The inversion of ethnicity from perception to cause of violent conflicts

[gottaB]

The inversion of ethnicity from perception to cause of violent conflicts: The case of the Fur and Nuba conflicts in Western Sudan, by Mohamed Suliman (1997).

It's a little dated, but provides some good background for understanding the elements of the current crisis. Some interesting ideas too.

Most violent conflicts are over material resources, whether these resources are actual or perceived. With the passage of time, however, ethnic, cultural and religious affiliations seem to undergo transformation from abstract ideological categories into concrete social forces. In a wider sense, they themselves become contestable material social resources and hence possible objects of group strife and violent conflict.

Usually by-products of fresh conflicts, ethnic, cultural and spiritual dichotomies, can invert with the progress of a conflict to become intrinsic causes of that conflict and in the process increase its complexity and reduce the possibility of managing and ultimately resolving and transforming it.

Yeah, it's as wonky as all that.

Also, a much briefer paper, Between Naivasha & Abéché: The Systematic Destruction of Darfur, by Ali B. Ali-Dinar (2004). Ali-Dinar focuses more on the main political players and their manipulations of ethnic tensions.

Why is the Government of Sudan waging war in Darfur, Ali-Dinar asks?

There are several reasons for GOS/NIF’s current war in Darfur, partly could be examined within the context of the nature of the regime since it came to power, and how it creates a conducive environment of repression to stay longer. Thus, emergency laws, curfews, forcible conscription, ghost houses, work dismissal, jihad war against the South, Nuba mountains; have all helped the regime in tightening its grip on power. The current peace talks in Naivasha, if succeeded will evade an important theme in GOS/NIF policies, with regard to its viable existence, and hence creating a new situation that will legitimize the continuation of the status quo is good for the regime. Thus, the reason for NIF current war in Darfur should be looked within the previous contexts, and in that one could list several reasons:

1. Weakness of political movement that will topple the NIF government, except the army,
   
   
2. It’s better to get the army involved in a new war, to neutralize it for post-Naivasha Sudan,
   
   
3. Having a new war, will be a pretext for the extension of emergency laws and other repressive polices;
   
   
4. This war could serve as an excuse for delaying elections according to Machakos protocols;
   
   
5. This war could serve as a pretext for plundering and enriching some groups, financially with the one millions dollars for daily war expenses;
   
   
6. Revenge for what has been destroyed in armory and personnel in Darfur, and clinch to victory from Darfur contrary to army defeats in the south;
   
   
7. More than 60% of GOS soldiers are from western Sudan, so it’s for NIF interest to create division among them as one group;
   
   
8. Implant seeds of hatred and animosity between Arab groups, and non-Arab groups in Darfur, by creating the Janjaweed militias;
   
   
9. Disrupt Umma party allegiance among non-Arab Darfurians, and the creation of new alliance between NIF and favorable groups in the regions;
   
   
10. Alleging PNC involvement in Darfur, as a pretext for waging war, rhetorically as fighting a rival “enemy”;
    
    
11. Economically: create new alliance with the Arab groups for their livestock, as strategic partner for export; and in that context policies of burning and forced deportation will result in providing pastures, especially with the Naivasha talks.
    

[bemildred]

1. Very interesting, thank you.

First fellow seems a bit naive and/or academic.
Second is very good. Neither mentions that Sudan
has hydrocarbons and this makes additional intervention
by more advanced nations likely, for good or ill.

[gottaB]

2. academic, I'd say.

Suliman did make a brief note of oil in regards to the Nuba conflict. At the time he wrote it, were there proven oil reserves in Darfur?

His theoretical approach *is* weakened by not fully considering external interests in Sudan's energy resources. Surely somebody must have done a readable post-Structuralist-Marxist study of Sudanese ethnicity that encompasses world energy markets, the strategic interests of neoimperial powers, international fundamentalist movements and so on. Ha ha. Anyway, to the extent that his theoretical lens is indaquate or naive, I wonder whether it hasn't been outpaced by events.

Do you feel like the world is rapidly becoming smaller? What's that Clinton phrase, more interrelated, but not integrated?

[bemildred]

3. I do not follow this closely, so am a lousy source.

But I have had an eye on it for a couple years. It is my
impression that the war in the South is partly about control
of substantial but not earthshaking oil prospects, that the
"Western Powers(tm)" interest, as in Somalia, requires some sort
of political stabilization before development will proceed,
and that Darfur is not directly part of the oil equation. The
second fellow does a rather good job of outlining the possible
issues there, although he skirts around the issue of desertification
and population growth a bit. It has been clear for a long time
that the Khartoum government is a bunch of certifiable assholes,
but the alternatives are not so hot either.

I wonder sometimes how much of the Sahara has been examined for
oil deposits, it is rather large and forbidding, and oil does seem
to accumulate under deserts for some reason.

[gottaB]

4. I think your impressions are rather close to the mark,

but as you know I think the racial/ethnic dimension has become an essential element of the current crisis. Suliman adds to the discussion in that regard.

I found a brief theoretical paper on the topic of ethnicity which may be of interest, Misunderstanding Ethnicity: Ancient Hatreds, False Consciousness and Rational Choice, by anthropologist Andy Storey.

Regarding oil in the Sahara, I'm a solarist of sorts, so it strikes me as ironic and indeed tragic that empires would struggle over energy resources buried beneath the sands. The stupidity of the whole thing is one of the reasons I have for not accepting straightup Marxist views of conflict. In my worldview, irrationality is as vast and forbidding as the Sahara.