|
The UN has given the Government of Khartoum the Warranty to Kill By Elie Smith eliesmith@yahoo.com
It is now 20 months or perhaps more, since the International Community began throwing crocodile tears over the pogrom taking place in the Sudan. To be precise, in the region of the Darfur, that is located on the Western part of that large country.
It is also more than 20 months now that the region of the Darfur has also become a household name in Western countries. As usual, it is always during negative things that Africa beams the airwaves.
However cruel and morbid the coming statement might sound, it is a child’s play compare to all the atrocities that has been going on in Africa, particularly now in Western Sudan. All the negative events now going on in the Sudan also has something positive in them.
The on going war has permitted the World nonetheless to know many parts of the Sudan, that would have been the exclusive reserve of anthropologists who are interested in the origins of man on earth.
It was the same case in September 19 2002 when the civil war started in Ivory Coast, that once prosperous French-speaking West African country.
A proof is the extensive coverage that Ivory Coast registered in France since the civil war began most notably within main steam papers such as Le Figaro (1).
The war in that West African country permitted most people to know the names of towns such as Mann and Bouake located in the West and North of Ivory Coast.
Before the war, nobody would have ever cared to look at a map to know where the above-mentioned towns were located. That is the only thing positive about the wars taking place in Africa that would sound cruel and morbid as above mentioned.
Nevertheless, on the other side of the coin, war is never a nice thing. It is always the cause of untold calamity, as it is currently the case in Darfur.
Although the Sudanese many wars are not going to end soon, the on going situation in the Darfur has given the World a slim opportunity to understand the operational mechanics of those at the helm of affairs in Khartoum.
While it was mentioned at a point that the war has helped many to know towns in war torn African countries, it is also important to point out that, the images of atrocities that wars sends and the stereotypes it nurses and creates has more damaging effects on the continent.
This is because, it has the potentials of turning off any group of people or organisations who wanted to bring any help to the destitute people who are victims of their own governments.
Though it is only now that the killings of the Darfur has began beaming the airwaves and also occupying spaces in the International Print Media especially Western ones, the killings had long started and it was well organised.
In fact, crime it seems is the only thing that most African government can best excel at, things, which are not beneficial to their people. Nonetheless, some governments on the continent are trying to take their citizens at heart. These rare birds are the very few human rights conscious governments that are found on the continent.
As for the government of Khartoum, in order to distant itself from its planned crimes, its decided this times around to subcontract the dirty job to the Janjaweeds.
A Negro Arab-speaking militia known for nothing, than it cruelty. They had earlier plied their sinister trade in Southern Sudan. At that time, it was against other fellow blacks.
Their only crime being that they were not Moslems. The current situation in Sudan’s Darfur regions bears the hallmark of Rwanda, under late General Juvenile Habyarimana.
He was supported as usual by France and observed helplessly by fellow African states. An action that gave the regime of Habyarimana more confidence, just as it is the case today with the Islamic regime in Khartoum ruled by General Omar EL Beshir.
The in action of most African governments has made the government of Khartoum more confident in carrying out its killing spree on the people it was supposed to protect, as it is the normal prerogative of any responsible government on earth.
What has thrown the Sudan like most other African countries into this current chaos is the chronic absence of Good governance or the tendencies now en vogue which state that, good governance could be adapted to local reality.
Nevertheless, the reality is that, Good governance is a thing that can not be africanised. In addition, the protection of ordinary citizens is universal. The problem in the Sudan today could happen elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East.
It is not just an ordinary problem pitting as it is currently the case in Sudan, black-speaking Arabs against non-Arabic blacks. It is a far more deeper and complex palaver.
Cruel as it might sound there is a precedent to such Moslem on Moslem African feud. In 1989, a similar conflict break out in a West African country called Mauritania.
In that conflict, Maures, who claim to be “whites” had to kill millions of none Maurish-Negro Mauritanians who were themselves Moslems. The genocide that took place in Mauritania in 1989 just like the current one in the Sudan, were supervised by the respective governments of these countries.
The on going merry-go-round of continental feuds that draws varying degree of publicity in the globe presently has many causes. However, the real causes that no one can dispute are first the complete lack of good governance and secondly the absence of real multiparty democracy in most African countries.
The lack of real democracy has made Africa to be the nest of instability.
