THE UNITED STATESÕ WAR IN DARFUR
October 25 2007
keith harmon snow
Edited and then published October 25, 2007, by the Daily
Hampshire Gazette. The original OP/ED can be read here.
ÒThe humanitarian tragedy in Darfur revolves around
natural resourcesÉ Given current realities, no intervention in Darfur will
proceed, and if it did it would fail.Ó
So opined the authors of the September 2006 OPED ÒKeeping
Peacekeepers out of DarfurÓ [GN1](DHG,
9/15/06). Now, over a year later, the situation in Sudan is grimmer than ever,
the Darfur conflict remains widely mischaracterized, and many of the
predictions of that OPED have come true. Meanwhile, the ÒSave DarfurÓ advocates
pressing military intervention in Darfur as a ÒhumanitarianÓ gesture have
escalated pressure in the face of mounting failures, including allegations that
millions of ÒSave DarfurÓ dollars fundraised on a sympathy for victims platform
have been misappropriated.
The Darfur region of western Sudan has been a hotbed of
clandestine activities, gunrunning and indiscriminate violence for decades. The
Cold War era saw countless insurgencies launched from the remote deserts of
Darfur. Throughout the 1990Õs factions allied with or against Chad, Uganda,
Ethiopia, Congo, Libya, Eritrea and the Central African Republic operated from
bases in Darfur, and it was a regular landing strip for foreign military
transport planes of mysterious origin. In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby launched a
military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrew President Hissan Habre; Deby then
allied with his own tribe against the Sudan government. Sudanese rebels today
have bases in Chad, and Chadian rebels have bases in Darfur, with KhartoumÕs
backing.[GN2]
When the regime of Ange-FŽlix PatassŽ collapsed in the Central African Republic
in March 2003, soldiers fled to Darfur with their military equipment.
Khartoum supported the West Nile Bank Front, a rebel army operating against
Uganda from Eastern Congo, commanded by Taban Amin, the son of the infamous
Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, who heads UgandaÕs dreaded Internal Security
Organization. Darfur is the epicenter of a modern-day international
geopolitical scramble for AfricaÕs resources.
Conflict in Darfur escalated in 2003 after in parallel with
negotiations ÒendingÓ the south Sudan war. The U.S.-backed insurgency by the
Sudan PeopleÕs Liberation Army (SPLA), the guerilla force that fought the
northern Khartoum government for 20 years, shifted to Darfur, even as the G.W.
Bush government allied with Khartoum in the U.S. led Òwar on terror.Ó The Sudan
Liberation Army (SLA)—one of some 27 rebel factions mushrooming in
Darfur—is allied with the SPLA and supported from Uganda. Andrew Natsios,
former USAID chief and now US envoy to Sudan, said on October 6, 2007 that the
atmosphere between the governments of north and south Sudan Òhad become
poisonous.Ó This is no surprise given the magnitude of the resource war in
Sudan and the involvement of international interests.
Darfur is reported to have the fourth largest copper and
third largest uranium deposits in the world. Darfur produces two-thirds of the
worldÕs best quality gum Arabic—a major ingredient in Coke and Pepsi.
Contiguous petroleum reserves are driving warfare from the Red Sea, through
Darfur, to the Great Lakes of Central Africa. Private military companies
operate alongside petroleum contractors and ÒhumanitarianÓ agencies. Sudan is
China's fourth biggest supplier of imported oil, and U.S. companies controlling
the pipelines in Chad and Uganda seek to displace China through the US military
alliance with ÒfrontlineÓ states hostile to Sudan: Uganda, Chad and Ethiopia.
Israel
reportedly provides military training to Darfur rebels from bases in Eritrea,
and has strengthened ties with the regime in Chad, from which more weapons and
troops penetrate Darfur. The refugee camps have become increasingly
militarized. There are reports that Israeli military intelligence operates from
within the camps, as does U.S intelligence. Eritrea is about to explode into
yet another war with Ethiopia.
