« Return to Article

Member Comments

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  andys30 at 07/22/2008 11:38:19 PM
  Comment:
  This is an internal conflict between black Arab Muslims and black Christians. It is somewhat of an internal struggle within a black nation state that should be solved by Africans (Muslim, Christian and Animist) only. Let us not be like the British of the late 19th and early 20th century that used similar kinds of pretexts of wrong doing during by some key African leader as a pretext for neocolonial intervention. Key white figures in the UK and the US have been on the ground in Sudan making the situation worse. It is hypocritical to use economic warfare (sanctions, freezing bank accounts, restricting travel) and then support opposition leader directly and then stand back and blame and demonize a Mugabe or Omar Bashir. I am not saying that these leaders are saints but they are being used as pawns. Know the history of Sudan and Zimbabwe. These countries have always had an anti-colonial history and have never been forgiven by the West. Be careful before jumping on the popular media bandwagon. Please research Cecil Rhodes and ???Chinese??? Gordon???s methods of colonialism and invention.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  chezcrisden at 07/21/2008 2:53:33 PM
  Comment:
  the sudan has to do what the sudan has to do to get rid of him.
  if moses can part the seas, ramses and his army can drown?
  then....
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  wantok at 07/20/2008 2:55:47 AM
  Comment:
  The article is a great synopsis of the human disaster known as Sudan. I just finished reading ???What is What??? So true Dufar was the media staging ground for opening up the awareness to the world what atrocities have/are occurring in Sudan, but in the south Dinka and other tribes have gone through a holocaust.
  The question I ask whenever the query is made about what is the West, (U.S. mostly) going to do to solve an ???African??? problem. So where is Africa? Why must it always look to the West to pull it back on board the ship called earth? It has earthly wealth, minerals, oil, gas . . .; Lord knows it has human wealth, highly educated people. Until the countries of Africa begin to use them wisely, all the help from the great ???Western Plantation??? is not going solve their problems. They need to get off that plantation and truly begin to work with each other. Until then they will remain pawns in their own land being used and abused by outsiders.
  
  It would be better if they looked toward the successes in Asia and Latin America. They have their problems like all other parts of the world. But when the cow manure hits the fan they take care of it, it may be sloppy, but it???s done on their own accord without crying out to the West.
  
  Lastly, this is an age old belittling of black Africans by cultural Arabs (black or white). The Islamic north and Middle-east have never been real friends to the black south, never.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  David Matthews at 07/17/2008 4:31:41 PM
  Comment:
  D--
  
  Yep. Sadly, you're right. Almost makes one nostalgic for the days when the CIA would have paid off some disgruntled national to put a tarantula in a dictator's bed. Almost.
  Also sickening to realize that the US no longer has the moral authority, nor financial leverage, to rally any other countries around a cause, no matter how worthy. That's what happens when you walk our of kyoto, invade sovereign nations, and ignore genocides which don't happen in Europe.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  dalmalama at 07/17/2008 4:24:45 PM
  Comment:
  i agree dave, but as you've pointed out, the north is supported by russia and china, two major players, especially on the u.n. security council. america is all about the image, and we'd look immeasurably bad by helping a group take up arms against another group beng "helped" by our allies. i'm not saying it's right; i'm just giving some reasons why america's done nothing yet, and probably won't.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  David Matthews at 07/17/2008 4:17:46 PM
  Comment:
  Oh yeah-- and when I say the US should get involved, I mean strictly in a check-writing capacity. We've traded hostages for oils, guns for oil before. We love doing shady stuff like that. All I'm saying is, here's a chance for us to funnel some arms to a people who actually want and need our support. We should not send troops, or halliburton, or Mcdonald's. Just some cash. We get to feel good about ourselves and buy some oil from a grateful, oil-rich nation. The air support thing is tricky. The south can't win without it, but I do worry about US bombs landing in another Muslim capital. Still, it's not right that the north uses Russian and Chinese planes to bomb its citizens, while the south Sudanese have no way to fight back.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  David Matthews at 07/17/2008 4:11:55 PM
  Comment:
  D--
  
