conflicts of the SUDAN.
However, the only problem that I found was that the author was not known. Why was the author's name not mentioned?
Anyway congratulations and keep up.
Doig Ruiz
Lima Peru.
Posted by: Doig Ruiz | January 02, 2005 at 06:47 AM
Dear Editor,
I have just went through this paper which embraces more than the only issue of Darfur, but the whole relationship of the western and Africa dealing with humanitarian crisis.
Thanks for the good article even though It would be suitable to know who is the author of this article because being a French Citizen there are certains point of view that I don't subscribe. Anyway eventhough it seems to be a pro american ( the article) the responsabilities of this disaster are as tha autor said common to all the International Community.
I am very pleased to notice that you people have improve your online newspaper and keep on ....
HAPPY YEAR CONGRATULATIONS
Alain Masoda
Paris
Posted by: Alain Masoda | January 02, 2005 at 01:02 PM
Dear Sir,
I think that Elie Smith has been vindicated with his Sudan article. Although his article seem to be a bit anti French, but sadly he is right. It's always difficult to admit the truth. It is also a nice thing that a magazine from Africa is interested and honest about what is going on there.
Congratulations.
Posted by: Alain Masoda | March 17, 2005 at 04:59 PM