Sudan is the largest country in Africa in area. It is strategically located on the Red Sea, immediately south of Egypt, and borders on seven other African countries. It is about the size of Western Europe but has a population of only 35 million people.
Darfur is the western region of Sudan. It is the size of France, with a population of just 6 million.
Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to U.S. corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.
Sudan has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world. Over 400 ethnic groups have their own languages or dialects. Arabic is the one common language. Greater Khartoum, the largest city in the country, has a population of about 6 million. Some 85 percent of the Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising livestock.
Now when I hear the words oil reserves, natural gas and high-purity uranium, my ears perk up as my head jerks up. That tells me for a multitude of reasons Darfur is going to be viewed closely but not on the United States and Saudi Arabia but many other countries will take a keen interest in decisions that are put into place there as well. Qatar has also been very active in its efforts to broker a key role for itself in Darfar.
But I ask the simple question – who is better placed, most knowledgable and has the resources to assist in Darfur? Who has the resources and the expertise to eliminate the genocide which is continuing to take place there? But will countries such as the United States and Saudi Arabia and others put aside their political agendas for the better good of the people of Darfur? Or will their actions have underlying motives such as securing and controlling the oil reserves; oversight of the uranium; or control of the natural gas resources?
I’m not saying that intentions are not good but when are the intentions bundled up without a political agenda?
Filed under: America, culture, politics, relationships, Saudi Arabia, travel, Uncategorized
Sad to say, but no country helps another without alterior motives. If Saudi Arabia were keen on helping due to there being a high population of Muslims or because it’s a humanitarian crisis, they would have helped people in Palestine first…but there’s nothing for them to gain by doing so. Same goes for the USA.
I think our world is a long way off from simply helping our fellow humans just for the sake of helping. Unfortunately everyone is out to serve their own interests first.
I arrived in Pakistan 2 days after its devastating earthquake in October 2005 and I can say that the world really did come together to help Pakistan. Same thing with the tsunami. Isn’t Darfur in some ways also an ongoing natural disaster requiring assistance?
I know….for such cases like Darfur there will likely be political motives.
But my question remains…which country should have a greater interest in wanting to help Darfur and why?
[...] Who has the Greatest Interest in Darfur – USA or Saudi Arabia?It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits … [...]
The first thing that springs to my mind when hearing ”Darfur” is that we are constantely asked to give money to projects to keep the people there from starving.
In interviews with Darfuri people I’ve read that they have so called ”african” tribes and ”arabic” tribes. While this had no impact 20 years ago and nobody minded, the ”african” tribes are now chased away from their villages, and replaced by ”arabic” tribes. The army is systimatically destroying the intellectual infra-structure, and demolishing schools, so the Duarfuri’s will be kept uneducated and ignorant.
If you ask me the wolves are allready there and working out their strategy. I don’t know who will end up with the natural wealth of Darfur, but I am afraid it won’t be the indiginous people.
Good insight Aafke. Ultimately it does sound like the potential for wealth through natural resources is great but like you mentioned, many tribal differences exist and each have their own particular agendas.
Do the more powerful nations ever assist to improve the lives of the less powerful without any incentive? Ever? Aside from political pressure from other nations.
If anything they’d have no issue with turning the other way when it comes to Africa. Why? Africans don’t bomb other countries, what happens in Africa stays in Africa and excessive deaths from disease and violence is a method of population control. Can anyone else think of other reasons?
will you’r american (i think) & live in arab world, so you must know how USA work, how USA communicate with other countries …….. in recent time no one could stand against USA…. we hope that we can see changes with Obama, but i dont think so ….. when it’s about oil …. power …. the human beign is the last thing to think about>>>>>>>>>
Ryan, you might want to do a little bit more study on Africa.
Darfur is an ongoing natural disaster? It is far from ‘natural’. It is definitely man-made and not very different from Somalia. Countries have tried to help there as well haven’t they?
The way that they all talk about the U.S. and how it only befriends countries with these natural resouces it can exploit one would assume that the U.S. would step in and take control wouldn’t you?
Maybe it’s more like parents have to let their kids ‘work it out for themselves’ but the world is helping and that is what the UN Peacekeepers are supposed to be for. How’s that been going?
Personally, if anyone was going to stick their necks out for them it should be KSA since it is the Arab Imperialism that I believe is to blame for the main problem.
Lynn, yes the disaster and suffering are wholly man-made. And that there is Arab imperialism at work here, conducting ethnic/religious cleansing. This has been going on for decades in Africa, but it doesn’t reach the media. And, as the victims are poor black farmers and cattle-holders usually following some sort of animalistic or ancestor religion, nobody cares what happens to them.
