By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN, Times Senior Correspondent
Published May 10, 2006
SPECIAL REPORT: DARFUR
[AP photo 2004]
Women sit under the shade of a large tree in a dry riverbed at a makeshift camp for internally displaced people near Seleah village in Sudan's West Darfur province. The camp is home to thousands of Sudanese who have fled their towns and villages due to fighting and unrest.
As a measure of what the broadcast and cable news networks consider important, here's how many segments they devoted last June to the runaway bride, Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise: 8,303.
Here's how many they devoted to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, that has killed at least 180,000 people: 126.
''There is a discounting of African lives that is complex, but what it comes down to is that the people of Darfur are poor, black, Muslim and don't sit over any valuable natural resources,'' said Eric Reeves, a Smith College expert on Sudan. "You can't get any poorer than that geopolitically.''
Why should Americans care what happens in a far-off country, on a continent that seems perpetually mired in poverty, turmoil and corruption? Because, experts say, what began as a localized conflict could easily spread to a good chunk of Africa, turning it into a new breeding ground for terrorists and creating thousands of refugees who could end up in the United States.
"You have the potential now for a much broader crisis so there's not only a question of moral obligation to respond to massive human rights abuses but also implications in terms of destabilizing an entire region,'' said Leslie Lefkow, a Darfur expert with Human Rights Watch.
Darfur is a parched area of western Sudan whose black African residents have long complained of neglect by the central government in Khartoum. In early 2003, rebels began attacking government targets, prompting retaliation by government-backed Arab militias in a frenzy of killing, raping and pillaging.
The Sudanese government and the main rebel group reached a peace agreement Friday, but concern is high that the deal could fall apart.
Since the conflict began, as many as 2-million people have fled their homes in Darfur. At least 200,000 have sought safety in neighboring Chad, one of the world's poorest nations.
"If the current immigration debate is of serious concern to Americans, can you imagine a large number of refugees created in the Horn of Africa looking for a place to go?'' asked Edward Kissi, assistant professor of African studies at the University of South Florida.
"It is very imperative - and practical - for the American people to do what they can to encourage their government and Arab governments to stem a tide of what is likely to be a very serous refugee inflow to the United States or other parts of the world.''
After Somalia, another country in Africa's eastern "horn,'' descended into civil war and chaos in 1991, Minnesota, Maine and other states absorbed an estimated 40,000 Somali refugees. Critics say they have put a serious strain on schools, housing and social services.
Despite scant network news attention, Americans are becoming more and more aware of the Darfur crisis, in large measure because of the unstinting efforts of Reeves, the professor, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Tens of thousands attended "Stop the Genocide'' rallies April 30 in several U.S. cities, actor George Clooney and other celebrities have traveled to the region and both MTV and the NBC series ER have tackled the subject.
But the Bush administration finds itself in a delicate position when it comes to Sudan, a huge country run by an Islamic government. In the early '90s, Sudan served as a base for Osama bin Laden and his budding al-Qaida organization, but it expelled him to Afghanistan in 1996 under U.S., Saudi and Egyptian pressure. In a recent audiotape, bin Laden urged his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. peacekeeping force.
Although Sudan remains on the State Department's list of countries that support terrorism, it has provided valuable intelligence on al-Qaida, Kissi said. Increasing Sudan's importance is its proximity to Djibouti, a tiny nation on the Red Sea that is headquarters for a U.S. military force trying to stop Islamic militants from infiltrating the Horn of Africa.
The United States is "very, very sensitive'' in its dealings with Sudan for fear of losing its help in the war on terror or causing it "to act in a way that might jeopardize American troops in Djibouti,'' Kissi said.
The administration has concentrated its efforts on getting African nations more involved in resolving a crisis that could spill over into Chad and the Central African Republic, two countries that could easily become failed states like Somalia. About 7,000 African Union troops have been deployed to Darfur, although critics say they've been fairly ineffective, and Nigeria hosted the talks leading to Friday's peace agreement.
If for no other reason, Americans should be concerned about Darfur "because peace is cheaper than war,'' as Reeves puts it. In three years, the U.S. government has spent about $800-million and that "is a lot of money that is essentially to preserve lives,'' he said. "It's not investing in infrastructure or anything else'' that could have long-term benefits.
But, as Reeves and others insist, the main reason Americans should take an interest in Darfur is because it is the right thing to do.
"By being seen as helping resolve the Darfur crisis, the United States can affirm its construction of itself as a leader of the world and a force of international morality,'' Kissi said.
"On that score, the American people and American government ought to be concerned about what is happening in Darfur - not that anybody or any nation can do anything to them for not caring and helping but because it is the social and moral responsibility that comes with leadership.''
