Sudan and Darfur: Our Analysis

More than 300,000 people may have been killed in the Sudanese region of Darfur over the last two years. Above one million people are refugees, while thousands of children die from diseases and starvation. Hundreds more have been reported kidnapped and raped, and the butcher's bill runs on and on. These heartbreaking statistics are real, but they leave one thing out: the villains, as well as the victims, are all Muslims; and there is no kafir occupier to blame this time. The Muslim Ummah knows all too well about the tragedies in Iraq and Palestine; but many Muslims don't know that Sudan is also a major problem, and has been for years.

At HF2T, unlike certain "Muslim leaders" in North America today, we do not accept the idea that Muslims should stay silent and forget about what is going on in the rest of the world. Instead, it is absolutely imperative that all of us Believers know what is going on beyond our shores. Our beloved Prophet (SAAW) once said, "The one who does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not a Muslim." (Sahih Muslim) On that note, there are many lessons to learn about Sudan and Darfur; therefore, we construct this analysis to give our readers details they are unlikely to find in the American media, including the larger publications for Muslims.

Understanding the politics of any given place requires plenty of background knowledge, including history. Without this, one risks reaching wrong conclusions, or worse still, run wild with "conspiracy theories" that just don't fit past and present facts.

In the case of Sudan, we have the largest country in North Africa. Just by itself, it is the size of Western Europe. It is also full of riches, agricultural and pastoral, as well as gold, chrome, mica, and, most recently, oil. It borders eight other countries, the most important of which is Egypt.

And here, we discover why Sudan matters so much: namely the Nile River, formed by its "White" and "Blue" tributaries joining at Khartoum. It is the longest river in the world, collecting water from as far away as Ethiopia and Uganda; then it runs north straight through Nubia into the "population center of the Arab World." The Nile is absolutely vital to Egypt as its only major source of fresh water. Because of this utter dependence on Nile water, a hostile power in Sudan easily can shut off the tap, disrupt Egypt's ecology, and thus pressure its economy. (This is already happening elsewhere in the world. With the dams and barrages it built across the Ganges river, India has diverted for itself over half of the water that used to run downstream into Bangladesh-and threatens to take even more. This has resulted in permanent drought for much of what used to be East Pakistan, and the destruction of even more cropland by the infiltration of salty ocean water into now-dead riverbeds. In the possible future, were an Islamic State to start in say, Egypt, we could well imagine the sudden appearance of American or European engineers in Khartoum with the blueprints for a big dam project in northern Sudan!)

As for Sudan's political history, Islamic rulers affiliated with the Uthmani Khilafah led the country for several centuries until the 1880's, when the British took control. This conquest was a clear attempt by the United Kingdom to control the Nile River valley by putting down the Muslims of the Mahdist Revolution.

While Sudan was under British authority, the colonial administration passed the "Closed Districts Ordinances" in the 1920's. These were a series of laws designed to define southern Sudan as a country separate from northern Sudan. Prior to British rule, the peoples of the north and south already had their differences, but these new ordinances added fuel to the fire. They barred northern Sudanese from entering or working in the south. In addition, nobody could do da'wah in the southern provinces, while Christian missionaries got free rein. Even the Arabic language and customs were outlawed in the south. Behind it all was the old British trick of "divide and rule:" play one group against another; and while they are busy fighting, you get to be referee and pillage the land's resources as your reward!

During this period, the British only developed the Nile valley's settled areas. They extended telegraph and rail lines to link key points in northern Sudan, but their services did not reach far beyond. They also built irrigation works to cultivate high-quality cotton for Britain's textile industry, and planters sent cotton by rail from Sannar to Port Sudan for shipment abroad. The only areas benefiting from this were some parts of northern Sudan, while the rest of the country remained underdeveloped and starved, especially the south, which remained closed off.

After World War II, the British Empire lost considerable power throughout the world. In an effort to maintain her grip over Sudan despite failing resources, the British decided to administer Sudan as one country again. At the Juba conference of 1947, all "closed door" ordinances were abolished; and control over southern Sudan returned to the central government. But by now, separation had done its damage; and the southerners were violently opposed to rule from Khartoum.

Soon, the British faced immense international pressure, mainly from their American "friends," to withdraw their troops from different parts of the world, including Sudan. In 1956, the British did leave; but they managed to appoint puppet rulers groomed to stay loyal to them. (This has been a common trick among imperialist countries. Even these days, when the United States ended her oppressive war against the Muslims of Afghanistan in 2002, General Tommy Franks did not rule the country directly. Instead, the US set up a loyal puppet government led by Hamid Karzai.)

