Darfur
I read an article in Epigram, UoB's official student mag on Darfur the other day. It was provocative I must say. Not because of the issue at hand (i.e. Darfur, which I already 'knew' about) but because of the 'side-issue' that accompanies it.
Darfur lately managed to make the headline for all the wrong reason. Genocides were said to happen as the Arab Janjaweed tribe were said to have slayed every single African in sight. There were refugee camps organized all over the country (the term being - Internally Displaced People, other common example would be the people in Palestine and Lebanon which was deprived of their own shelter), some even in neighbouring Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and few other countries. Rape, murder is a common happenings. In fact the article claimed that only women are brave enough to go out of the refugee camp and search for food. Why? Because women by nature have added value to themselves, 'for sexual pleasure' (I quote). Men were only worth dead.
What's worse is, the government of Sudan were said to supply ammunitions (and at times, manpower!) to wipe off the African tribe from the face of the earth! To my ignorance at the time of reading the article, I thought Sudan is another small African country, size as well as economy-interest-wise. But the presence of a few thousands African Union peacekeepers to peacekeep in Darfur, a region as big as France, tells me quite a different story about the size of Sudan.
What about economy? Well, I am still at that stage a bit ignorant about Sudan's economy. What is the side issue that interests me? It is the fact that the US of A and its allies are trying to rally UN peacekeepers into Sudan. Sudan rejected this proposal (which only came out 1 or 2 years ago) and compromised by having the AU peacekeepers instead. But they are not satisfied, they are still trying to push soldiers into Sudan. And to me (at this point in time) that proposal sounds sensible and unselfish enough (unlike some other peacekeeping and anti-terror proposals).
To my horror, China vetoed against the proposal! I never heard China doing such things before and I said to myself, this awaken dragon is a mean one...
Two days later I discussed the issue with another medic. She's from Sudan, but lived in the UK all her life. Her parents are Sudanese but migrated to the UK even before she was born. She went back every now and then to visit her relatives and do the usual stuff when people went back somewhere.
And interestingly enough she has got different ideas about the happenings in Darfur. To her there is actually no big issue or genocide or whatever. In fact she said that not many people in Sudan actually think there is an ongoing genocide in Darfur. The so-called 'genocides' have been happening since the 1980s. It is nothing close to a genocide, but rather a simple conflict between two tribes in dispute of land for cattle and agriculture. Killings happen every now and then but nothing more than killings that happened in Malaysia and the UK. The only thing is, the killings were done by a member of a tribe on the other.
That's refreshing, and severely exposed my ignoramus status.
'Why then,' I asked, 'US said that UN peacekeepers are needed in Darfur?' Her answer was rather simple, 'Oil.' UN peacekeepers are actually not needed in Darfur. The fact of the matter is (according to her) rather the contrary; the USA was the one in need of UN peacekeeper in Darfur. Why did China veto against the proposal? Because China invested a lot on the newly found Sudanese oil. At this point, the jigsawed picture started to become whole for me.
This 'conflict' has been going on for eons (or rather 20 years) and went unnoticed by everyone. Who would be interested in a land dispute between a bunch of farmers, let alone the 'great' USA? And then not too many years ago someone found oil in Sudan. China won the right to invest for oil in Sudan (Petronas did manage to get a piece of the pie as well; but not Exxon and co., haha). USA were pissed and rallied their whole battalion of journalist to blow the conflict out of proportion. When it became a 'big enough deal', UN peacekeepers were proposed. Sudanese government were against it. China vetoed against it. The USA became more pissed and frustrated. Simplistic, yet that's the picture that I get from the two contradictory sources.
Did China do bad though? As in, investing in the Sudanese oil-industry? According to my friend, they did not. At this moment in time, Chinese were literally everywhere in the streets of Sudan. Some of them even married the locals. By investing in the oil-industry they actually did good for the country. Acutely enough, Sudan is now the 35th largest oil producer in the world. By comparison, Malaysia is the 25th and that took us years. Jobs are now in abundant. Unemployment in Sudan was high for decades, estimated to be 18.7% in 2002. Population below poverty line was a soaring 40% in 2004. So jobs are always welcomed in Sudan. Sudan's GDP was a skyhigh 8.0% in 2005, quite high to Malaysia's 5.2% (which was ironically enough the same as Israel's). In short, China did great, as far as this matter of Sudanese oil is concerned.
This enlightment (I hope) is a very enlightening one. The conclusion that I get from this short encounter is rather unrelated to the main issue. Mass media is a major player in shaping up world's view on a certain issue. For all we know, they could say that genocides happen in Malaysia and the world would still believe it. To be fair, IF this enlightening is a rather misdirected one (which I seriously doubt); probably the Sudanese people were misdirected by their government's media. Why I doubt that? I doubt there's even a proper mass media coverage in Sudan (despite the presence of radio and TV stations in Sudan). People simply can't afford them. Everything comes from first hand experience.
Sources: Epigram October 2006, CIA - The World Factbook, a friend (who should remain anonymous) =)
