The crisis in Darfur is significant in two ways. Firstly it highlights the failure of negotiation and diplomacy in contemporary Africa with dire humanitarian consequences. These consequences generated the debate as to whether the massacres in this region of Sudan qualify as genocide. The mere mention of the word genocide is indicative of the level of butchery involved.
Secondly and more importantly, Darfur is research material on violent conflict – where various conditions for chaos combine to produce an apocalyptic conflict that has become almost intractable. The roots of Darfur’s crisis are many, and like in the rest of Africa, the starting point is colonialism.
British Colonial Administrative Policy in Sudan
The current climate of instability, fragmentation and partition facing Sudan are direct legacies of British colonialism. The origin of Darfur’s dilemma can be traced to the merging of the independent sultanate of Darfur with their colony of Sudan in 1916 by British colonial authorities. What followed next was the complete neglect of a hitherto independent and strong sultanate whose leader had once exchanged letters with Napoleon in 1798.
The British policy of indirect rule was both the symbol and instrument of this neglect. In his article titled “Darfur – the Crisis Explained” Alex De Waal, who advised the African Union on Darfur affirms that “Darfur was a backwater ruled by a few colonial officers who delegated most of their powers to tribal chiefs.” This lack of concern left Darfur highly underdeveloped without roads, educational and health facilities and chronic poverty, a pattern which continued after independence in 1956.
British Colonial Economy in Sudan
Under British rule, a typical “metropole” economy was established in Sudan. This economy of unfair exploitation ensured that Sudan’s rich wealth in land, mineral and agricultural resources became unevenly distributed creating visible rifts and tensions. Development was largely concentrated at the center in Khartoum while the periphery especially Darfur became highly marginalised and abandoned.
The power structure that emerged from this economic landscape was one that denied Darfur and the rest of Sudan’s periphery all fundamental human, political and economic rights. Meanwhile these peripheral regions provided the (slave) labour and agricultural resources (especially cotton, grains, spices and oil) that generated revenue for the “metrople.”
The “predatory state” that emerged after independence capitalised on these gains and struggled tooth and nail to ensure continuity but the level of deprivation, neglect and abandonment had reached intolerable limits. The conflicts in Darfur, South Sudan and parts of Eastern Sudan are logical outbursts of this accumulated tension within Sudan, a process that began with colonial rule. This tension fed on many other factors.
Other Factors for Darfur’s Crisis
Sudan reflects Africa in crisis and Darfur symbolises this crisis in its most extreme forms. A potent mix of ethnic and religious tensions, geographical and cultural differences, tensions and pressures from neighbouring countries, the flow of arms across porous borders and the struggle for land and water resources between migrating tribes are among the countless causes of the Darfur conflict. But the root of all evil in Sudan remains oil – the “curse of wealth” that has brought Sudan to the center stage of great power politics, the main contenders being China and the United States.
In the book Darfur: Beyond war, Prof. Hassan Makki, Dean of the Institute of Publications and African Studies at the African International University in Khartoum summarises the carnage in Darfur in the following words:
“The situation in Darfur can be analysed from four angles – tribal, regional, national and international ... the conflict opposes villages or tribes living in the same space.... The conflicts in neighbouring countries have provoked a proliferation of arms in the region.... At the national level, the crisis has grown beyond the ability of Darfur authorities to handle.... Internationally, it has to be said that certain powers especially the United States want to use Darfur to implement their plan of regime change in Sudan.”
See Also
A Brief History of Sudan’s Conflicts
Sources
Anderson, S. “How did Darfur Happen?” New York Times, 2004
De Waal, Alex. “Darfur – the Crisis Explained” Prospect Magazine, Issue 132, March 2007
Djimeli, Alexandre T. Darfur: Beyond War, 2007.
Dallaire, Romeo. “Looking at Darfur, Seeing Rwanda.” The New York Times, 2004
Tongkeh Joseph Fowale - Tongkeh Joseph Fowale is a post graduate student of International Public Affairs at LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome - Italy.