This was called the "independence of Sudan," but it did nothing for the stability of the country. The seed of separation between the south and the north was well planted, plunging Sudan into continuous political, constitutional, and economic crisis to this day. From 1956 to 1989, successive governments tried to rule the country; but the constant clash between the north and the south brought them all down. In addition, each government has been little better than a pawn in a fierce struggle between imperialist countries seeking new ways to control the region.

The most recent significant governmental change in Sudan was a US-instigated military coup in 1989, led by General Omar al-Bashir. Bashir, Sudan's current President, was trained militarily and ideologically by the US's puppet regime in Egypt. The government structure he runs resembles that of his predecessors: an oppressive military régime with Islamic trimmings. Bashir is best known for continuing a brutal war against the south costing the lives of over two million people. Many people refer to Bashir as "Africa's Saddam Hussein." Of course, this "Saddam" still works for Washington.

It's important to note that for years, America has done much to keep the killing going on. Following the steps of the British, the US continued to exploit differences between the north and south. It indirectly provided economic support to Bashir's government through IMF and World Bank loans. At the same time, though, Washington also backed the Sudan People's Liberation Army Movement (SPLA) in the south. These seemingly inconsistent acts fueled Sudan's instability, offering the western superpower continuous opportunities to intervene and pressure the local government as needed.

It is fair to say that Washington is not interested in the hundreds of people who die each day in Sudan; its game is about managing instability. If the US doesn't "stir the pot" by putting money and weapons where they'll cause the most trouble, then it loses its excuse to interfere in Khartoum. On the other hand, if instability grows too far out of control, there is risk of rival powers (Britain? the European Union?) re-intervening and interfering with Washington's control over Sudan and the upper Nile valley.

For his part, the puppet Bashir has made a mockery of Islamic government. He does not implement Qur'an and Sunnah in all aspects of Sudan's system, which would have provided genuine justice for his people, in the south as well as the north. Instead, he deceives the Muslims of Sudan by enforcing a few rules of Shari`ah on the weak -the hudud laws again!-to disguise his betrayal. In truth, Omar al Bashir is just another US-backed dictator, like Husni Mubarak in Egypt.

What does this have to do with Darfur? This region is in dry western Sudan, far away from more exploitable zones near the Nile River. Like the south, Darfur has a history of marginalization and underdevelopment. Well before the present régime, the people there also have expressed their dissatisfaction by rebellions against the government of the day. Trouble has been there long before it was "discovered" this year.

Because the civil war in the south drained them, previous governments, like that of Sadiq al-Mahdi, dealt with rebellions in Darfur by supporting a limited number of tribes against the rebels. The logic behind this policy was simple, if criminally short-sighted: if you can't do your Islamic duty to take care of all the people in Sudan, just pay off a few loyal tribes, make them strong and powerful, then let them beat down the rest.

When Bashir came to power, he continued what had become a well-established practice and supported the tribes that fed the "Janjaweed." They are, in essence, a government sponsored local militia group, given a free hand to wreak havoc on villages suspected of supporting the rebellion in Darfur. To do this, they have used different terror tactics, including rape, looting, kidnapping, and mass murder. Sometimes, the Janjaweed even got support from the bombers of the Sudanese air force.

If the situation in Darfur has gone on so many years, why is the media only covering the tragedy now? We at HF2T believe that there was a turning point in early 2002, when Washington decided to change its Sudan policy and settle the conflict between north and south for ever. Had the superpower's officials suddenly grown a conscience? Apparently not: continuing instability was now offering new opportunities for new players (particularly the Europeans) to interfere in Sudan.

In July 2002, Bashir suddenly signed the "Machakos Protocol," a document accepting autonomy for the south after six years. The civil war did not end then, but it was considered a breakthrough in negotiations. Shortly after this, more meetings were conducted to slowly bring the two sides together.

Fairly soon after, the Europeans began realizing that the US was very close to attaining her goal of locking them out of Sudan. Therefore, as an attempt to disrupt the negotiations, they used the ongoing situation in Darfur as an excuse to interfere further in Sudan.

The British press, particularly the BBC, was the first to excite international awareness about Darfur. However, there was no talk about an old conflict; the events in Darfur were described as a new crisis needing immediate attention from the international community. The other European media followed suit: they called the situation a human disaster, a potential genocide that needed immediate intervention from outside. This reporting embarrassed the United States, for how could it declare a victory for peace in Sudan while mass murder was going on?

At first, Washington tried to deal with European pressure by downplaying the Darfur issue. While the British media first started reporting in earnest about the "new" crisis in November 2003, the US media didn't touch the story till over 5 months later! Only when the situation reached international notoriety did America openly address Darfur and take action. Had the problem remained under control and hushed up, it is safe to say that Washington still would not have done a thing.

