In case you aren't familiar with what's going on...
Save Darfur wrote:Sudan is Africa’s largest country, located just south of Egypt on the eastern edge of the Sahara desert. The Darfur region is a drought-prone area of western Sudan. By area, Darfur is roughly the size of Texas and is divided into three states that had a collective population of approximately 6 million people before the crisis in Darfur began in 2003. Darfurians exist largely on subsistence farming or nomadic herding. There are between 40 and 80 ethnic groups in Darfur. Most villages are multi-ethnic and, despite ethnic differences, there is a history of peaceful coexistence. Local languages include Arabic, Fur and Massalit.
The conflict in Darfur began in the spring of 2003 when two Darfuri rebel movements – the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) – launched attacks against government military installations as part of a campaign to fight against the historic political and economic marginalization of Darfur. The Sudanese government, at the time engaged in tense negotiations with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) to end a three decades long civil war between North and South Sudan, responded swiftly and viciously to extinguish the insurgency. Through coordinated military raids with government-armed militia (collectively known as the janjaweed), the Sudanese military specifically targeted ethnic groups from which the rebels received much of their support. The civilian casualties were immense. Over 400 villages were completely destroyed and millions of civilians were forced to flee their homes.
An immense humanitarian crisis resulted from the mass displacement of these civilians. From direct attacks and the deterioration of living conditions, many experts estimate that as many as 300,000 people lost their lives between 2003 and 2005. In September 2004, President George W. Bush declared the crisis in Darfur a “genocide” – the first time a sitting American president had made such a declaration regarding an ongoing conflict. Despite the world’s growing outcry, the violence continued in Darfur and the number of dead and displaced increased considerably.
In May 2006, the Sudanese government signed a peace agreement with one of the rebel movements (SLM-Minni Minawi). However, the Sudanese government continued to fight the two other groups (SLM-Abdel Wahid and JEM) that refused to sign the agreement. The rebels also suffered from serious internal divisions and due to political differences, the movements began to fight one another, making the conflict in Darfur even more complex and jeopardizing the lives of more civilians in the process.
The United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID) now in Darfur replaced an underfunded and underequipped African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur in January 2008. UNAMID to this day remains without the necessary resources to protect the 2.7 million internally displaced persons who live in large camps across Darfur. There are also around 300,000 Darfuri refugees living across the Sudanese border in neighbouring Chad. Overall, the UN estimates that roughly 4.7 million people in Darfur (out of a total population of roughly 6 million) are still affected by the conflict.
Today, fighting between the rebel movements and the government continues. In the last few years, opportunistic bandits and militias have also taken advantage of the anarchy in Darfur. General banditry and looting jeopardize humanitarian aid and gender-based crimes are now being committed by many different sides. Despite this chaotic environment, the Sudanese government remains the most responsible for the violence in Darfur. President al-Bashir and others in his government created the anarchic conditions presiding in Darfur today through their violent violent counterinsurgency campaign targeting innocent men, women and children. Furthermore, the Sudanese government has obstructed the deployment of an international peacekeeping force, avoided serious negotiations with the rebel groups, refused to prosecute any individuals responsible for crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, and most recently expelled thirteen international humanitarian aid groups from Darfur. These actions continue to leave many civilians in Darfur unprotected and dispossessed of their basic human rights.
Darfur: Underlying Tensions & Dispelling Myths
It is important to dispel a few common myths surrounding the conflict.
The first myth is that the crisis in Darfur is an Arab versus African conflict.
While the janjaweed are often described as Arab militias, this labeling does not imply that all Arabs in Darfur are fighting on the side of the janjaweed. Many Arabs in Darfur have actually opposed the janjaweed and some Arabs have fought with the rebel movements. Furthermore, Darfur is a diverse land – people speak many different languages. The terms “Arab” and “African” apply not only to ethnic and linguistic similarities but also to cultural and socio-economic connections. Intermarriage and mixed settlement makes it difficult to tell the difference between ethnic groups. It is true, however, that the conflict has intensified identity differences between groups in Darfur.
The second common myth is that the conflict is a dispute over water resources.
The Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa has been severely affected over the last twenty years by desertification which some climatologists attribute to global warming. Severe droughts have become more frequent in both Darfur and Chad. These droughts and general alterations in rain patterns have affected migration patterns of Darfuri nomadic tribes who breed cattle and camels. These changes subsequently led to increasing clashes between nomadic and sedentary farmers about the traditional land-tenure system. Most disputes, however, were handled through traditional means of consultation and arbitration.
The Sudanese government took advantage of rising tensions over land and water when it planned its response to the Darfuri rebel attacks in 2003. It sought recruits for the janjaweed from the nomadic tribes that had been most affected by the changes in weather patterns and land-tenure system. The government in some cases offered these tribes land and other financial incentives for their participation in the attacks against the largely sedentary tribes from which the rebel groups drew much of their support. Other theories about the conflict in Darfur being a result of oil or other natural resources do not have any real legitimacy.
It is also a common misperception that the conflict is Muslim versus Christian.
This is not correct. Ninety-nine percent of Darfurians are Muslim, and the leaders of the Sudanese government and the janjaweed that carried out the genocide in Darfur are predominantly Muslim.
More info: Eyes On Darfur, BBC News Q&A, PBS Frontline Documentary
And as for solutions, the UN is a useless piece of shit and China is vetoing everything it tries to pass to end the genocide because China gets a lot of its oil from Sudan, and it doesn't want to upset Sudan by interfering in the government-sanctioned genocide. A lot of the UN peacekeepers who have been allowed into Darfur have been kidnapped or killed by the janjaweed. It's not in any country's national interests to do anything to help, and in fact it would most likely harm any country that tried to help independent of the UN [regardless of the manpower or money required to help] because helping the people would mean upsetting China and Sudan, and you really don't want to upset China.
Anywho...thoughts?
America, England, Russia, China.... hell, most developed countries have the military and diplomatic capabilities to intervine with no/ few collateral casualties, which means the killing could be stopped (or at least reduced in key, strategic or highly populated areas) and people who happen to be born in the wrong place dont have to suffer something they have no control over. But of course, most people say that the killing is wrong and things like that, but if it came down to it they wouldnt want the increase in tax to pay for any military operations, and wouldnt want to risk soldiers lives for something that 'isnt their problem'.
