Charge Your Voice

Find Your Voice!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Darfur, Sudan

The situation in Darfur, Sudan is characterized as Arabs vs. Africans. To support this premise, Sudan is a member of both the Arab League and the African Union.

In some ways, Sudan can be thought of as the ‘gates to Africa’. The north and east of Sudan lead to the sands and culture of the old world Middle East, and to the South and West are the roads to the peoples of Africa. Arab and African people mix in this unique country.

The country of Sudan has tragically fallen into civil strife. This occurred while the International community divided over Western civilization versus Islamic states. When the International community went to respond to the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, the Western peoples of the International community were rebuffed by the Sudanese president. Western society cannot not help but believe that Sudan chose its Islamic affiliations over the needs of human suffering, bringing into question whether Western and Islamic societies are so at odds that they are willing to favor politics over opportunities to genuinely relieve civilian indignities.

Sudan represents a strategic location for the Western states, certainly. It also represents this for the Arab states. Sudan represents the disconnect between Islamic promises of humanitarian interests and the lack there of. In Western societies where starvation is no longer common, images of starving women and children in Sudan are provide an example of barbaric Arab cruelty. For Arab states, Sudan is an example of Western interference attempting to claim a toehold in a region it greedily hungers after for capitalist conquest. Meanwhile, the President of Sudan has benefited and prospered by pitting powers against each other, having gained attention and interest from outside forces he believes can be used to not only assert his country’s position as fundamentally important, but simultaneously achieve the genocide of simple farmers…the simple root of the current crisis.

Is it possible that a local revolt of farmers who find themselves starving and deprived of humanitarian aid can really be the catalyst for a new battlefield between the Middle East and the West? The need for humanitarian efforts has never been more apparent, where the act of giving food and aid is the simplest answer, yet no one wants it on any side. Perhaps the only people who are capable of it are those actually suffering. Everyone else is fed and distracted by the more attractive idea of power. Can either side really stand tall and honestly when they are laid naked by such truths?

The greatest war that could take place for Darfur, and prove the prowess of either side, should they insist on pursuing it in this region, would be a show of grace. If we are to hold a competition, who among us is capable of producing the most humanitarian supply? Which side, Western or Arab, can fill the greatest need to this state? There is no need to hold battle in such a state as Sudan when there are already plenty of fronts to fight upon. The Sudanese already know suffering. If this is really war for the hearts and minds of the people, then respond to your solutions to the needs of the people. Can a person eat either your Koran or the Constitution? Surely what is important is meaning. The acts are proof of our ability to connect with others. What has more meaning than a piece of food to a starving man, or a helping hand to a dying child? I challenge you.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home