Attacks by Darfur rebels spark crisis with Chad

A political and military accord signed between the Sudanese government of Omar al-Beshir and Chadian President Idriss Deby in January was dissolved in the aftermath of an attack by a Darfur rebel group on May 10. The so-called Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) carried out an assault in Omdurman resulting in the deaths of approximately 200 people.

Although this attack against one of the major cities in Sudan has focused attention on whether the neighboring Western-backed and oil-rich Chadian regime of Idriss Deby was behind the act of aggression, the transnational oil companies with their major players based in the United States have formidable reasons for wanting to see the government in Sudan overthrown.

For over a decade now, U.S.-based transnational firms have not been allowed to exploit the rapidly emerging oil industry in Sudan; they have been barred from extracting oil there. Some 80 percent of the oil concessions in the country are granted to partnerships between the Sudanese government and the People’s Republic of China. Other concessions are held by local interests in partnership with Arab and Middle Eastern nations.

This economic decision on the part of Sudan results from a foreign policy orientation that is independent of U.S. military efforts in Africa and the Middle East. In 1990-91, the Sudanese government refused to support the Pentagon’s war against Iraq over the issue of former President Saddam Hussein’s intervention in Kuwait, nor has it supported the current occupation of Iraq that began in 2003.

Chad under pressure from Western influence

Consequently, when looking at the hostile U.S. State Department posture toward Sudan, the oil factor must be taken into consideration.

Chad is also a large producer of oil. However, the government of Idriss Deby has close ties both politically and economically to Chad’s former colonial ruler, France, which has tilted toward the U.S. under President Nicolas Sarkozy. The French military, which has a permanent presence in Chad, recently stepped in to shore up the Deby government. Otherwise, an attempt to unseat him by the United Forces for Democracy and Development (UFDD) would have been victorious.

In response, the Deby government released a group of French nationals who had posed as a charitable organization calling itself Zoe’s Ark and allowed them to return to France. They had been tried and convicted of attempting to kidnap dozens of Chadian children in order to sell them to people in Europe.

The French and other Europeans in Zoe’s Ark were questioned after their arrest. They stated that their motivation was to transport children from the Darfur region of Sudan, which is currently undergoing civil conflict, to adoption agencies in France so they could permanently be placed in homes in Europe. Yet, according to news reports emanating from Chad, most of the children were not from Darfur and had been taken in violation of the laws of Chad governing adoption.

The uncovering of this plot to kidnap African children in Chad sparked outrage inside the country and led thousands of people to protest the actions of Zoe’s Ark. Nonetheless, the government in Chad was beholden to France because of its precarious political position and the relative strength of the UFDD opposition forces.

Behind the political campaign against Sudan

The Sudanese region of Darfur is located in the west of the country bordering Chad. The government of Omar al-Bashir has accused Chadian President Deby of supporting the rebel movements in Darfur. The Darfur rebels have gained the sympathy and support of various right-wing political interests in the U.S. and Europe. Some of these groups have sponsored documentary films, photographic displays, rallies and even legislation which encourage the intervention of the U.S. and other imperialist countries in the internal affairs of Sudan.

Just last year a new documentary film entitled “The Devil on Horseback” premiered throughout the U.S. It was based on photographs taken by a U.S. Marine captain who had visited Sudan as a military consultant to the African Union, which has had an observer mission in the country for several years.

This film portrays the civil conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan as a systematic campaign by the el-Bashir government to carry out genocide against the inhabitants of this region. It does not mention the historical legacy of British colonialism, which systematically divided Sudan so that the country could be subjugated for over half a century. The origins of both the civil wars in the south of the country and in Darfur in the west are rooted in the policy of divide-and-rule imposed by Britain when it defeated the early resistance movements during the late 19th century.

The documentary highlights the suffering of the people in Darfur in an effort to provoke a public outcry in the U.S. and a demand for immediate military intervention to weaken the authority of the central government in Sudan and establish a permanent Western presence in the Darfur region of Sudan bordering Chad.

Another manifestation of the so-called “Save Darfur Movement” is the drafting and promotion of legislation on a local and state level that seeks to divest pension funds from corporations that engage in commerce with Sudan. Since there is limited trade between the U.S. and Sudan, such legislation is clearly promoted for its propaganda value. It advances the notion that the government should be changed based upon allegations of genocide against the people of Darfur.

In addition, these right-wing elements falsely characterize the civil conflict in Darfur as a racial one, between what they describe as Arabs in the north and Blacks in the Darfur region. This attempt to racialize the conflict is deliberately aimed at discouraging African Americans and anti-racist constituencies in the U.S. from organizing any effort to defend the Sudanese people from Western military intervention.

Most historians of Sudan say there are no fundamental racial divisions between the peoples of this vast central African country. The majority of people in both the northern region, where the capital is located, and Darfur in the west are Muslims. For centuries the various ethnic groups have intermarried and shared cultural and religious traits.

Michigan lawmakers seek divestment

In the state of Michigan, legislation was introduced during 2007 that would mandate the immediate withdrawal of public pension funds from businesses that conduct trade with both Sudan and Iran, as well as impose sanctions against any company with Sudanese investors or stakeholders.

The twin bills, entitled “Public Retirement Systems: Divestiture of Investments Related to Sudan and Iran” (House Bills 4903 and 4854), were sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, a Democrat, and Marty Knollenberg, a Republican. Smith’s bill is against Sudan and Knollenberg’s against Iran.

A legislative analysis issued by the Michigan House Fiscal Agency describes the bills as “amending the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act (MCL 38.1133c and 1133d) to require a retirement system to engage in a number of activities related to assets invested in companies with certain kinds of business relationships with Sudan and Iran. The bill ultimately could, under certain condition, require a retirement system to sell, redeem, divest, or withdraw all publicly traded securities of a company actively involved with the Sudan or Iran over a 15-month period.”

This same document points out that the bill “would apply to retirement systems under the Michigan Legislative Retirement Act, the State Police Retirement Act, the Judges Retirement Act, the State Employees Retirement Act, and the Public School Employees Retirement Act.” These public pension systems hold billions of dollars in employee contributions, which are heavily invested in private corporations.

Although these bills have not yet been passed by the state Senate, and therefore are not law, they still represent a hostile act against the peoples of Sudan and Iran. They seek to create an atmosphere where people in the U.S. could be influenced and convinced to support a military interventionist policy toward both Sudan and Iran, two oil-producing nations targeted by the Bush administration for regime change.

The Sudanese people must be able to decide their own future.

It is important that anti-imperialist forces in the U.S. and internationally understand what is at stake in Sudan. The Bush administration, as well as other previous U.S. leaders, has coveted the oil, other minerals and agricultural wealth of this African country. This imperative drives the propaganda and other acts of military aggression against not only Sudan but many other geopolitical regions throughout Africa and the so-called developing world.

The people of Sudan must be allowed to resolve their own internal struggles aimed at forging unity and national development. It should not be up to the U.S. or the former colonial power of Britain to set the moral tone for what is acceptable in Sudan.

Sudan has a tremendous history of maintaining independence through both political and military efforts. The people heroically fought the British during the 19th century before eventually falling under the yoke of colonialism for many decades.

Today the Sudanese people are resisting imperialist efforts to topple their government, seize and exploit the natural resources of the country, and place Western military forces in the Darfur region—which would serve as a buffer zone between French imperialist influence in Chad and an encroaching U.S. and British destabilization campaign in the rest of the country. People who oppose imperialism in all its shapes and forms must support the Sudanese in their struggle against political domination and economic exploitation.