Goings on in Sudan

Newspaper coverage of the ongoing crisis in Sudan reveals the conflict to be a web of entangled issues battling for political movement and also for airtime. On October 27 and 28th, news from Sudan focused on the expulsion of UN special envoy Jan Pronk from Sudan by the Sudanese Government in Khartoum. Accused by Sudan’s General Command of Armed Forces of threatening national security and “propagating erroneous information that casts doubts about the capability of the armed forced in maintaining security and defending the country”, Pronk was declared a persona non grata.

The story that lies beneath Pronk’s deportation is that of the currently hotly debated question of whether or not UN troops should be deployed in Sudan. With his statements that the Sudanese army was mobilizing Arab militias after being dealt heavy losses by rebel fighters, Pronk was perceived by the Khartoum government to be attempting to prove to the international community that the national army and the African Union were unable to protect civilians, thus spurring the UN to implement its Resolution 1706. This resolution would expand the UN’s mission in Sudan to include the deployment of 20,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, rather than augmenting the currently underfunded and ill-equipped Africa Union peacekeeping forces of 7,000, or boosting the Abuja peace deal.

The Khartoum government stands firm in its opposition to any such deployment, insisting that resolution 1706 is a Western plot to steal Sudan’s resources. Articles published Saturdayby pro-government news portal, the Sudanese Media Center claim that the conflict in Sudan causing so much concern is over and that the UN is pursuing occupation of Sudan as part of a hidden Zionist agenda. Questioning of UN motives for the deployment of troops in Darfur goes beyond government-engineered news. On Friday, the BBC published a debate about Darfur between Smith College professor Eric Reeves and foreign editor of the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram. While Reeves insists that a UN presence is necessary to face “genocidal destruction” in Darfur and that no increase of the AU’s operation could get the job done, Nkrumah considers the potential for non-consensual UN deployment a threat to sovereignty and a move based on Western political agendas, not concern for Sudanese civilians. Nkrumah compares the possible intervention in Darfur to Iraq and believes that US and UN interest in Sudan are fueled by oil. In an Al-Ahram article published this week , Nkrumah points out that statements made by George W. Bush a week ago emphasized first the fact that the humanitarian situation in Sudan is deplorable, but secondly, that Sudan’s oil threatens US national security.

Oil is certainly part of this equation, possibly in more ways than one. China, currently importing 6% of its oil from Sudan, is a chief ally to Khartoum with the ability to veto sanctions on the government. China is currently coming under criticism for its support of a government that is widely considered guilty of ethnic cleansing, but Nkrumah suggests that the West’s real problem with China’s relationship with Sudan is that it is demonstrating the fact that Sudan doesn’t need the US to make economic strides forward. Jeffrey Gettleman’s New York Times article published October 24th, "Despite Embargo, Sudan Builds a Booming Economy Based on Oil," attests to Sudan’s oil boom, which is making parts of the country incredibly rich. Gettleman writes that while American sanctions have kept many Western powers from investing in Sudan, foreign investment in the country has leapt from $128 million in 2000 to $2.3 billion this year. The foreign money pouring in from Asian countries makes the effects of the American embargo seem pithy, and emboldens Khartoum by basically eliminating the government’s economic dependence on the West.

Woven throughout competing power interests and political agendas is the dire humanitarian crisis on the ground in Darfur. The conflict has displaced more than 2 million people, and estimates of the death toll reach as high as 500 thousand. Villages have been burned and pillages, food and seed stocks destroyed, and water wells deliberately poisoned.

The conflict has spread to Chad, internally displacing at lease 50 thousand Chadians Civilians along the border of Sudan are subject to violence by both Chadian rebels and Darfur-based Janjaweed militias. The governments of Chad and Sudan are meanwhile pointing fingers at each other: Chad is accusing Sudan of bombing four villages and Sudan is accusing Chad of providing refuge to fighters. Accusations have not been proven, but one thing that is clear is that the situation that civilians find themselves is increasingly dim and that help is not expected to come from the governments involved any time soon. Even parts of Sudan not immediately affected by the conflict in Darfur find themselves struggling. Another recent NYT article by Gettleman profiles the hardships being endured by the Beja population in Eastern Sudan, who are without food, water, or means of producing either, and feel forgotten in a country receiving an influx of foreign aid.

Sudanese civilians in general are at risk of being forgotten amidst the current political turmoil and policy questioning. An article published October 25th in the Boston Globe calls Pronk’s expulsion a “sideshow to genocide”, diverting attention away from the people who need it. While Khartoum holds its ground and while the UN gets flustered about an official getting kicked out, people are still in a desperate situation that only becomes more desperate as it continues.