Fifteen years ago an aid-worker told me how the rivers litterally run red with blood, and were crammed and stinking by the dead bodies of those slaughtered by the northern Arab tribes killing everybody who wasn’t muslim.
The question was “who is better placed, most knowledgable and has the resources to assist in Darfur?”
The answer is the US. The US brought the workings (physical and administrative) of the oil industry to the KSA when ARAMCO (set it up…the whole nine) was formed back in, what was it…the 1940′s? Even though the company is now Saudi owned…they still have to employee a “whole slew” of westerners to do the jobs. If this operation were expanded…where would the KSA Saudi get the resources? According to the Economist, it was discussed at an economic c summit on the gulf states, and it stated that the KSA should be graduating 20,000 engineers a year to keep up with it’s industries…it’s graduating less than 5% of that number (I forget the exact number). In this context I view the workers as a resource. So…I think the KSA could set up the operations…but they’d be hiring a bunch of westerners to do it.
Whether or not we should go into Darfur, due to the genocide…that’s a whole different thing. I don’t think the fact that they’re killing each other to the left and to the right will stop any country from doing business. Otherwise…who would any country do business with? The people are the pions and the people at the top make the choices that is in their best interest. That’s just the way it is…in every country.
[...] VOTE FOR AMERICAN BEDU · YES – You DID See Sarah Palin in Saudi Arabia · The 3 Shrouded Unknown Saudi Women · October Test Your Saudi Knowledge Fun Quiz · A Professional Australian Woman & Mother in Saudi Arabia …[Continue Reading] [...]
I really appreciate everyone’s responses and look forward to more.
Aafke,
It is unbelievable all the killing that goes on in this world that no one pays any attention to because they aren’t important.
BCIS,
“who is better placed, most knowledgable?” and you say the US because of KSA’s experience. The thing is, it isn’t up to the US, as in the govt , as it might be for KSA. It might be an independent American company that might have the best technology to do it though.
The Private sector may be the best “equipped” to deal with the natural resources within Darfur, but does anyone else have blood diamonds come to mind?? The thought of the Private sector involving themselves in what is deep rooted tribal issues is very scary…
Who is best equipped politically.. wow.. I don’t think any one government should take the responsibility, one would like to think that the UN got involved, but they have unfortunately turned in to bureaucratic paper pushers with no real authority or ability to resolve any conflict…
Now back to the question… If you had asked prior to the election of Barak Obama I would have said that the only government that will get involved is the US, they were after all the only country that actively sought to over run countries for there own greed for natural resources. However now I think the only country that would be best equipped to assist would be KSA, after all they were seemingly gripped by tribal wars etc not long ago (before the discovery of natural resources and the formation of a monarchy)
And that’s my opinion! LOL
Lynn:
The question was, “…who is better placed, most knowledgable and has the resources to assist in Darfur?” Whether or not it is up to the US, is irrelevant to the question asked…so I guess I don’t understand your comment, or even if you’re in disagreement with me or not. As the author also stated, they were asking a simple question. Of course the real answer is more complicated if this were an actuality. However, answering the question, as asked…I stand by my response.
Have a Great Day!!
A country such as Saudi Arabia may be better equipped in the sense of understanding tribal mentalities. But it would also likely require technical cooperation from such a country as the US or perhaps Germany.
Maybe another direction for attention and understanding is for a US film crew to make an updated documentary about Darfur?
Are we doing enough to help the Darfuris who lost what’s theirs? What can we do to force the decision-makers to work together in finding a solution that’s just for all? The activists are doing great job in raising the profile of Darfur but more can be done.
Will we be able to persuade Sudan’s biggest investor to convince that what’s going on in Darfur is not in the interests of anyone? I need no mention which country it is.
That particular country had appointed a special envoy but until now, I’ve yet to see much of it in Darfur. I still read articles in magazines and news websites of Darfuris suffering and without support such as home, job or even food. Many are either languishing in refugee camps or under the trees in the middle of nowhere.
I feel that the relevant countries who sent envoys to ‘settle’ the Darfuri situation is not doing enough and I find it self-defeating to have media coverage of envoys meeting the Sudanese President, make statements to show that they’re doing something and then forget about it after leaving Sudan.
BCIS,
You said: ‘The US brought the workings (physical and administrative) of the oil industry to the KSA when ARAMCO (set it up…the whole nine) was formed back in, what was it…the 1940’s?’
