|
Should U.S. intervention in
Sudan be supported? A Closer Look
By Ken Morgan
05/29/07 "Baltimore
Times" -- - The perils that confront the people
of Sudan and the hurdles facing them are deeply rooted. The
bloodshed and human suffering are real. As a consequence of the
war in the Darfur region of Sudan alone, over 200,000 Sudanese
have been killed and over two million have been made homeless.
The U.S. calls Sudan a failed and rogue state. Its internal
conflicts are portrayed as a fight between Muslims and non-
Muslims and blacks and Arabs. A study of the history of Sudan,
especially the modern era impact of external political and
economic forces from just before the turn of the 20th century to
the present, contradicts and distorts those simple labelings.
Debate continues as to whether the U.S. should militarily
intervene directly or through the UN in Sudan. Democrats and the
Bush administration, as well as prominent black leaders such as
Al Sharpton, Barack Obama and Charles Rangel, have called for
U.S. intervention. They also call for additional sanctions
against Sudan. A glimpse of the history of Sudan, the past and
present U.S. role in Africa and its increased military presence
calls to question the genuineness of U.S humanitarian concern as
a reason for intervening and the well-meaning, but misguided
stamp of approval of some black leaders for U.S. intervention.
Brief Early History and Present Day Demographics
Sudan originated as part of the Kushite kingdoms also known as
Nubia and Meroë. Its origins date back to at least 1500 BC. The
kingdoms were located in what is now northern Sudan along the
Nile River. The history of Sudan, up until the British invasion
and takeover of Sudan in 1898, is dotted with Egyptian, Muslim,
Arab and Turkish influences, including religion. These
influences were accepted or rejected by the many different
ethnic peoples that made up the population.
According to the UN Profile, present day Sudan located in
Northern Africa is the largest African country. Its population
numbers 33 million people. Blacks make up 52 percent, Arabs 52
percent, Beja six percent, foreigners two percent and one
percent is identified as others. Religion wise, Sunni Muslims
compose 70 percent, indigenous beliefs 25 percent, and
Christians five percent mostly in the south and Khartoum.
Khartoum is the capital.
Sudan shares borders with Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, the
Central African Republic, Chad, Libya and Ethiopia. Despite a
wealth of resources such as oil, Sudan is one of the most
impoverished nations in the world.
External Forces of Imperialism: Divide and Conquer
The year 1898 saw the official beginning of British imperialism.
Britain pushed the differences among the peoples as a divide and
conquer ploy. Britain pushed south, north and west Sudanese
population differences. Other divisions it cultivated in the
semi-feudal country already rife with differences included
language, religion, and national origin differences.
The British colonial administration rationalized, that southern
Sudan was “not ready for exposure to the modern world.” Fewer
resources were devoted to this region. In the 1920s northern
Sudanese were prohibited in the south. The British also
discouraged Islam in the south and promoted indigenous tribal
cultures. One directive made the blacks in the southern
provinces officially different from northern Muslims.
Despite these divide and conquer tactics, some nationalistic
stirrings existed in the 1920s and again in the 1930s. These
stirrings weighted with the decline of Britain as the most
dominant capitalist power, replaced by the U.S. after WWII, and
seeing the handwriting on the wall, motivated it to reverse
directives mentioned earlier that created north and south
divisions. The people of the south resented northern Sudanese
taking the place of British officials, the imposing of Arabic as
a national language. Recoiling from their transfer to garrisons
under northern officers, southerners mutinied in August 1955,
just before official independence from Britain and Egyptian
condominium rule killing several hundred northerners. The
government then executed 70 southerners for sedition. Other
mutineers escaped to remote areas and organized themselves to
resist the Arab dominated Sudanese government. The northern --
southern region conflict lasted from 1955 through 1972 until a
negotiated accord took place.
The Continuing Legacy of Imperialism
Just after the beginning of this conflict, Sudan received its
independence on January 1, 1956. Its independence was born
without a national identity recognized by its entire people. It
was still strapped with the legacy of British imperialism, which
served to keep Sudan a semi-feudal underdeveloped society.
Ten years after 1972, the conflict resurfaced in 1983 and
continued for 20 years. A peace agreement was reached only in
2003. Created was a government of national unity. The agreement
said that the people in southern Sudan would in due course vote
whether the people would remain in the unity government or
establish an autonomous region in the south.
It was after the pact between Khartoum and the SPLA was reached
that the conflict in the Darfur region erupted. Darfur is a
remote region located in western Sudan. According to UN reports,
2003 marked the year when black Africans from the Darfur region
rebelled against the national government. It demanded an
improved infrastructure, oil revenues and power-sharing.
