The world's moral anger is aroused by the clear-cut ethical dimensions of the conflict. There is, indeed, little confusion about who the good and the bad guys are.

When the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 5, 2005, there were high hopes that it would put an end to the violence in western Sudan. Two years later, the death toll in Darfur has topped over 300,000 people while another 2.5 million have been displaced into neighbouring Chad because of the violence.

The perpetuation of the conflict in Darfur illustrates several realities about the sorry state of trans-national organisations like the United Nations and their ability to provide respite in conflicts where governments turn against their own people.

A recent report issued by Amnesty International exposes some of these manipulations. When the UN Security Council imposed the arms embargo on Darfur in 2004, it applied the embargo only to non-state actors. Despite the fact that there was ample evidence that it was the Sudanese government which was perpetuating these attacks on its people, the passed resolution continued to allow arms to be shipped to the government.

Since the imposition of the arms embargo the Sudanese government has imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition and $57 million worth of aircraft equipment from the People's Republic of China. Furthermore in 2005, it imported $27 million worth of aircraft and helicopter equipment from the Russian Federation. Smaller quantities of small arms and other weapons were exported to Sudan from Belarus and Iran.

The Amnesty report further details how these weapons were put to use by the Sudanese government. According to the AI report backed by photographs, military helicopter gunships were used in attacks on civilians in Darfur by the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed militia. In November 2006, military helicopters bombed villagers from the air while Janjaweed attacked from the ground. Since January 2007, Chinese jets owned by the Sudanese government have been seen in areas around Darfur and western Sudan and also been used in attacks on areas purported to belong to the rebel militias.

The dimensions of the Darfur conflict and the successful ability of the Sudanese government to manipulate the ambiguity of its connections with militias like the Janjaweed is indicative of the larger inability of the international community to deal with weak or failed states. The international system, built as it is on the nation-state as its primary unit, is at a loss when it comes to dealing with governments that use militias to accomplish their nefarious purposes. If the Sudanese or any other government in a weak state wants to do something nasty, it is far easier to subcontract its dirty deeds to a "militia" rather than take it on itself.

When the acts in question are as egregious as genocide, it becomes easy for a government to shift blame from itself to the militias and thus elude military sanctions from the UN. For weak governments seeking to subjugate sections of their own population, the message from Sudan certainly seems to be: find a militia to do your dirty work.

Another crucial question posed by the Darfur conflict is the now familiar query of why the international community, knowing full well the dimensions of the conflict, allows such a massive humanitarian crisis to persist? Why haven't China and Russia come under more criticism for supplying arms that are essentially fuelling genocide? The answer lies in the same fact that allows the Sudanese government to evade international responsibility. When dominant superpowers like the United States attack smaller, weaker countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the David vs. Goliath, favourite vs. underdog dimension of the conflict attracts everyone's attention. The world's moral anger is aroused by the clear-cut ethical dimensions of the conflict. There is, indeed, little confusion about who the good and the bad guys are. Despite vast political differences, political communities as diverse as Venezuela and India condemn the atrocities and news media around the world focus their attention on the cruel superpower guilty of committing them.

Darfur is a different matter. When a Government turns against its own people, the lines of moral outrage are far more difficult to draw for a world community which has little patience with complicated stories. Few know or care to know, how and why the Sudanese government would like to exterminate the people of Darfur? However evil and villainous its actions, the government doesn't fulfil the world's simplistic expectations of a genocidal Goliath bound on achieving victory at all costs. Few understand that one reason why Khartoum is engaged in these massacres is to re-entrench its own power in the area and gain better control of oil resources within Sudan. Even fewer worry about the immense cost imposed on neighbouring African countries like Chad that are now receiving hundreds of thousands of refugees. Daunted by the prospect of having to understand something a little more complicated than Bad Superpower attacking small country for oil, the world simply looks the other way.

The Muslim world itself is just as complicit in the reprehensible ignorance that characterises the world communities' attitude toward Darfur. Again, because the lines of conflict are not drawn as simply as Muslim against non-Muslim or occupier against occupied, the suffering of the Darfuri people fails to become the subject of religious sermons in the Muslim world. Because, both the perpetrators of evil (in this case the Sudanese government) and the victims (the Darfuris) are likely to be Muslim, it offers little in terms of making the individual Muslim feel wronged and serves few political agendas.