Today in the Sudan, just as it was the case with Mauritania in the past, two countries that claim to belong to the Arab World, these governments have refused or ignored to solve crisis within their countries democratically, an act that has given room to all sorts of activities.
Nevertheless, the government of Khartoum’s procrastination to solve the Darfur crisis has boosted the raison d’être behind the calls made by President George Bush for the promotion of multiparty democracy in the Greater Middle East and most of the Islamic World.
This is because, Sudan, though a predominantly black African country, but those governing have puts her within the orbits of the Greater Middle Eastern region, were democratic values are absent. Therefore, contrary to what some critics of the Bush administration might say, the call made by the American President for a fundamental political change in the Middle East and the whole Islamic World holds water.
This is because, had there been any Democracy in the Greater Middle East, they would have been voices that would have stood up against the savagery of the Khartoum government.
Instead, what is being heard are the usual sordid complacency and conspiracy theories churned in a section of the Press in the Arab and Moslem World including a particular crop of journalists in the West, who are supporting what is going on in the Sudan.
Sadly, most Arab and African governments are making lackadaisical criticism about the horrors of the governments of Khartoum.
Even in this limited disapproval from some African and Arab governments their good wills are not taken into consideration because they are drown in an ocean of political propaganda spread and sustained by Islamists and a combination of anti Americanism.
This is because it is believed in some quarters and sustained by large groups than the two latter mentioned that, Sudan’s problem is a creation of the United States of America.
In their an anti American obsession, they fail to take the ancestral rivalries that have always existed in Sudan between blacks who speak black African tongues and those that have been “Arabbised” and supported by native Arab countries.
Nevertheless, the lack of Democracy is not the panache only of the countries within the Greater Middle Eastern regions, it also the case with most of Africa. Although it is worth pointing out that, multiparty Democracy is growing and succeeding in Africa more than what most ardent critics of the continent can admit.
The other problem with the Sudan like in most African countries is the absence of any prospect of self-determination. Even the ancestor of the current continental governing body, the African Union, has not given self-determination any due considerations.
By ignoring such a worthwhile disposition, they are making people that knew each other’s existence but never expected to live together in a modern state, live like people in bondage.
The lack of any perspective for self-determination has fortunately or not, have compelled the various independent communities who populated the African continent before the advent of colonialism to live together with no prospect of ever evading atrocities, as it is currently the case in Darfur.
Had the African Union enshrine the right to self-determination in its charter and taken measures to implement them, most problems in African countries today will be solved through referendums.
This opportunity would have given greater chances to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary populace and also force governments to treat all its citizens and regions fairly for fear that the contrary might lead to break up.
Hence, in the absence of any clear alternatives, the results has been 20 months and more of mayhem, installed and institutionalised in Darfur by the government of Sudan which is a case of savagery that is quite impressive.
50 thousand or more deaths, one or more millions presently displaced and about two hundred thousand and above, toiling and languishing on the borders of Chad and in refugee camps within Sudan.
Before Darfur, the people of Southern Sudan who are majority Animist and Christians were the ones who suffered in the hands of the dreadful Janjaweeds. An Arabo-Negro Militia group, whose boldness still defies all imaginable understanding.
The respite of the people of Southern Sudan from the combined hands of the Janjaweeds and the Sudan’s government Army only came when George Walker Bush came to power and decided to talk tough with the authorities in Khartoum.
Nevertheless, all is not over yet for the people of Southern Sudan, because the Khartoum government though they have signed a comprehensive peace Plan/Deal that puts an end to the 20 years old civil war in the South, they might change their minds.
That is why the International Community and the African Union must be very vigilant in its monitoring of the respect of the Peace Deal.
It is also certain that, had Bush and his Republicans party lost the November 2nd 2004 Presidential elections, fighting would have resumed in the South.
This is because, John Kerry the Democratic Party flag bearer, would not have had the same interest in the Blacks and Christians of Southern Sudan, as does the current occupant of the White House.
Whatever reasons might be currently being advanced regarding the war now in Darfur, the attitude of President Beshir is very defiant. This is because, instead of accepting negotiations and negotiators, he is trying to be choosy as published in the French daily Le Figaro (2) a situation that is not helping matters.
The Irony
In spite all the atrocities going on in the Darfur regions, there are still some people who think that, the people of that region should be sacrificed on the altar of unity and the fear of punishing an Islamic state for her crimes.