African Union (AU) forces in Darfur include Nigerian and
Rwandan troops responsible for atrocities in their own countries. While
committing 5000 troops for a UN force in Darfur, Ethiopia is perpetrating
genocidal atrocities in Somalia, and against Ethiopians in the Ogaden, Oromo
and Anuak regions. Uganda has 2000 U.S.-trained troops in Somalia, also
committing massive atrocities, and the genocide against the Acholi people in
northern Uganda proceeds out of sight. Ethiopia is the largest recipient of
U.S. ÒAidÓ in Africa, with Rwanda and Uganda close on its heals. France is
deeply committed to the Anglo-American strategy, which will benefit Total Oil
Corp.
AU troops receive military-logistic support from NATO, and
are widely hated. Early in October 2007, SLA rebels attacked an AU base killing
ten troops. In a subsequent editorial sympathetic to rebel factions (ÒDarfurÕs
Bitter Ironies,Ó Guardian Online, 10/4/07) Smith College English
professor Eric Reeves espoused the tired rhetoric of ÒKhartoumÕs genocidal
counter-insurgency war in Darfur,Ó a position counterproductive to any peaceful
settlement. To minimize the damage this rebel attack has done to their
credibility Reeves and other ÒSave DarfurÓ advocates cast doubt about the
rebelsÕ identities and mischaracterized the SLA attackers as Òrogue
commanders.Ó However, there is near unanimous agreement, internationally, that
rebels are Òout of control,Ó committing widespread rape and plundering with
impunity, just as the SPLA did in South Sudan for over a decade.
Debunking the claims of a Ògenocide against blacksÓ or an
ÒIslamic holy-warÓ against Christians, DarfurÕs Arab and black African tribes
have intermarried for centuries, and nearly everyone is Muslim. The ÒSave
DarfurÓ campaign is deeply aligned with Jewish and Christian faith-based
organizations in the United States, Canada, Europe and Israel. These groups
have relentlessly campaigned for Western military action, demonizing both Sudan
and China, but they have never addressed Western military
involvement—backing factions on all sides. By mobilizing constituencies
sympathetic to the ÒgenocideÓ label and the cries of Ònever againÓ they do a
grave disservice to the cause of human rights.
There is growing dissent within the ÒSave DarfurÓ movement
as more supporters question its motivations and the Jewish/Israeli link. ÒSave
DarfurÓ leaders have been replaced after complaints surfaced about expenditures
of funds. Many rebel leaders reportedly receive tens of thousands of dollars
monthly, and rebels emboldened by the ÒSave DarfurÓ movement commit crimes with
impunity. There is a growing demand to probe the accounts of ÒSave DarfurÓ
to find out how the tens of millions collected are being spent due to
allegations of arms-deals and bribery—rebel leaders provided with five-star
hotel accommodations, prostitutes and sex parties.
ÒSave DarfurÓ is today the rallying cry for a broad
coalition of special interests. Advocacy groups—from the local
Massachusetts Congregation BÕNai Israel chapter to the International Crises
Group and USAID—have fueled the conflict through a relentless, but
selective, public relations campaign that disingenuously serves a narrow policy
agenda. These interests offer no opportunity for corrective analyses, but
stubbornly press their agenda, and they are widely criticized for inflaming
tensions in Darfur. Rhetoric, aggression and propaganda do not make a strong
foreign policy, and the African people suffering from this brutal international
conflict involving China, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, Canada, the United States
and Israel cannot eat good intentions foolishly delivered under the banners of
Òhumanitarian aidÓ and a poorly cloaked militarism.
The West is desperate to deploy a Òrobust peacekeepingÓ
mission in Darfur, to press the Western agenda, but United Nations forces will
only deepen the chaos. The UN forces will cost billions of dollars and will
achieve nothing positive. Indeed, the results will be disastrous, creating
another Iraq and Afghanistan—only increasing the chaos and devastation
already apparent. The United States is hated for this kind of aggression and
posturing, and the U.S. economy will continue to suffer.
***
keith harmon snow is an independent human rights
investigator and war correspondent who worked with Survivors Rights
International (2005-2006), Genocide Watch (2005-2006) and the United Nations
(2006) to document and expose genocide and crimes against humanity in Sudan and
Ethiopia. He has worked in 17 countries in Africa, and he recently worked in
Afghanistan.