Question: The Darfur crisis in Sudan has escalated remarkably. What is the reality of this crisis, and who is behind it? Why has the Sudanese government allowed it to worsen?
Answer: The issue of Darfur was raised intensely during the ongoing negotiations between the movement of the rebel Garang and the Sudanese government. Three factors contributed to its emergence and escalation:
Local competition over land and pastures, external interference and agitation of the problem, and—above all—the Sudanese government’s neglect in managing the affairs of its citizens with the justice and benevolence mandated by Islam.
As for the local competition, Darfur is inhabited by the African Fur tribes and other tribes of Arab origin. The conflict in Darfur began with the depletion of natural resources in the face of a significant increase in livestock and cultivated areas. Some Arab camel-herding tribes desired to own land for grazing needs; conversely, the African Fur tribes refused to share land and pasture with the Arabs, considering themselves the owners by ancestral inheritance.
The rebellion began relying on the Zaghawa tribe, and they sought to involve other tribes, resorting to intimidation through raiding and imposing levies. The tribes found themselves with two choices: either join the rebellion or establish militias to protect themselves from raids. Consequently, these tribes formed militias that quickly grew powerful with the proliferation of weapons in Darfur, flowing in from neighboring countries. This led to the worsening of the situation, becoming more dire and complex day by day. Thousands of lives have been lost, hundreds of villages burned, and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes, with no bed or cover but the earth and sky. Some fled to Chad, hoping to escape the hell of Darfur.
Regarding external interference and agitation, those who stirred the events of Darfur and created the crisis are the Europeans, specifically France and Britain. The evidence for this is that the rebels from the African Fur tribes were provided with support from Chad, whose rulers are agents of France, in terms of supplies, logistical bases, and refuge. London also served as a media platform for the leaders of the rebel movement.
As for America, it tried to cover for its agent Bashir by sufficing with statements. It did not order the Bashir government to stop suppressing the rebels, even though it had the power to do so. However, after the crisis escalated and turned into a humanitarian catastrophe, humanitarian organizations and the UN—pushed by Europe—pressured Sudan, demanding it stop supporting the Arab militias (Janjaweed) that allegedly carried out acts of abuse against Africans.
After the media spotlighted the events in Darfur regarding the number of dead reaching thousands and the displaced reaching a million refugees, and after these outlets described what is happening in Darfur as the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of this era, demanding immediate international intervention—failing which would mean the death of thousands of Africans monthly—America found itself forced to intervene, ride the wave, and lead it. It ordered the Sudanese government to stop the tragedy through several demands, including: sending 6,000 Sudanese police to Darfur to maintain the security of African citizens, dissolving the Janjaweed militia, and disarming them. The Sudanese representative to the UN stated that the aforementioned police force was completed on July 22. When asked about the time needed to disarm the Janjaweed, he said no one knows.
However, the Europeans were not satisfied with these American measures and demanded the imposition of sanctions on Sudan and the dispatch of non-Sudanese foreign forces to Darfur. Europe, especially France, began to question America's role in imposing sanctions on Sudan.
Meanwhile, the British position was strangely hostile toward the Sudanese government. Britain was behind the embarrassment of America by inciting, exaggerating, and issuing provocative statements against the Sudanese government.
America wanted to avoid raising the Darfur problem until after finishing the issue of the South, signing the agreement between Garang and the Sudanese government, and proceeding with the steps to complete it; only then would it move to Darfur. As for Europe—France and Britain—they wanted to stir the problem and heat the situation simultaneously to create trouble for the pro-American Bashir government, either to topple it or infiltrate it.
The Charge d'Affaires of the US Embassy in Khartoum, Gerald Gallucci, stated in mid-May 2004 that the situation in the Darfur region in the west of the country represents a vital issue in the human rights file in Sudan. He added that he had reservations about linking the peace process in the South with achieving peace in the Darfur region. This indicates that America is seeking to complete arrangements for the secession of the South before moving to focus on the Northern regions.
However, Europe—France and Britain—realized this point. Thus, they focused on stirring the Darfur problem militarily, politically, and through the media to embarrass America and destabilize the pro-American rule of Bashir, especially after America succeeded in playing the effective role in the South and marginalized Europe’s role there. Therefore, Europe—France and Britain—wanted to have an influential role in Darfur to compensate for its weak role in the South.