Having successfully caught the world's attention, the Europeans then used the United Nations to try getting a foot back into Sudan. First it was decided that African peacekeeping troops should enter Sudan. The British supplied the funding, and the French provided logistical support through their bases in neighboring Chad. Then, Paris talked for a time about sending European troops into Sudan; but it was agreed instead that more Africans would be deployed. Last of all, sanctions against Sudan were proposed. This would directly involve the United Nations in Sudan, giving the Europeans the chance to dip their hands even deeper.

This threat of sanctions put Washington in an awkward spot. If the US didn't accept the sanctions, its support for Bashir would be clearly exposed. On the other hand, sanctions would have meant getting the Europeans involved, which the US definitely didn't want. Therefore in typical US fasion, they played both sides of the coin. Washington responded to Darfur by declaring it a definite genocide, and began openly calling for sanctions on Sudan. But on the other side, the US attempted to use the ongoing peace negotiations between the north and the south to help and relieve Bashir's government. On November 19th 2004, in Kenya, the United States pushed the UN to pass a new resolution, giving Bashir's government a mandate to settle the conflict with the south and Darfur at the same time. This resolution helps Bashir because it postpones the sanctions and still would allow the US to acomplish here goal in Sudan.

Most recently, this attempt by the US proved successful. On Sunday January 9th, Bashir's government signed a peace agreement with the South. But when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked whether or not genocide was still taking place in Darfur considering this new peace agreement, he declined to comment.

Aid agencies already are calling this peace agreement weak and without effect for Darfur. So it seems for now, the neo-imperialist tug-of-war over Sudan likely will continue.

In conclusion, we at Halalfoodforthought.com see three main points for Muslims to keep in mind.

a) The western/imperialist interference in countries like Sudan is not just about OIL.

Researching this topic, we ran across some Sudan analyses from Marxist-socialist and leftist groups. They tend to see all neo-imperialist conflicts in the world today in terms of controlling oil. In this case, they say that the US, Britain, France, and China are competing over Sudan because of its newly-found oil wells. That might be one incentive for countries like the USA, but it's not the primary objective. Remember that this part of the world is dry, making fresh water even more vital than oil. Oil generates profit, but fresh water sustains lives. Thus, to a superpower like the United States, the big picture is about power, not just profit; and power over this area means controlling the Nile.

This merits mentioning because many Muslims today are making the mistake of adopting leftist analyses, because these don't come from the Republican Party. It is vital that Muslims have an in-depth understanding of political realities as the result of careful, critical analysis. The physician cannot cure a disease if he or she does not possess an adequate understanding of the problem itself. (For example in Iraq, we cannot simply say that America is there just to get Iraq's oil. This simplistic leftist approach overlooks Washington's real goals. We Muslims must never forget that America is trying to increase her global power by re-colonizing the Middle East-and permanently change Islam in the process.)

b) The situation in Sudan and Darfur is not unique: it is a result of global power struggle among imperialist countries

Sadly enough, there is nothing exceptional about the situation in Darfur. Throughout the underdeveloped world, particularly in Africa, starvation, mass displacement of populations, torture, rape, pillage and massacres are commonplace. In Congo for example, over 3 million people have died over the last six years in brutal civil wars that have been encouraged by imperialist rivals.

We Muslims must recognize that failing countries like Sudan owe their very existence to the capitalist system and ideology that the "Great Powers" propagate. This state of affairs will not change until the world recognizes Islam's system-not socialism-as an alternative.

c) Even though Sudan claims to be an Islamic state, it clearly is NOT

We Muslims are convinced that the Deen is complete and has an answer for every problem. Islam teaches us everything from how to pray, how to do Hajj, how to do business, how to treat one's parents, even how to run a country. For the sake of our Islamic revival, we Muslims must re-learn lost areas of Islam, like Islamic economics, Usul ul Fiqh, the Islamic social system, and most importantly, the Islamic political system followed by our beloved Prophet (SAAW).

When a man like General Bashir declares to the world that Sudan is an Islamic State, we can then witness before Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) how his actions measure up. For instance, adopting a few Islamic laws for the weak and powerless only (e.g., whipping public drunks) does not make a country a real-deal Islamic State. From the beginning, the state also has to be completely autonomous, self-sufficient, capable of properly defending itself, and provide the basic necessities of life for its people, Muslim or not.

Bashir's Sudan is a country that survives solely on foreign aid, doesn't cultivate Sudan's vast riches for its people, and allows foreign troops on its land. These are just a few reasons why the country of Sudan falls far short of what the Islamic State should be.

Unfortunately, people like Bashir are a disgrace to the term "Islamic State"; and they confuse the naïve. That's why it's our job to re-learn our Islamic sciences and reeducate the Ummah. If we all don't do it now, we promise you that America will teach the Ummah something else entirely, starting with the Muslims of Iraq. (Submitted 12/17/2004)