It is as though the preservation of the unity of Sudan will change the fate of its victims. On the contrary, if Sudan were disintegrated, those currently suffering would not have faced the on going afflictions.
This obsession with Unity and the preservation of borders inherited from colonialism is also why the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is existing today and making life miserable for ordinary people who want a peace that eludes them.
Even the present government of the Kingdom of Belgium is aware of the limitations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its current political leaders and their real desire to build a proper different from current virtual one (3).
As usual, the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or any other African governments accused of any shortcoming in the area of governance is always quick to react with violence.
A reaction that betrays the way they would have reacted unpropotionally toward their own very citizens.
Although the partitioning of the DRC which is a large failed African State, currently governed by a handful of corrupt elements; has not yet being considered it will not be long before that, option emerges.
However, when the government of Khartoum first began directing its guns on the Animists and Christians of the South, some people made philosophical conclusions to justify the savage war waged on Southern Sudanese (4).
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 UN’s security council, especially that of the 30th of July 2004 sounded as a passport handed to the government of Khartoum to finish their gruesome job in Darfur.
In addition, what many observers cannot understand is why the government of Sudan is being handled like a spoil child; while all resolutions against her has been regularly postponed and ignored by the incriminated administration in Khartoum?
It also sounded as though, the World body directed by Koffi Atta Annan was busy rewriting a tragic comedy to be staged on the rostrums of a new theatre hall called the Sudan.
The first one was written and played in Rwanda in 1994 and the same Annan was holding a senior but junior post if one compares it to his current post of responsibility. He is still an unwilling author leading in the inaction of his organisation in the theatre hall 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 killings or the genocide that took place in Rwanda, the International community behaved like a satisfied audience that has just finished watching a well-written play.
As usual, it was a mixed feeling that of regrets and self-questionings. It was a feeling that could be read on the faces of the stakeholders in the International Community. However, within a twinkle of an eye, all their good intentions, as well as the bad ones had gone.
Their reaction was similar to a man who observers himself in a mirror and forgets his real persona immediately he leaves the mirror. The situation in the Sudan is really a shame and needs an urgent action without any hesitations.
Travelling there and making ground breaking declarations and posing for the Press as the UN’s secretary general has just done will not help.
There is an urgent and long lasting solution for Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Western Sahara, and Somaliland, for failure to seek a cast iron solution will turn off people’s interest on the continent.
Nevertheless, the current situation in 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 on the right adjective to be used in order to describe the real situation in the Sudan.
It is as though 50 thousand deaths and million more displaced, does not make the conditions necessary to call it a genocide, already in place, there exist the hallmarks of well organised Rwandan style genocide.
However, it is commendable to note that, it is the current administration in the United States that is being vilified by a considerable part of the World that through Colin Powel, it former Secretary of State was courageous enough to call the Darfur crisis it rightful name. Genocide!
France
This country is the leading member of the European Union and 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 still indirectly running former French-speaking African colonies now independent states for the sake of the 1960 trends.
Notwithstanding, in other regions of Africa and 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, it always tries to through monkey wrench in the works.
The Sudan is one of such places in Africa and in the World where France through her President Jacque Chirac has been spoiling everything.
France it should be recalled challenged the “Niavasha Negotiations” (5) that was being brokered by John Danforth, only to come back and support it when its stratagems to derail it failed.
Furthermore, at the heats of the Sudanese crisis, Jacque Chirac choose to announced that he wanted to go and visit the Khartoum government of the Sudan.
This move from France has made the Sudan government to grow more feathers of confidence, because they know that, there is deep division within the Western camp as to what step should be taken on their country.
This double standard from France although it has recently asked its troops in Chad to move to the Eastern border with Sudan is not only enigmatic, it is also worrying (6).
This is because on one hand the action of France gives greater confidence to the government of Khartoum, while at the same time its calls on the International Community to help Chad, it is an approach that helps smokes things up the more.
Little wonder it was in France that, Mustapha Osman Ismail, the minister of foreign affairs of the Sudan choose to start challenging the British proposition of sending troops to Darfur (7).
He knew he was in France and in Europe, a continent of faint-hearted pleasures seeking political leaders and citizens. France it is also known has always given to cruel Arab leaders and all other countries with impressive deplorable records in human rights violations strong support.