Nevertheless, America seems to want to block Europe's path regarding the Darfur problem. Therefore, it took the initiative and presented a draft to the Security Council on July 22, 2004 (currently being discussed), warning Sudan to rectify matters and giving it a one-month deadline, or else face sanctions. In contrast, Europe wanted military intervention and sanctions without a deadline. Powell, during his meeting with Annan on July 22, told the press: "There is no need for a military solution now; rather, the Sudanese government must handle this problem." This means he did not agree with Blair's statement on the same day, July 22, 2004, which did not rule out military intervention in Sudan and suggested sending 5,000 of his troops to Darfur.
This does not mean America wants good for Darfur; rather, it wants evil, but gradually, until it completely finishes the secession of the South that it started. Europe realizes the danger of this American plan, so it moved the issue now to destabilize the current pro-American government in Sudan and, at the same time, for Europe to hold some of the strings of the Darfur case so it is not marginalized as happened in Southern Sudan, where America took charge of the matter.
In conclusion, America was forced to take these measures against the Sudanese government after being embarrassed before international public opinion due to the Darfur crisis, which was exaggerated rapidly and suddenly. Had the problem remained within reasonable international limits, under control, and not magnified, America would not have intervened. However, those who magnified it were others, specifically France and Britain.
Thus, external intervention and agitation played a major role in the Darfur rebellion.
As for the Sudanese government’s neglect of managing affairs (Ri'ayah ash-Shu'un) and its confusion in handling the matter, it is clear from leaving this problem to grow and worsen, even though such problems in tribal areas are common. Darfur is a Sudanese region located in western Sudan on the border with Chad; its area is approximately equal to the area of France and is inhabited by Arab and African tribes, all of whom are Muslims. The region was named Darfur after the African Fur tribes, and Arab tribes like the Zaghawa came and shared life, faith, and destiny with them.
The problems that usually occurred between the tribes were traditional and simple, related to areas of farming, irrigation, grazing, and water collection. These problems would quickly find a solution through tribal leaders. It is well known that this type of problem is considered normal in all tribal areas; they are the natural disputes that arise in mobile tribal societies.
However, instead of the state solving these disputes with wisdom, awareness, and benevolence in managing affairs—by working to provide pastures for livestock owners and the requirements of farming and irrigation for landowners living in villages, and by bringing the two groups together and caring for them without discrimination, preventing the problem from becoming a gateway for intervention—the state did the opposite. It left matters between Muslims, Arabs and Africans, to escalate and complicate. African militias spread, supported by France via Chad and fed media-wise by Britain, and then from behind the scenes by the southern rebel John Garang, followed by Arab militias supported by the state. Thus, confusion reigned, crime spread, people were displaced, and the state left the militias to clash without setting a limit as a state by managing the affairs of both parties. If America had not been embarrassed by Europe and intervened, ordering the Sudanese government to intervene as a state to solve the problem, the militias would have continued fighting in a field devoid of the state and its system.
Thus, instead of the Bashir government absorbing those militias and reconciling the tribes, it escalated the situation and used its land and air forces to support the Janjaweed, thereby igniting the spark of bloody conflict between Muslims. Then it began to flounder in solving the problem and waited for a solution from other countries—even waiting for it from John Garang, the southern rebel who separated the South from Sudan. Its Foreign Minister stated on May 14, 2004: "You—addressing Garang—have a relationship with the rebel forces in Darfur, and you must have a positive role in solving the issue." Prior to that, the government official for Sudanese government committees responsible for implementing government recommendations in Darfur stated: "The final solution to the problem in Darfur must be through John Garang, after the problem of the South is solved and he comes to Khartoum to serve as Vice President, because Garang is most capable of solving such conflicts due to his long experience in them."
These officials say this while realizing that Garang's movement feeds the rebellion in Darfur. The Sudanese Foreign Minister, in one of his press interviews on May 14, 2004, answered a journalist's question: "Do you consider Garang's movement responsible for the rebellion in Darfur?" The Minister replied: "Yes." Despite this, Sudanese officials ask Garang to solve the problem for them. There is no doubt that the solution he wants for the Darfur region is for it to secede from Sudan, just as the South seceded.
Such is the level of humiliation the Sudanese government has reached—to ask the leader of the southern rebellion to treat the Darfur rebellion!