Indeed it does the opposite, it reminds individual Muslims that acts of reprehensible cruelty and despotic barbarism may just as well be carried out by Muslims as anyone else. Because it bears this grim message, one that does not lend itself to valorising one faith or nationality over another or suggest that religious unity can overcome anything, it is ignored. The death toll rises, the villages continue to burn and yet the world remains silent.

because the lines of conflict are not drawn as simply as Muslim against non-Muslim or occupier against occupied, the suffering of the Darfuri people fails to become the subject of religious sermons in the Muslim world.
I think it's much worse than that. Yes, the average Muslim on the street has turned a blind eye to Darfur because it is confused and ill-informed, but part of that blame comes from the religious sermons they are listening to. In this age of technology and instant accessibility to information, Muslims (or anyone) that still rely on religious sermons for information on what's happening in the world around them are truly lost. Sure, we'd like to see Muslim-majority governments (competent, if possible) step up to the plate on this one. Unfortunately, they have already proven their impotence after what was witnessed in, for example, Bosnia. It's going to take action by free Muslims to educate the masses, both here and abroad. Articles like this one are a good start. Thanks, Rafia.

Another factor that clouds the issue is how Zionist groups have jumped all over this in a blatant effort to exploit the propaganda value of a conflict they want to paint as one of Arabs killing and enslaving Africans. Many Muslims are weary of jumping on the bandwagon on this one because they see it as aiding the same people who say Don't look over here! (Palestine) Look over here! Anyway, thanks for the informative piece.
Salaam alaykum.

>> the lines of moral outrage are far more difficult to draw for a world community <<

There isn't a global community .. there is hope of one ..

I hate to point out the obvious .. but the human system is rotten to the cored. There is world outrage. Everyone is a hapless victim in the making. We shouldn't have misgivings about this.

>>Another factor that clouds the issue is how Zionist groups have jumped all over this

They jumped in where Muslim silence made room for them! The world doesn't just sit and wait for us to do things in house (mostly because we don't have a house to speak of, metaphorically). They act. Muslims sit, Westerns act. In a nutshell is why Europeans and now my country can basically walk all over Muslims whether the Muslims in question deserve it or not (some deserve it, some don't. There is no monolithic "Muslim Situation").

Jewish action is some cases may be self-beneficial as you say, Abu Nurah, but its just as morally wrong to cede the moral highground to them on the issue of Darfur. I think most Muslims, as Rafia wrote, simply will not face the issue because it does not reinforce the ghetto "Us Muslim victims verses them Western Oppressors" mindset. Don't be deceived into abandoning Muslims just because Jews advocate for them; it is a flimsy excuse.

OmarG, I am merely pointing out that this is a factor that explains the silence by many Muslims on this issue. I am not excusing it. It is our duty to uphold justice and advocate for the oppressed regardless.

>>Muslims sit, Westerns act<<

Don't forget, many of us Muslims are born and raised here in the West. W're not all foreign born.

>>Jewish action is some cases may be self-beneficial as you say, Abu Nurah<<

I never said Jewish. I said Zionist, which as you know includes Christian, Jewish, and others.

>>the ghetto "Us Muslim victims verses them Western Oppressors" mindset<<

I don't see we have to be classist/racist about this. The fact is it is Britain, the US, Australia et al invading and occupying Iraq. It is not Muslims that are invading and oppressing these Western countries. Here's ghetto for you: keep it real.

Rafia Zakaria,

You left out that countries like the United States and Israel provide weapons to the rebels. Not enough to subdue the Sudanese government, but enough for the rebels to create chaos and perpetuate violence. If Amnesty International and the “Save Darfur” movement wanted to stop the violence in Darfur, they need to address all those involved in fueling the violence. Here are two interesting articles about Sudan http://allthingspass.com/journalism.php?jid=165

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code;=%20SN20070207&articleId=4717


You wrote “When dominant superpowers like the United States attack smaller, weaker countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the David vs. Goliath, favourite vs. underdog dimension of the conflict attracts everyone's attention.”

But the mainstream media paints it as if though the United States is an innocent bystander, watching a civil war going on Iraq. Even though there is a lot of media attention on Iraq it doesn’t mean the Iraqi people are portrayed sympathetically. The fact that Iraq gets a lot media attention does no mean that the United States will stop what it is doing. In fact the United States has a long history ofbombings, killing millions and engaging in regime change, not only in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, and South America.