Therefore it was not a surprise that, after the French declarations, the first African country that manifested it support when they decided to send their forces on the Eastern borders of Chad, which is just a foot into the troubled Darfur region was Egypt.
Al Zahawe Ibrahim Malik, the minister of foreign affairs of Egypt was the one who made the approval declaration of his country during a Press conference that he granted to journalist in Cairo.
Egypt is an African country with greater links with the Arab Middle East like most North African countries, that has never hidden its feelings to see the people of Southern Sudan crunched or even those of Darfur annihilated.
This is because in Cairo the problems of Darfur are regarded just as an extension to that of Southern Sudan badly solved. 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 the 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 that its 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 the 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.
That is why today the people of Iraq and the coalition are reaping the dangerous consequences, because France has poisoned the minds of the world and the Arabsphere to a level that anybody who wants to go and help stabilised Iraq is viewed as an enemy of the Iraqis.
Meanwhile hundred if it is not thousand of Iraqis are today suffering from the hand of a band of discontented people who ruled for 40 years with utmost brutality.
The irony is that today all those who are defiling the true image Islam and terrorising ordinary citizens are feted as heroes by people such George Galloway MP and a section of the so-called liberal Press. It simply means that in absurdity France, Germany, and the current government in Madrid Spain are not alone.
Africa
There is no justification to the in action of African states toward the situation in the Darfur. If Africans were so incompetent and insensitive as they are showing now, then there is a strong need to question why they even fought for their independence in the first place.
This is because; some African states are giving flimsy reasons in order to justify their inaction in Darfur. One of them is their endemic lack of funds.
The worse of all is that, some African countries are even going as far as soliciting the aide of those very countries they fought against to achieve their independence and who have left no stone un-turn to torpedo any African initiatives in similar cases.
The African continent has a continental governing body that has just changed its name from OAU (8) to AU (9). 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 inefficiencies of African governments in crisis management? The answers are yes and no.
It might be yes because, the AU has a moral role to play in most or all political and socio-economic activities taking place on the continent.
On the other hand, one can easily say No, because, since the creation of the Continental body its seems that its initial objectives has not changed very much.
When the continental body was created in the early 60’s, its objectives were first to fight for the independence of most of the continent. However, this part of the continental body’s programme can be said to have been achieve, although Western Sahara is still the last remaining African colony.
But after that phase, the continental body quickly became an organisation that regularly organise ball room dances for African leaders who parade around with their wives and a battalion of guests, usually fed by the taxes of people of their already poor and weak African states.
It is now apparent that upon assuming office, most leaders of the African continent had no project or plans of solving the ensuing crisis within African countries.
This partly explains why the problem of Western Sahara has not taken Central role in discussions of African leaders apart from some limited number of countries led by Algeria and South Africa.
In this regard, African leaders who meet either in Addis Ababa, the historic and mythical capital of the continental organisation or in other African capitals never cared to focus on conflict resolutions and the economic up liftment of their countries and the continent at large.
However, in case African leaders want the AU to be anything to be taken seriously and to become financially autonomous as well, they should have started to try to solve ensuing problems such the current case of the Darfur.
Nevertheless, to achieve this goal, it would have been nice for new conditions to be drawn up and submitted to all members of the AU. On the other hand, a new political body could also be created which will have stricter conditions to be met by any country willing to join instead of the current free for all member organisation.
By so doing, it would make the AU or the new appellation to be a double membership organisation, which means that, there will be one as stated above for a popular membership for all African countries. While there will be a second one that will be a more serious club with a defined plan for all those aspiring to join.
One condition would be that, all members pay promptly their membership fees and secondly aspiring countries should meet a certain economic and political level, which means the respect of Democratic values.
If these steps were taken in to consideration, it would go a long way to give the AU some solid financial autonomy, making it possible to deploy troops in trouble regions such as the Darfur without asking outside help.
Furthermore, it will make the Continental body to be present not only in the troubled regions of the continent, it will also make Africa present in other troubled spots of the globe such as the Balkans in Europe, the Middle East and in Haiti.
If the AU had Democratic norms that all members met before qualifying to join the club, more countries would have been willing to voice their disapproval toward the on going problems in the Sudan or in other parts of the 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. It will continue as long as some countries stay years without paying their membership fees.