Government forces were then sent and what is reported by human
rights and rebel forces is that the Janjaweed, a Muslim Arab
militia was sent to combat the rebels. They say that the
Janjaweed are committing atrocities against civilians. The Sudan
Liberation Army/Movement, SLA/M, and the Justice and Equality
Movement, JEM are the primary rebel groups. These groups
demanded equal representation in the central government and
eradicating disparity between black Arabs and Africans in Sudan.
U.S. Role in Africa
The U.S. involvement in Africa over the last 40 or so years is
quite revealing. The year 1961 saw the U.S. and its imperialists
friends interfere in the Belgian Congo. The fingerprints of the
U.S. remain all over the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. In
1965, CIA backed military coup overthrew President Joseph
Kasavubu and ushered in Joseph Mobutu to power. In 1966, the
U.S. backed overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. Between 1976
and 1992 US CIA support for Angolan South -African backed rebels
in their attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of
Angola. In 1978, the U.S. helped to foment war between Ethiopia
and Somalia. The U.S. continued to support apartheid South
Africa almost up to the very end of the apartheid system and the
triumph of the Nelson Mandela led ANC. The U.S. provided support
for Rhodesia in its battle to maintain minority rule in what is
now Zimbabwe. The Clinton administration bombed Khartoum and
destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in the name of fighting
terrorism in 1993. The U.S. most recently in January 2007
facilitated the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia under the guise of
fighting terrorism.
The lure of oil, protecting oil and the supposed war against
terrorism has drawn a growing U.S. military presence in Africa.
The Gulf of Guinea is one such example. Reasoned speculation
exists that U.S. interest in Sudan is increased dramatically
because Sudan is the third largest African oil producing nation.
The U.S. Army recently set up an African Command and over the
years stepped up its military presence in Africa. The U.S.
trained Djibouti, Ethiopian and Keya military forces according
to the October 21 issue of USA Today. This past January, U.S.
helicopter gun ships bombed southern Somalia, to defeat the
retreating Somalian forces.
Current bases in Africa are located in Entebbe Uganda, Djibouti,
and Dakar, Senegal as well as smaller operations in Liberia and
Mauritania. São Tomé and Príncipe are targeted for U.S. military
base construction. The U.S. has garnered military cooperation
with such countries in Northern Africa as Morocco, and Egypt and
to a lesser extent with Algeria and Tunisia. The U.S. has
developed military pacts with governments such as Gabon and
Mauritania, Guinea Conakry and Rwanda. Factually, the U.S. has
become the major military partner in Africa, far outdistancing
former colonial powers such as Germany, France and Britain.
The past history of the U.S. role in Africa combined with its
current military presence that surpasses its imperialist rivals
suggests dubious U.S. humanitarian concerns regarding Sudan and
more interest in strengthening its African position to further
exploit and keep Sudan underdeveloped.
Many persons look to the UN to settle the problem, usually
through military intervention. The U.S. holds a lot of sway over
the UN. The U.S. and the other dominant powers sit on the UN
Security Council and use their prevailing military and economic
weight to get their way to serve their own self serving
interests masked under human concern. When it does not get its
way it simply ignores the UN such as the case of the U.S.
Invasion of Iraq. Other examples involving Africa include when
the U.S. government ignored UN trade sanctions against the
racist regimes in Southern Rhodesia--today Zimbabwe-and South
Africa.
U.S. Intervention Worsens the Problem
Militarily interfering worsens the state of affairs. The U.S.,
with probably the best or among the best trained armies in the
world and certainly the best equipped, cannot stop the
internecine fighting among different Iraqi groupings. Both U.S.
civilian and military leaders say that the violence will have to
be resolved politically. Although they do not admit it, U.S.
military involvement and presence is not the answer. Media “man
on the street polls” in the U.S. and Iraq agree.
The only true and lasting solution to the Sudan crisis lies
within the Sudanese people themselves to settle their problems
without outside military or political interference. Lift the
sanctions. Provide Sudan unconditional humanitarian assistance.
Cancel its debt.
Sources:
Afrol News. US. expands military presence in Africa. Retrieved
March 15, 2007. Retrieved from: afrol.com
Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. (n.d.). U.S. military
in Africa. Retrieved March 15, 2007. Retrieved from:
http://www.prairienet.org/acas/military/military06.html.
Metz H.C. (1991). Sudan: A country Study. Washington: GPO for
the Library of Congress, 1991.
Rodney, Walter.(1974). How Europe underdeveloped Africa.
Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1974.
Schraeder, P. J.(2002). United States Policy towards Africa:
Incrementalism, crisis and change. MA: Cambridge University
Press
United Nations. Sudan. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2007.
Retrieved from www.UN.org.
Click here
to comment on this and other articles
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
