Africa

Darfur: The Colonial struggle over Sudan

 As the West lead by George Bush and the outgoing Tony Blair have seemingly ratcheted up the pressure on Sudan over Darfur, once again the world is being told by the West that intervention in Darfur is urgently needed to save lives. Yet the reality is that Sudan, and the conflict in Darfur, is a result of the intense conflict between the major western nations over control of the regions natural resources.  The new incoming leaders of Britain and France, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have recently declared that they will personally travel together to Darfur to help end the fighting there. Britain and France they said would help end "one of the great humanitarian disasters".

Sudan is a country which since it's independence from Britain in 1956 has been plagued by outside interference. The Sudanese civil war, which lasted for decades, is a prime example of how state actors such as America have opportunistically preyed on such situations for strategic advantage.

It is well established that America actively aided and supported the minority Christian rebels in Southern Sudan both diplomatically and militarily by providing them with arms without which the rebels would not have had the success they enjoyed in forcing the Sudanese government to sue for peace. This culminated with the eventual termination of the civil war in which the main rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Sudanese government signed and formalised a peace agreement brokered by the Americans, more commonly known as the Naivasha peace accord, in January 2005.

An examination of the terms of this agreement illustrates just how bad this agreement actually is for Sudan's territorial integrity. The southern region is now autonomous. The agreement allows the rebels to set up their own banking system and recognises the rebels' armed militias as a separate distinct legitimate force which is allowed to continue to exist supposedly as 'part' of the main Sudanese army. Crucially the South now has the ability to raise it's own taxes as well as taking a separate share of oil revenues generated in the South – all of these elements are the essential building blocks of a separate state. This is an interim arrangement set to last a period of 6 years, expiring in 2011, after which the agreement allows the South to hold a referendum on whether to seek full independence from Sudan. Given what has happened, how likely is it that the South will remain part of Sudan?

What is ironic about this agreement is that the Christians only constitute about 5% of Sudan's population. Yet they have effectively achieved what they wished for, which  years of fighting could not. No country or state in the world would willingly relinquish any territory over which it has sovereignty but that is exactly what the outcome here will almost certainly be. America, which brokered the agreement, is of course the big winner as it gains leverage over the new regime which would never be able to survive without patronage from it's mentor which it is nurturing since birth. The foolishness of the Sudanese regime in signing such an agreement is apparent for in return America stands to gain a stronger foothold in an oil rich region. Why should it not push on to carve up the rest of Sudan, currently the largest country in Africa constituting 8% of the landmass?

America though of course is not alone in this pursuit. It is precisely this fact that Sudan and the surrounding areas are rich in oil and other natural resources which continue to draw predators such as America. Not to be outdone and left behind, Britain and France have opportunistically sought to exploit the Darfur tragedy, which started in 2004 just as the civil war peace agreement was being tied up. Is this mere coincidence? It is more likely that it dawned upon these time tested colonial European powers that they are likely to be left out in the cold with America gaining huge influence at the expense of others. History shows that civil wars and rebellions are unlikely to flourish without outside help.

In the past European countries directly colonised whole swathes of Africa using their armies. Parts of what are now Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Namibia were ruled by Germany. Italy carved up parts of Eritrea and Somalia. Spain established a foothold in Western Africa. The Portuguese held onto Angola, Mozambique, and other smaller territories. Belgium brutally ruled over the Congo and Britain created its mandates throughout East Africa and in what is today Sudan, Ghana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Nigeria. France set itself up in a dozen West African nations, including Senegal and the Ivory Coast, as well as in Chad, Madagascar, and the Comoros. For decades, Africa provided them with open markets for goods. More importantly Africa also supplied the Europeans with cheap or in many cases free raw materials such as cotton, rubber, tea, and tin and of course free human labour through the slave trade. All of this was aided by unhindered missionary efforts to help pacify the presence of European colonisers among the 'natives'.

That is why the French and British welcomed the passing of UN resolution 1706 in August 2006 calling for the deployment of UN 'peacekeepers' to supplement the 7000 African Union troops. The deployment of the African Union troops alone does not serve European interests – however, the presence of UN troops allows the possibility that European countries can also get directly involved, the first step in loosening Sudan's sovereignty over Darfur by seeking to 'Internationalise' the issue. This is why France has gone even further by threatening to place French, European troops on the Chad /Sudanese border because the Americans, whilst making lots of diplomatic announcements, have dragged their feet over UN troop deployments. Bush announced unilateral ‘sanctions' against Sudan on 29th May 2007, which amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. Only in June 2007 has the Sudanese government agreed to a 'hybrid' UN force of 20,000 troops made up of both African Union and non-African troops after coming under sustained pressure from other countries. Why should the Americans allow others a foot in the door when they are already sitting at the dinner table in Southern Sudan?

France has traditionally been the dominant Western power in Central Africa. From the Ivory Coast to Chad to the Central Africa Republic, France has troops stationed there today.