In addition, as long as African countries remain members of the AU in spite the fact there are no minimum respect for human rights and Multiparty Democracy and no retribution is directed against Africa shall remain weak.
Hence, the coffers of the continental body shall always remind empty and making the continent dependent and vulnerable to manipulations of external forces whose acts of generosity must not be regarded as an act of philantrophy.
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 also why the question that needs to be asked is: why then does the AU creates high sounding sub organisations when the existing ones doesn’t even have the means to meet with its basic objectives?
There seem to be no immediate answer. The current Darfur crisis is not the first nor will it be 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 the Sudan presently, is a repetition of Rwanda on a more brutal and refined phase, whose repercussions will further deepen the divide between the two geographic divisions of the continent.
That is because the predominantly Moslem and Arabo-Berber North, and the predominantly black Negro and animist/Christian southern part of the continent all seem to be very sensitive on the out come of any crisis in the Sudan.
In order for the unwarranted calamitous end not to happen, the situation in the Darfur must be properly handled and managed. This is because; the situation in the Darfur besides any other considerations is embedded in the strong intricacies of African realities and historical background
Although the media has easily polarised the war in the Darfur as an affair pitting blacks against Arabs, generally presumed to be whites though not of indo European stock.
But in the Sudan, the conflicting or warring parties are not doing that base on pigmentation. Its seem more a battle between two set of blacks, one that have join the Arabs or want to be called that way and those that have chosen to remain authentic.
The matter is far more complicated and it would have been proper to label the Sudanese war especially that in the Darfur more as a tribal war like those in the greater lakes regions of Central Africa.
Eventhough changing the adjective does not give any room to condoned atrocities of any sorts on human beings.
With these complications in mind your humbled servant and author of this article has tried to look closer at those so-called “Janjaweeds” during a mass government commandeered demonstration in Khartoum, but found it difficult to make the difference between the people of Darfur and those on the government sides.
This crisis would have necessitated a strong African presence but due to financial difficulties and lack of political influence, the deployments of African troops are limited just to three wilful countries.
However, that is set to change, as the International community seems to have pledged more funds for the Darfur in order to beef up the presence of African troops on the field (10).
Notwithstanding how difficult it might be to accept that the limited deployment of African PeaceKeeping Forces in the Sudan, is partly ascribed to the lack of funds, there is also a strong need to point out that, the attitude of the government of Khartoum is not helping matters.
It is however worth recalling once again that, state sponsored terror on people governments have the responsibility to protect is a deja vu on the continent which also explains why there is a sort of reluctance from most African states to participate in Darfur.
Other African State Sponsored Terror
The other Internationally known African cases of state sponsored terror and mass killings are those that took place in Morocco in 1965 and 1975-76, similar state horrors have also taken place in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and now in Sudan.
All the victims in the above mentioned countries that looked like a merry-go-round of organised killings were directed against Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, poor demonstrators in Morocco and the people of Western Sahara.
While the other badges of state sponsored, terrors were on the people of Matabele land in Zimbabwe.
Frighteningly in all these atrocities never attracted any sympathies from African states and governments.
Nonetheless, the AU and its ancestor should be congratulated for having recognised Western Sahara although the enthusiasm put in other liberation struggles can not be commensurate to that which African countries have invested on the Western Saharan struggle.
However, the action of some African countries to recognise Western Sahara however symbolic has forced the Kingdom of Morocco to start seeking membership of the European Union.
This is because, the European Union is an organisation that acts like a child and that in its present dispensation does not care about human rights nor does it know its boundaries.
In addition, the European Union that the African Kingdom of Morocco wishes to joint is a political organisation that does not like its past. Hence, admission to membership of the European Union may come from any parts of the World
However, not all African countries are governed by a band of brutal and heartless dictators and at such do not care to help solve Africa’s many problems.
Nigeria
Nigeria, South Africa, and Libya are currently trying as best, as they possibly can to participate in problem solving and conflict prevention in Africa.
Nigeria in particular, since it return to real multiparty Democracy is more interested and highly sensitive to matters regarding Human rights violations and conflict resolution as well as prevention.
Hence, the governments of Nigeria and those of South Africa another African country with democratically elected officials is trying to solve the Darfur crisis
However, this has been made possible because the regimes in these two countries are Democratic, which shows that, where there is real Democracy, leaders are more interested in solving problems and criticising the causes because they do not have anything to reproach to themselves.