Was it the US that brought it or was it a private company based in the US that did that? All I am saying is there is a difference between the United States of America stepping in and a private company with knowledge on the use of these resources assisting the Sudanese.
So what is needed is a referee to stop the murderous madness and that is supposed to be the job of the United Nations. Then private companies can go in and either buy the land from them and then set up shop or what would be better is act as consultants and ‘teach them to fish’ by setting their business up for them. Either way, that isn’t the US Govt that does that.
Agree with the two comments above.
(Shell could do it btw) There are more countries in the world than USA and KSA.
I also agree with the comments of Firdaus and Lynn. And you’re right Aafke…so many companies from around the world could indeed step in.
Hello Lynn,
To answer your question, it was the US companies…and they brought US workers. So, I don’t know…if you bring a US company…and it brings US workers…doesn’t that qualify as the US? I’m asking this facetiously of course, as we know the answer.
All those western compounds located in Saudi were built for the westerners, the American’s needed to get things running. That is why all of the components (electrical sockets, etc.) on these camps were designed for American’s coming over.
Please note…there is no need for defensiveness (which is the tone I’m taking from your comment)…what I’m stating is a documented fact. The KSA may have the money, one form of resource, but their lacking in enough people with the education (degrees in engineering and chemistry). In business people are considered a resource…not just money. The KSA would need to bring in a lot of the personnel to run it…and this would probably end up being westerners. BTW: Check out The Economist…it’s a magazine, and you can check out the stats (education levels, what they’re graduating in, income levels, etc.) for all countries. You should also Google on the Economic Summit the Gulf States had, about a year ago (I think).
Have a Great Day!!
If there’s money to be made – and it sounds as if there are bundles – the buzzards and scavengers will come out of the woodwork. I am just so disgusted with the way Halliburton has mishandled the rebuilding of Iraq and other projects it was “awarded,” but I would not be surprised if the big H somehow pulls off landing this gig too – and the executives will make yet another big killing at the expense of the Sudanese citizens.
Everyone in the world is tired of the way the US acts as if it is boss of the world.
It seems to me that none of the prior comments have answered the question of the article.
Who has the greatest interest in Darfur, US, or KSA?
KSA quite clearly.
I don’t understand why so many responders are having such trouble with the question.
KSA – has much greater interest in Darfur,
1 It’s regionally close to KSA and its politics impact the area more than they impact the US.
2 A large percentage of arabic speaking people are their who will have relatives in KSA versus the US.
3 Lots of arabs being harmed looks bad on KSA news. Sadly in the US lots of arabs being harmed often has the opposite effect. Very sad but not inaccurate I believe.
4 Finally KSA runs an economy based on the same resources available in Darfur and on one hand they could be seen as a competitor and on the other an opportunity to expand their revenue through enlarging their businesses.
So based on these points I’d suggest that KSA has a much greater interest in Darfur than the US does.
Susie – I am cautiously optimistic that come mid-January a new image of America will begin to emerge.
San Diego Reader – Thank you for your systematic response to the question posed with your thoughtful response. I agree with you.
Must be a great joy to you…
finally somebody who actually comments related to your post…
I suppose he’s your favorite visitor now…
ahhhhhh Aafke, I hate seeing a sad smiley beside one of your comments! And of course your own comments remained directly related to the post and queries posed too… you are always good at that.
Kiddiiiiiiiiin’
(sigh of relief)
Just a short comment… to me because it is an African country, because it is happening in Africa, that it will be placed very, very low on the list of world priorities. Sad to say, but the unofficial superpower mentality is, “so what if there is genocide going on”. “So what if there are Africans dying”. “There will be less of them to deal with.”
To a lot of people outside Africa, the genocide is not happening in their country/life so they can turn a blind eye to it.
Darfur will only get a week’s worth of news coverage and then it is forgotten again until some American or British person dies there.
“But I ask the simple question – who is better placed, most knowledgable and has the resources to assist in Darfur?”
The US, Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf countries, and China
“Who has the resources and the expertise to eliminate the genocide which is continuing to take place there?”
The US does but will they actively do anything about it? No!
“But will countries such as the United States and Saudi Arabia and others put aside their political agendas for the better good of the people of Darfur?”
No! Because of my above comments.
“Or will their actions have underlying motives such as securing and controlling the oil reserves; oversight of the uranium; or control of the natural gas resources?”
Of course it will. There is always a poltical agenda.
I know I became more aware of what was happening in Darfur by the actions of George Clooney and his father who both traveled there. You’re right – it gets back burner coverage on Western news and pretty much the same on Saudi media as well.