  Yup, i know for a fact that the state dept. wants no part in military ops in Sudan. the supply routes are a nightmare; there are too many conflicting factions jockeying for power. It could easily turn into a post-soviet Afghanistan. But fear of the unknown shouldn't prevent the south Sudanese from getting rid of a known despot. I think our involvement should only go so far as to help the south defend itself, via materiels. The north is well stocked with Chinese weapons. the north isn't going to relinquish power, or stop its oppression of the south. It's an awful situation, but to do nothing...?
  As Malcolm X said, sometimes you go to the ballot, sometimes you go to the bullet.
  BTW, I don't disagree with you, I Just worry that the time for talking to Bashir has passed. There's also a ticking time bomb, in that when the referendum to secede comes up for a vote next year, there's every chance that Bashir will throw out the results and plunge the horn of Africa into large scale war. Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Libya... they'd all be players. If Bashir was internally displaced, at least there's a chance that the new govt.--even if they were old allies of his--would be more inclined to unify the country.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  dalmalama at 07/17/2008 3:55:44 PM
  Comment:
  another possible scenario if the u.s. does get involved, picks a side and starts doling out tanks: we don't exactly know the nuances of the parties involved and we inadvertently create another afghanistan. that could be another huge factor in our reluctance to do anything about the problem.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  David Matthews at 07/17/2008 3:50:44 PM
  Comment:
  Dalmalama--
  
  you may be right on the China front. They are a far greater power economically than we are now, and the main reason they are buying oil in such great quantities from the Sudan is that they are offloading US currency because the value of the dollar is so weak. It's a bargain for them because the dollar is so weak. I do think that if the US had the guts to back the south Sudanese up, China would stop buying their oil, if only to preserve relations. Maybe with a new president--hint, hint, Obama--they will be more flexible. Africa is truly the "problem" to solve in the next decade. It's time to give back to the continent however we can, instead of using it's resources without compensation, or turning a blind eye when things get hairy. The UN and the African Union have NO power to unholster a weapon, even if they witness 1,000 sudanese getting slaughtered. Unacceptable.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  dalmalama at 07/17/2008 3:41:23 PM
  Comment:
  it's never gonna happen. america is too indebted to china and its growing financial coffers. it's possible that if we were to make a move toward helping southern sudan, china could call in their loans, or stop loaning the US money, and we'd be up ***'s creek. we're too dependent on them to do anything to piss them off, including screwing around w/ their cheap oil, no matter how much oil we stand to gain in the deal.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  David Matthews at 07/17/2008 3:40:42 PM
  Comment:
  Sunni,
  
  I agree that there are several outcomes possible in the Sudan once Bashir goes... what worries me is that the referendum to secede does not include Abyei, the border between north and south. Abyei contains a vast resource of the country's oil, and is the sticking point for peace right now. Bashir refuses to allow Abyei to secede along with the rest of the south, even though the region has historically identified as southern. This could re-ignite war, and has already, as of last month, caused low-level fighting to break out. And yes, the south does have a spotty record of holding the line in terms of honest dealings with its own people. I do believe, however, that most in the south want an end to the fighting and the right to self-determination. They may also decide that a unified Sudan is preferable to a partitioned Sudan. Whatever happens, my piece was meant as a figurative (maybe literal) call to arms because I honestly don't think diplomacy will work with Bashir. No one can know what's next after he leaves, but we know what it's been like since he--and Al Mahdi before him--have been in power.
  And your point on Islamic Fundamentalism is taken: how about we agree on the compromise: "Political Islam"?
  And yes, yes, yes: fundamentalism taints every nation it touches, when it mingles with policy. We could go on all day about Bush and his cronies, but that's for another space.
  I just got back from the area a few months ago, and while things are bad, and getting worse, I did take heart at learning that many of the Missiriya arabs, who previously helped to kill and rape southerners, have actually joined the SPLA. They've gotten wise to Bashir's false promises and have decided to ally themselves based on regional interests, rather than ideology. That's a good sign.
  