The example of Nigeria in crisis management is remarkable; especially the leading role that it played in sending troops to Liberia and Sierra Leon under the auspices of the ECOMOG (11).
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 she contributed to sabotage its efforts to restore peace in Liberia and Sierra Leon.
It is all the more shameful that, a big and responsible country such as Nigeria with its mighty economic and political influence in West Africa and beyond is not able to send soldiers independently to any part of the continent is worrying.
It is even more worrying when one takes into consideration the fact that; Nigeria has experiences in peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leon. Furthermore, she is not able to build an autonomous logistics in case there is a sudden surge in crisis like that, which is currently in the Darfur.
Ironically, the President of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo is calling for an African solution in the solving of the on going Darfur crisis (12).
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, so dear to the President of Nigeria ever worked?
Currently the AU has an estimated three thousand soldier on the field from South Africa Rwanda and Nigeria, it is ridiculous a show and manifests 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 raised funds in order for troops to be airborne into Darfur.
But these also shows that most African countries are not willing to send troops which is a manifestation of an unacceptable odious audacious and insidious capacity of solidarising with the crimes of the government of Khartoum.
This also shows that African governments have a thing or two to reproach themselves with, hence, they are not willing to send troops to the Sudan, and in order to justify their inaction they are advancing very flimsy reasons.
Britain
The role of Britain in the long bloody Sudanese wars can not be minimised. Britain is not only the colonial power that never took into consideration the intricacies that existed in its former colonies all most all the European former powers did the same.
Britain just like all other colonial forces had as their primary goal the safeguard of the interest before those of the people they were ruling and who relied.
It is worth noting that in most parts of the continent people now living in the same country use to ignore each other.
They lived according to tongues, tribes and religious believes. However, they knew the existence of each other but considered those who were not in their territories or did not share the same tongue as foreigners, because they did not belong to the same sphere.
It was only under colonial rule that that different tribes who had their own dichotomies were forcefully federated into one entity called countries or nation-states as they abound on the continent of Africa today.
What Britain did in Sudan was not commendable. By uniting, the predominantly Moslem Northern Sudan with majority animist and Christian Southern Sudan were an aberration and this set the pace for trouble.
Although there are some commendable projects that were carried out by Britain in the Sudan, such as the constructions of roads, hospitals, and schools, the unity of the North and South has come to crowd out whatever good things might have been carried in the Sudan.
Britain’s desire to unite people with different cultural backgrounds on the continent did not end with it failures in the Sudan.They willy-nilly carried out the same act in most of their former colonies in places such as Cameroon and Nigeria.
The result was the Nigerian civil war from 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 exist all the potentials for a civil war as well.
Administered separately, the predominantly Moslem North and the predominantly Christian south were united as Nation as soon the independence of the Sudan approached and sealed it was in 1956.
However, the two people who had very different religions and philosophies could not live together especially that Moslems have this religious propensity of always wanting to dominate none Moslems.
Therefore, since the independence of Sudan, peace has never lasted long than necessary. In fact, the only time peace existed in that country was 11 years and since then blood has continually flowed.
Nevertheless, the recent suggestion by Britain to send troops in the Sudan’s war torn Darfur regions was something praiseworthy.
It showed that the concern of the fate of the people of Sudan is above mere religious problems and that Britain wanted a lasting political solution to the problems of the Sudan.
Furthermore, the recent British manifestations is a proof of the willingness of the government of her majesty to redeem herself and her image in a conflict that it might have unwillfully created or orchestrated.
International Community
The United Nations has especially shown its partiality in the conflicts in the Sudan just as it has always done in all conflicts that takes place in Africa.
If it were not of the pressures of the Bush administration, all the hew and cries made by NGO’s would have fallen on deaf ears.
Whereas in the Balkans the reaction was swift, the statues-quo pruned European Union has not reacted to the organised killings in Western Sudan as it has done in other conflicts around the World.
Currently all sorts of stratagems are being hatched out as justifications of not intervening to stop the killings in Darfur. Some are even branding Islam as a sufficient reason not to intervene in the Sudan.
This position is 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 or just be present on the table.
The lacklustre EU has much influence on the UN secretary General who enjoys the French attitude of talking very much and doing very little.