Nobody comes off as clean on the disgraceful handling of the Darfur crisis. More must be done.
I am in agreement with Omar that Muslims can do more, rather then allow others with a different agenda from getting involved.

Muslims have been impotent about doing anything about Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya, Palestine, etc. They haven�t been able to do anything about the United States engaging in regime change and supporting brutal dictators and kings, that do its bidding.
Not only that, but it was Muslims that helped to make the United States the number one superpower in the world. Muslims fought the Afghan-Russian war which helped to facilitate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

African-Americans have been impotent about doing anything about the United States role in fueling violence and exploiting the natural resources of Africa.

Hispanic�Americans have been impotent in doing any thing about the United States military intervention in South America.

All Americans, who say they are for peace, have been impotent in stopping the massively destructive military interventions of America, around the world.

With all this impotence going on, does anyone have some Viagra?

In all seriousness, it we are to stop the violence in Sudan and other African countries we must address all those involved in fueling the violence. You can not pick and choose the government officials to be placed on trial and countries to have sanctions placed against them. In the meanwhile, ignore other countries that are doing the same if not worse and act like everything is okay. I find the idea to ask the United States to do something about the Sudan completely ridiculous and is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Hasn�t the United States done enough damage ion Africa with its military interventions, selling weapons (sometimes to both sides of a conflict) to fuel war, engaging in regime change and exploiting natural resources?

RandallJones, I think what you're getting at is this notion of American exceptionalism. There's an excellent piece by Ron Jacobs on this: http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs07212004.html

>> In all seriousness, it we are to stop the violence in Sudan and other African countries we must address all those involved in fueling the violence.

In all seriousness? The fact is that Government is an institution that perpetuates social reality. IF you don't treat that reality, you won't treat the institution. Muslims are guilty of murder. They did not sell arms. They have under religious instigation found means to KILL. This says alot to me. It says that we want to change a world but realistically .. WE OFFER NO REAL SOLUTION. So if we kept it real or knew how to keep it real .. it would be so. It isn't. Hate the American government all you want, if your alternative isn't any different or doesn't improve anything ... it isn't an alternative.

Ghulam you wrote, "Hate the American government all you want, if your alternative isn't any different or doesn't improve anything ... it isn't an alternative."

Who said anything about hating the American government? I happen to be an American.

Ghulam, if someone in your family was doing wrong, would you try to correct him/her? THis is is what I am trying to do with my government.

I was not providing an alternative, I was providing additional steps that must be taken. I believe any Sudanese invovled in the genocide in Darfur should be put on trial. But I also believe foreign powers that are involved in fueling the violence in the region should be on trial too.

I believe all those involved in genocide whether it be in Africa, Asia, MIddle East, South America, Europe, etc should be put on trial.

THe Iraqis put Saddam Hussein on trial and executed him. Will Western powers, who had governmnt officials and corporations that collaborated with Saddam, put these war criminals on trial? I doubt it. Therefore the suffering will continue. This is why I say,

You can not pick and choose the government officials to be placed on trial and countries to have sanctions placed against them. In the meanwhile, ignore other countries that are doing the same if not worse and act like everything is okay.

>> Ghulam, if someone in your family was doing wrong, would you try to correct him/her? THis is is what I am trying to do with my government.

So how is everyones deconstruction of complicit and crooked muslim governments and muslim social orders, any different from your criticism of american ones? You've made it wrong to point out the muslim contribution to these problems. If you had a balanced opinion, you'd point out that people are being indiscriminately killed because they undermine an Arab totalitarian vision of society. The fire is there to begin with. American government and policy and rhetoric just fuels it.

Ghulam wrote, "If you had a balanced opinion, you'd point out that people are being indiscriminately killed because they undermine an Arab totalitarian vision of society."

Did you bother to read Rafia Zakaria article? It says Few understand that one reason why Khartoum is engaged in these massacres is to re-entrench its own power in the area and gain better control of oil resources within Sudan.

Here is another article about the Sudan that brings us information that is not discussed in the mainstrream media.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html

Good to see the token anti-Western comments even though its drawing a long bow --- Good work guys

RandallJones, would you mind enlightening us as to the source of your statement--

"You left out that countries like the United States and Israel provide weapons to the rebels."

Adnraa's comment about "Drawing the long bow" is an understatement, to say the least, in regard to some of the posts.