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  SunniK at 07/17/2008 2:51:40 PM
  Comment:
  Dear David:
  You've certainly sized up the situation well. There can be no progress in Darfur, the Southern Sudan or anywhere else in that country unless Bashir and his raping, killing, thieving, racist henchmen are toppled from power. But what happens after that? In the meantime, what you're suggesting is a billion-dollar, yes, billion-dollar commitment over several years to overthrow Bashir's regime. There are several unintended consequences to this. Not the least of which is further internationalizing the conflict by compelling similar Islamist governments, from Iran to Saudi Arabia, from pouring billions more dollars in arms and support to Khartoum. Not to mention that the South has essentially experienced more than a half-century of conflict and would be consigned to several more years, without the certainty of a victory.
  I, personally, have always been in favor of self-determination for the Southern Sudan, given the long, inglorious record of duplicity, neglect and brutality from a number of regimes in Khartoum. But duplicity seems to be the one trait that spans the North-South divide in the Sudan. Not only do Northerners sell out Southerners, but Northerners sell out Northerners and Southerners sell out Southerners, routinely. It has never been "good guys" versus "bad guys," with the various parties sporting black or white hats. These actors pass hats around and many of them where gray hats.
  The best alternative would for there to be a referendum in the South, as promised in the last peace treaty between Khartoum and the SPLA. But, of course, there is increasing doubt that this will ever happen. Not to mention that the untimely death of SPLA president John Garang, in still mysterious circumstances, has divided the party even more, with a co-opted Southern elite actually defending Khartoum's policies in Darfur.
  I also take issue with your use of the term "Islamic fundamentalism." As a Muslim and someone who reported from the region for several years, I never used the term. It was used to obsfuscate, not clarify. As a practiciing Muslim, I found it offensive. I believe in the five pillars of Islam, which is pretty fundamental. What the Wahhabis of Saudi and the Gulf, and the Salafis of Khartoum are doing in the name of a very narrow and discredited form of Islam is not fundamental at all. Religious extremism taints all faiths. Let's be precise.
  Anyway, a few years ago, I spoke with a former Sudanese government minister in London. I asked him if Sudan could be likened to a drug addict, who had reached rock bottom, meaning that he could not get any worse, so things had to get better. He reminded me that he lived in the Sudan and that the situation has worsened EVERY YEAR since independence. He saw his country as being in free fall, therefore, irredeemable. Let us pray that he is wrong.
  
  Sunni Khalid, Baltimore.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  SandraA at 07/17/2008 12:57:57 PM
  Comment:
  Thanks to everyone for their--for the most part--thoughtful comments.
  Yak and UNsam seem not to have comprehended the piece, whether through my fault or their own.
  So let me restate what I had assumed to be obvious in the piece: Nowhere do I advocate or suggest that the US should aid or abet the institution of a US style democracy in the Sudan.
  Before Bush got into office, sometimes we helped developing nations because it was the right thing to do. Helping the Sudanese is the right thing to do. Unequivocally.
  And I take exception to the notion that I'm promoting war. I'm promoting internal regime change. Bashir is not likely to abide by any "western-style" democratic vote. He???ll need to be escorted off the property.
  The people of the south fight in the bush, with little in the way of weapons, or food, or communications capacity. They fight on heart and grit. I know this because I've lived with them, watched them train, and seen how vulnerable they are to a state which has set out to annihilate them. I've been on the ground, UNsam--have you?
  All I have suggested in my piece is that the US should supply a defenseless population with the means to protect itself from slaughter.
  As far as the US getting its "hold" on the Sudan's wealth? The oil of the Southern Sudan is being stolen by the north. People are being displaced into camps or killed because the north doesn't want to share in the profits. China buys this stolen oil and supplies guns and armaments to Bashir so the slaughter can continue. This means that the North has airships and tanks and sophisticated weaponry while the southern rebels have Ak-47???s. Not exactly a fair fight. If we offer air support, that???s not colonialism.
  Aslo???the south WANTS to sell their oil to the west. This is one of the few ways the region can provide an economy for itself. But maybe you'd feel better if they didn't sell their oil to anyone, and instead tried to eke out a living making kente cloth and dashikis, so you could keep your image of what an autonomous African nation should look like.
  The mounyjang--look up the word -- need our help.
  My suggestions were extreme, perhaps, but they were meant to get the discussion started. There is every chance that the conflict in the Sudan will spill over in to the horn of Africa. We can't let that happen.
  Lastly???I do think about the atrocities the US has committed in Iraq and elsewhere. But this article happened to be about the Sudan. Instead of diverting attention away from our brothers on the continent who need our help, you should be on an appropriate "impeach Bush" forum. I'll be the first one to shake your hand and sign on the dotted line. Until then, read a book, or maybe put your boots on the ground in the region before you post.
  
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  UNsam at 07/16/2008 11:36:59 PM
  Comment:
  Writer of this article itself is a extremist. It's lways easy for a man standing off away saying some nonsense. You guy's views are biased, as you deem the US style theory and democracy the only viable way of running this world. And you are using this same ideology to wage wars around the world bullying small countries, and to get hold of their country and wealth... their oild as well.
  