The Sudanese government continues to deal with the situation in a way that will inevitably lead to the worsening of the situation in Darfur and other northern regions. Despite knowing that relief organizations transport weapons to the rebels there, it agreed to the resumption of those organizations' work and agreed to African monitoring teams that will provide cover for the rebels to regroup and prepare for a new rebellion. When the Sudanese Foreign Minister was asked in the same interview mentioned above: "Are you happy with this agreement that allows Ugandan forces to enter Southern Sudan?" He replied: "Are you happy with everything you do? Sometimes you do things because necessity dictates them." This is due to his knowledge of what such forces will do in terms of inciting and supporting the rebellion.
Surprisingly, the government expressed disapproval of the withdrawal of the so-called humanitarian UN organizations from Darfur, asking them to stay to care for the affairs of Darfur's citizens. Yet the government knows better than anyone that these organizations work to spread sedition and smuggle weapons in relief boxes and communicate with pockets of rebellion, as happened with the UN plane caught transporting weapons and equipment to the rebels in Darfur, and the Red Cross plane before it. It was the duty of the government, instead of disapproving of the withdrawal of those organizations, to take upon itself the management of its citizens' affairs with justice and benevolence.
The government's lethargy, failure, and submissiveness toward these vital issues is the primary and fundamental cause of such calamities. Instead of intervening in Darfur in a way that pulls the rug out from under the feet of the agents calling for rebellion—by clarifying the Sharia ruling (hukm shar'i) on the distribution of wealth in an area inhabited 100% by Muslims—we find it faltering before international institutions, IGAD, the American enemy, and the European Union, especially France, Germany, and Britain, which openly declared their readiness to send military forces to Darfur, as mentioned in Blair's previous statement. Thus, the country became a field for international interventions. Despite this, the government seeks solutions for the Darfur problem from Garang, and from America behind him, thinking that as long as the rule in Sudan is compliant with America, America will support it and preserve it under all circumstances. Meanwhile, America gives no weight to its agents if their existence conflicts with its interests, or if they have exhausted the roles assigned to them.
Furthermore, through its concessions in the South in response to the orders of the master of the White House, we find it opening the door to rebellion in all parts of Sudan under various pretexts, political or economic. Everyone knows the extent of the crushing economic crisis Sudan suffers from despite its rich and varied natural resources. This is solely due to the government's failed policies because of its violation of Allah’s Sharia, and because it does not rule by what Allah has revealed, nor does it care for the affairs of the subjects with justice and benevolence.
This was confirmed by the Sudanese Interior Minister, Abdul Rahim Hussein, commenting on the events in Darfur: "It seems that the demands of the rebels in Darfur have become like what the negotiators in the South are demanding, such as the right to self-determination and having an independent army."
Ceding any inch of Muslim land to be under the authority of the kafir enemy is a major crime in Islam. It encourages other regions to secede and gives the enemy the audacity to demand more concessions. Any concession, however small, opens the door wide for further concessions.
"Whoever finds it easy to be humiliated, humiliation becomes easy for him; a wound does not hurt a dead person."
What happened in terms of concessions in Palestine and Indonesia, and what is happening in Sudan, speaks to this.
It is strange and painful that the "opposition" parties in Sudan, which oppose the government in almost everything, agree with the government in the crime of ceding the South to the authority of the rebel Garang, planned and arranged by America. They also agree with what is happening in negotiations with the rebels in Darfur, which may lead to what the South became. This reveals the wretched reality of the parties that call themselves opposition, as they do not fear Allah regarding the squandering of Muslim lands.
The solution before Sudan is one of two options. The first:
To persist in falsehood and continue the policy of concession, relying on America to handle its issues, and making the country a battleground between America and Europe.
The second: To return to the truth—and returning to the truth is a virtue—and follow the Sharia of Allah by canceling its agreement with Garang, stopping its talks with the Darfur rebels, and addressing the issue of the country’s unity on the basis that it is a vital issue (qadiyah mashiriyah) that cannot be compromised in any way; it is a matter of life or death.
As for the first—concession and failure—it drags the country into a great calamity: of humiliation, weakness, division, fragmentation, and ruin, and betrayal of Allah, His Messenger, and the believers.
As for the second, it is honor, strength, community, unity, prosperity, and the pleasure of Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).
Will the rulers in Sudan take heed and choose what pleases Allah and His Messenger, and take honorable stands that will benefit them in this world and the Hereafter?
11 Jumada al-Akhirah 1425 AH 28/07/2004 CE