This is why France recently hosted it's own 'Darfur Peace conference' in Paris. Yet no one either from Sudan, the Darfur rebels or the surrounding countries such as Chad was even invited. France's new President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that 'Darfur should not be forgotten' and that French troops would help to open 'humanitarian corridors of aid' from neighbouring Chad to Darfur. Such is the French desperation that it should not be forgotten in this new African oil rush.

Britain too for it's part has done everything in trying to exploit the issue by using it's media, celebrities and NGOs to politicise Darfur. The British government has projected an image that Darfur is a critical issue but all the while forgetting it's part in the Iraq war where more than 650,000 Iraqis have been directly or indirectly murdered. This apparent concern by the British and others has to be seen in context. It is clear that countries such as America, Britain and France are salivating at the prospects of gaining access to this newly found oil and mineral wealth in the region.

That is why the French and Americans maintain interests in neighbouring Chad. The French, former colonial masters of Chad, have troops stationed there. In the neighbouring Central African Republic it has been carrying out raids against rebels fighting the pro-French regime there. American oil companies have moved into Chad to exploit it's oil reserves. As for Sudan, as far back as the 1970s, before Sudan's civil war first started, American oil giant Chevron spent $1.2 billion dollars prospecting for new oil in Sudan. However after being kicked out of Sudan it was only a matter of time before America helped engineer and partly finance Sudan's civil war by backing the Christian rebels.

Today what complicates this ugly situation is keen interest from China in Africa. With China's growing energy hungry economy and an increasingly unstable and arguably less predictable Middle East, China wants to dominate and take the largest resource slice out of Africa. Powerful states such as China are anxiously looking to diversify and find new alternative energy sources.

China sources an estimated 30% of it's oil needs from Africa. In Sudan it has invested more than $5 billion dollars as it uses up to 80% of Sudan's daily domestic production estimated anywhere between 500,000-750,000 barrels of oil per day. It is estimated that Sudan holds at least 5 billion barrels of oil, mostly located in the South. In Zambia, China the world's largest copper consumer has invested more than $800 million in a country, which is one of the world's largest copper producers. China whilst still a developing country in many respects and a recent new comer to this colonial game, is displaying the same instincts that a nation state does in order to better itself. Naturally as a result China is close to the Sudanese regime, supplying it with weapons and military aid. However it seems to be adept at wooing many African states by providing lucrative deals to poorer countries in Africa in pursuit of their raw materials.

China is offering and giving out money with almost no strings attached for development projects such as roads, schools and the like. Unlike Western powers which use tools such as the IMF and World Bank to give out extortionate interest based loans to corrupt elites in poor countries, thereby holding their them economically hostage, China is offering bargain deals. Compared to the $2.3 billion dollars given out by the US supported World bank for all sub-Saharan Africa, China committed $8 billion dollars to Nigeria, Mozambique and Angola alone with no conditions attached in 2006. It is hardly surprising then that 40 heads of African states made their way to attend a Beijing hosted 'Africa summit' in November 2006.

China is fast making inroads into the African continent a position once exclusively enjoyed by western states. What makes it even more galling for the West is that unlike themselves China has not even used it's growing military muscle to gain this influence, which of course is only inevitable as it becomes economically stronger. This of course though is the conundrum: control the oil and you'll effectively control your competitor's economic growth without which there can be no effective military strength.

It is inevitable that states such as America, China and to a lesser extent France, Britain and others will compete and come into conflict with each other over an oil rich region such as Sudan. Russia recently announced it's claim to an oil rich portion of the Arctic. With global oil supplies becoming more insecure and diminishing every day, every effort is being made to secure all known sources. For the people of Sudan, Darfur unfortunately just so happens to be one such region. Western countries have used every card in this battle as they have sought to make much out of China's support of the corrupt Sudanese regime, accusing it of supporting a human right's violator. Yes this is true, the Sudanese regime has been complicit in the killing of it's own Muslim people in Darfur, up to 250,000 people with up to another 2 million displaced. But what is also true is  the duplicitous nature of the international community who continue their support for the brutal corrupt regimes across the Muslim world such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This is why countries like America are setting up shop in the horn of Africa, courting client states in the region like Ethiopia and Djibouti which have been instrumental in helping America depose of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia. Even the Sudanese regime has been co-operating with America where it has had an overlap of interests, supplying intelligence on the resistance to America in Iraq, once again showing the dubious nature of the Sudanese regime. With recent reports indicating America is looking to house it's newly created African command 'Africom' in North Africa, it is clear that all of these activities are not unrelated; they are designed to strengthen America's grip in the region, looking to displace France as the regional powerbroker. 

Darfur today is witnessing Muslims fighting over ethnic and tribal land disputes. An 'Arab' or 'African' carries no favourable distinction as far as Allah (SWT) is concerned. But the tragedy is that outside forces are ready and able to exploit this Muslim weakness in the lands of Sudan to establish their hegemony off the back of Muslim blood to secure their own interests. This is happening whilst the Muslim rulers wilfully and deliberately ignore the immense suffering of the Muslims in Sudan today.