  Shame on you! Now shut up, and re-think the atrocities US committed in Iraq...
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  mounyjang at 07/16/2008 6:48:28 PM
  Comment:
  David is indeed well informed on the happenings in Sudan; both the past and present. Coming from the Sudan I had to scroll back to the top of the article just to verify I read the contributor's name correctly.
  
  As for Yak, I wonder if you have ever been to any of the African countries at the time they are/were under the leadership of self-centred individuals? May be if you do you will have a second thought on what you say the next time around.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  eidercita at 07/16/2008 4:36:05 PM
  Comment:
  a very beautiful and intelligent piece. What I love the most is that it proposes an opportunity for a real autonomy for the people of Sudan instead of the same old colonialist ideals that we used when we, as a foreign power, went into Iraq and pretended that we could possibly liberate the people.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  SandraA at 07/16/2008 3:42:19 PM
  Comment:
  Excellent piece, thoughtful and passionately written. To Yak--first off-- your lack of insight into such complex political problem is almost frightening. Nowhere in the piece does Matthews suggest that a western style democracy is appropriate for Sudan, or any other African nation. Democracy takes many forms. It seems as though you have a knee-jerk, outdated, post-colonial revolutionary stance when it comes to the west and its role in the continent. Yes, the legacy of colonialism is awful, and lasting. Yes, the US government does some terrible stuff. None of this excuses the Mugabes or the Bashirs, or the Myanmar government (the list is endless) from basic standards of humanity. And since when is helping a people unable to defend itself "imperialism?"
  
  I think you're slightly out of your depths here. "Tragic" how the UN intervened in Bosnia, tragic how the US and the allies intervened in Europe in WWII, wasn't it? We probably should have minded our own business. Hardly. The tragedy is that we did nothing in Rwanda; We did little in Uganda, and we're doing nothing in Sudan. Contrary to your misguided attempts at Afro-centrism (have you even been to the Sudan? From what i've read, the author has), the US has avoided the kind of military intervention in Africa that it routinely provides other peoples in the midst of civil war and humanitarian crises.
  And Europe was the primary colonial presence in Africa, NOT the US, if you'd care to tax your brain with context or nuance instead of rhetoric. We must help Africa if they cannot help themselves. We helped break the continent, it's our job to help in the hard work of fixing it. Matthews suggests we enable the people of Sudan to fight back against a tyrannical leader, that is all. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  daughterofyisrael at 07/16/2008 1:54:39 PM
  Comment:
  so whats your solution yak,you sound more ignorant than the usual self loathing black folks who dont give a damn about any other set of blacks but the ones in the u.s so what is your solution ?to sit and watch, at least david has some clear ways to balance this garbage thats going on.there is no dought that corruption brought mostly by european and u.s interest in these african nations has had a great impact but to sit back and do nothing,while young girls are attackd without mercy and young men hacked to death and children rummaging in the trash for food.i think you learned the best from massa to hate your kind.yeah the white man did us wrong,but your killing us at least the people who think like you.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  blessinggirl at 07/16/2008 1:21:48 PM
  Comment:
  Dear Yak: I think you are confusing the International Criminal Court with the U.S. government. The U.S. refuses to participate, because it has committed a multitude of war crimes. As an African-American, I am curious why you feel the need to defend the indefensible actions of African heads of state, when so many countries in Africa are in crisis and people are starving and dying. Many of us are appalled by the fact that the U.S. is run by thugs. That is no basis for defending thugs like Bashir and Mugabe.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Yak at 07/16/2008 12:43:42 PM
  Comment:
  I'm really sick of Afican-Americans who try to impose their ideology on Africa-- ideology they've learned on their knees from their Western slave-masters.
  
  Sudan is engaged in a low-intensity Civil War between Arab/Muslim-Africans and Christian Africans, and both sides have committed atrocities. The president shares in the blame, but he is no more "criminal" than Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Madelaine Albright, Condi Rice, Tony Blair and a long list of Western politicians who have waged wars that have killed millions around the globe.
  
  Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is no paragon of Western-style democracy, but who says the only legitimate form of government is Western democracy? No African society ever invented the "human rights" the U.N. would have us believe are "universal" because Americans and Western Europeans say so.
  
  Africa doesn't need ignorant African-American imperialists trying to run their show. Get lost, Dave. You're a tool.