The situation in Darfur is being portrayed by the United States as though it is the greatest challenge facing the West now. All those who care for the protection of human rights and democratic values have been viewing the US practice of meddling in other countries’ internal affairs with increasing suspicion. The overwhelmingly powerful Anglo-American media has created an impression that the only obstacle on the path of the progress of the modern world is the way Iran and North Korea run their national affairs or Somalis or Sudan trying to bring about some element of stability in their territories.
The unusual US interest in the affairs of Darfur suggests that it has a secret agenda. What is the agenda? One can hazard a guess: Washington wants Darfur to be separated from Sudan and annex it to the Southern Sudan, a region the US plans to cut off from Sudan to form an independent state. The US is playing in Darfur the same game it had played in the East Timor by inciting the Christian population to rise up against the central government in Jakarta and declare independence.
Any unbiased observer of the developments in Darfur could see how the Western media has been exaggerating the clashes in Darfur giving the number of casualties as 400,000 while the real number was just below 9,000.
While the Sudanese government has welcomed the idea of deploying African forces to maintain peace in the disturbed region, the US wanted a UN force to be sent to Darfur. Sudan fears that the UN contingent means a force that takes orders from the US and its allies.
Largely goaded by the US, the Security Council adopted the resolution No.1706 to form a UN force to be sent to Darfur. Sudan is, apparently, unwilling to accept any plan to keep a non-African force on its territories. Sudan’s stand is correct because a forced attempt to send a military force to a country without its consent is a violation of that country’s sovereignty. Vice president of Sudan’s ruling party Ibrahim Omar said Sudan would consider any country that sends its military forces to his country as an enemy. The African leaders do not support the Security Council decision. The way the US and UK pushed through the resolution threatening the legitimate government in Khartoum justifies the Sudanese fears of the far-reaching ramifications of such a move.
With scant regard for the sovereign rights of Sudan, US President George Bush said that he would do everything in his capacity to clamp sanctions on Khartoum if it did not comply with the demands of the “international community”. What underlies Bush’s demand is the destruction and fragmentation of all East African Muslim countries so that their unified strength should never be a threat to the ambitions of the United States in the region.
Sudan has admitted that the present state of affairs in Darfur is a real problem to it and its neighboring countries. The region has been bogged in a tribal, ethnic and religious chaos exacerbated by economic conditions. But it does not mean that there is no peaceful solution to the situation, provided the peacemakers approach the issue without any plan to fish in troubled waters.
In the light of the sensitivity of the region I would suggest that the following factors be considered when seeking an amicable solution. First of all, the Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, keep their hands off from the region. It is because every US move has a neocolonialist motive while UK has a tainted history as a colonialist empire. A summit meeting of all the top leaders of every party involved in the region, including the Sudanese government and leaders of the south, should be convened to discuss the problem.
The meeting should be held under the auspices of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are known for their moderation and fairness. The participants should agree on approaching the issues from economic, political and security angles apart from striving to close the ranks of various bickering groups. The organization of the African countries should see that the agreements signed in the meeting are implemented.
I repeat that Washington and the West should keep their hands off Sudan, if they care for the lives of the people of Darfur as they claim to do.