The International community is ignoring the present campaign going on in the Sudan and within the Sudanese government controlled media to justify the situation in the Darfur.
It is not too long, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, the vice President of the Sudan he is also the one who lead the Sudanese government delegation during negotiations in Kenya with the SPLA (13), he has added his voice to the defiant posture of his regime on the Darfur.
The presence of French troops in Chad is no guarantee because already they have one thousand stand-by forces in Chad and they did nothing to stop the crisis even the Janjaweed have the effrontery to come into Chad to attack refugees without any reaction France.
France’s decision to send their forces on the eastern border of Chad has some ulterior motives. In 1994, France did send its forces to Rwanda but it was discovered later that, it was contrary to the officially declared objectives.
In fact the French went to Rwanda to support the regime of late General Juvenile Habyarimana an ethnic Hutus and also a large French-speaking community while the Tutsi who were the persecuted and seemingly English-speaking found no favours in the eyes of France.
Especially that, they had a rebel movement that was regarded as an English-speaking group and at such pro American. They were a justified enemy of the French who always consider itself to be at war eternally with the English-speaking World. It is difficult to admit that the International Community has not vigorously reacted to the problem in Darfur.
The only major countries that have shown remarkable reactions are the same ones, 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 the Sudanese and Africa’s many problems lies in the installation of what is lacking most, real multi party Democracy which bring with it, good governance.
Secondly, there is also a strong need for various African groups living in specific parts in any given country on the continent to be given the right to self-determination.
This is because, as already mentioned, most people are together today not because they wanted, but more by the desires of others. 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 strong personal desires.
The other major root causes of almost all-African conflicts are the endemic mis-management, and corruption of it leaders. The crises in Africa or the one currently in the Sudan are not caused only by poverty as most people might think. Although poverty is also a factor, that should not be neglected amongst the causes of African conflicts.
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 long as the absence of multi party democracy and transparency in management persist, no real serious investment will be directed toward 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 the people living in regions such as the Darfur, Somaliland, Western Sahara, Cabinda and all other troubled spots on the continent to have the possibility to decide on their future in colonially created entities.
Nevertheless, for that to happen, 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 and imbalance mounting of pressure in the respect and implementation of Democracy and Human rights.
This is because, it gives the wrong signals to pro-democracy activists and it also gives the dictators more chances to manoeuvres in order to brutalise their own citizens, just as Biya, Mugabe, Gbagbo and El Beshir are currently doing in their respectful countries.
Above all else, multi party democracies always have a positive end and earn large dividends in countries that do practice and implement it properly.
One showcase is Nigeria and if it continues on the current trend that the government of Obasanjo has taken, Nigerians in their large majority will reap form the best system of government that man has managed to invent and practice on earth.
However as Koffi Annan the head of the United Nations begins his tour of the Sudan on the 27th of May 2005, it necessary that he bears in his mind, that he is heading an Organisation that have failed to be on the side of the victims.
This is because he heads an organisation that is bedeviled with sterile debates and focuses on very trivial things while people suffer and die because of their bureaucracy. I hope that he will not believe a word from the mouths of those governing in Khartoum.
In addition, Mr. Annan should not forget that Africa has many other problems such the unfinished and unsolved problem of Western Sahara, Somaliland, and its bid for independence, Angola, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Legend: - -1 read Le Figaro (1) of Monday November 8th 2004 -2 read Le Figaro of Saturday 21st and Sunday 22nd of August 2004 -3 read Cœur D’Afrique Magazine of 18th and 19thMay-June 2005 -4 read the article of Bankie Forster Bankie in titled Pan African or African Union? Published in the journal African Renaissance N°3 volume 2 of May/June 2005.
-5 read the International Herald Tribune the 23rd -24th of October 2004 -6 Niavasha Negotiations: visit the website of the BBC at www.bbc.co.uk/africa/sudan -7 read Le Figaro of Friday 23rd July 2004 -8 OAU: organisation of African unity -9 AU: African Union -10 read the Financial Times of Friday May 27th 2005 -11 ECOMOG: Ecowas* 2 Monitoring Group -12 SPLA: Sudan People Liberation Army -13 Visit the website of the www.BBC/africa .com as indicated earlier -14 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. -Other website: http://www.adonis-abbey.com/ .
|