01/02/2006
print
send
Many people talk about it but only a few know what they’re talking about. The
war in Darfur, which broke out in February 2003 and up to now has caused the deaths
of 300,000 people, has been presented, according to which side you listen to,
as either a brutal act of genocide carried out by the Janjaweed militia with the help of the Sudanese army or as an internal revolt of groups
of rebels made up of common criminals. But what caused the war to break out in
the first place and why has the conflict, unlike other African wars, received
such widespread coverage in the media?
The history. The fighting which broke out in February 2003 was nothing more than a renewal
of a conflict that has been going on in Darfur for at least 50 years, even if
the clashes between the various communities in the area were much more limited
in the past. The explanation which is often given of the war as a clash between
Arabs and Africans is not correct if for no other reason than the various communities
that populate Darfur are autochton, dark-skinned and Muslim, and “mixed” marriages
have been the order of the day for centuries. The roots of the conflict can be
found in the fight for control of the natural resources (land and water) between
the established communities in the central part of Darfur and the nomadic cattle-breeders
who live in the northern and southern parts. The advance of the desert, together
with the policies of the Sudanese government which has always exploited this rivalry
in order to control the region, has caused the situation to deteriorate and has
resulted in the rebel groups making demands of the government which they claim
has neglected the autochthon communities, even though the people of Darfur were
responsible for providing a large part of military assistance in the twenty-year
civil war against the Christian south.
Foreign support. Darfur has often been at the centre of clashes between the bordering countries.
In the 1980s Colonel Gheddafi used Darfurian guerrillas in the war against Chad,
while in 2003 the rebels enjoyed the support of the Eritrean government and of
that part of the Chadian establishment that belonged to the Zaghawa community
which is also present in some parts of Darfur. The links with Chad were the strongest
and proved to be decisive in settling the outcome of the war, and the president
of Chad, Idriss Deby, supported the Sudanese government in the Darfurian crisis,
which led to him clashing with the same parts of the Zaghawa community he has
been at loggerheads with in recent months. Deby’s recent change of course, which
saw him accuse Sudan of supporting Chadian rebels who have their bases in Darfur,
shows how times have changed for the president and how the ties with Khartoum
have proved to be counter productive for his leadership, which is at an all-time
low in Chad. A change of guard in N’Djamena would provide much needed encouragement
for the Darfurian rebels.
The role of the West. But what has been the role of Western countries in the conflict? The war in Darfur
has been presented as an example of genocide carried out by the Janjaweed militia against the African population, and whilst there’s no doubt that the
atrocities carried out against the local population took place in part as a result
of support from the Sudanese government, the fault doesn’t just lie with one side.
Accounts from refugees tell of crimes committed by the rebels, who enjoy strong
foreign support, and these accounts are confirmed by humanitarian aid workers,
many of whom claim that the rebels are better equipped than the army. The answer
could lie in the oil deposits that have recently been found in Darfur and which
apparently have been signed over to the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation.
Excluding Western companies from the division of the spoils after the USA was
heavily involved in recent years in trying to find a solution to the civil war
between the north and south has proved to be a bitter pill to swallow for Washington,
which has subsequently returned to adopting a hostile policy towards the Sudanese
government (a policy immediately copied by London). It’s no coincidence that in
the UN Security Council the fiercest supporter of Khartoum is now China while
the USA and Great Britain are always ready to blame the Sudanese government for
every type of atrocity, a demonstration of how the war is presented in a different
light by the supporters of the different interests at stake.
printsend
The roots and reasons for a war distorted by the media
Many people talk about it but only a few know what they’re talking about. The
war in Darfur, which broke out in February 2003 and up to now has caused the deaths
of 300,000 people, has been presented, according to which side you listen to,
as either a brutal act of genocide carried out by the Janjaweed militia with the help of the Sudanese army or as an internal revolt of groups
of rebels made up of common criminals. But what caused the war to break out in
the first place and why has the conflict, unlike other African wars, received
such widespread coverage in the media?
The history. The fighting which broke out in February 2003 was nothing more than a renewal
of a conflict that has been going on in Darfur for at least 50 years, even if
the clashes between the various communities in the area were much more limited
in the past. The explanation which is often given of the war as a clash between
Arabs and Africans is not correct if for no other reason than the various communities
that populate Darfur are autochton, dark-skinned and Muslim, and “mixed” marriages
have been the order of the day for centuries. The roots of the conflict can be
found in the fight for control of the natural resources (land and water) between
the established communities in the central part of Darfur and the nomadic cattle-breeders
who live in the northern and southern parts. The advance of the desert, together
with the policies of the Sudanese government which has always exploited this rivalry
in order to control the region, has caused the situation to deteriorate and has
resulted in the rebel groups making demands of the government which they claim
has neglected the autochthon communities, even though the people of Darfur were
responsible for providing a large part of military assistance in the twenty-year
civil war against the Christian south. Foreign support. Darfur has often been at the centre of clashes between the bordering countries.
In the 1980s Colonel Gheddafi used Darfurian guerrillas in the war against Chad,
while in 2003 the rebels enjoyed the support of the Eritrean government and of
that part of the Chadian establishment that belonged to the Zaghawa community
which is also present in some parts of Darfur. The links with Chad were the strongest
and proved to be decisive in settling the outcome of the war, and the president
of Chad, Idriss Deby, supported the Sudanese government in the Darfurian crisis,
which led to him clashing with the same parts of the Zaghawa community he has
been at loggerheads with in recent months. Deby’s recent change of course, which
saw him accuse Sudan of supporting Chadian rebels who have their bases in Darfur,
shows how times have changed for the president and how the ties with Khartoum
have proved to be counter productive for his leadership, which is at an all-time
low in Chad. A change of guard in N’Djamena would provide much needed encouragement
for the Darfurian rebels.The role of the West. But what has been the role of Western countries in the conflict? The war in Darfur
has been presented as an example of genocide carried out by the Janjaweed militia against the African population, and whilst there’s no doubt that the
atrocities carried out against the local population took place in part as a result
of support from the Sudanese government, the fault doesn’t just lie with one side.
Accounts from refugees tell of crimes committed by the rebels, who enjoy strong
foreign support, and these accounts are confirmed by humanitarian aid workers,
many of whom claim that the rebels are better equipped than the army. The answer
could lie in the oil deposits that have recently been found in Darfur and which
apparently have been signed over to the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation.
Excluding Western companies from the division of the spoils after the USA was
heavily involved in recent years in trying to find a solution to the civil war
between the north and south has proved to be a bitter pill to swallow for Washington,
which has subsequently returned to adopting a hostile policy towards the Sudanese
government (a policy immediately copied by London). It’s no coincidence that in
the UN Security Council the fiercest supporter of Khartoum is now China while
the USA and Great Britain are always ready to blame the Sudanese government for
every type of atrocity, a demonstration of how the war is presented in a different
light by the supporters of the different interests at stake.Matteo Fagotto
Topic:
Related articles: La scheda paese:
Most discussed topics:
Most frequently used keywords:
