When one looks for a figure who best represents the worst tendencies of our brutal age, the first names that come to mind include Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un or Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, that is primarily because we are bombarded with news about these leaders. If we widen the lens to account for horrors that Western mainstream media largely ignore, those waging Sudan’s civil war stand out even more. The country’s new warlords are displaying shocking cruelty and indifference toward their own people — or those living in the regions they control — including by systematically hampering the flow of humanitarian aid and taking an exorbitant amount of it for themselves.
The situation in Sudan exposes a global economic logic that has remained obfuscated in other cases. Back in 2019, widespread demonstrations toppled the country’s longtime dictator, Omar al-Bashir, whose reign at least had maintained a semblance of peace and stability following the secession of South Sudan (a predominantly Christian country that is now mired in its own civil war). Then, following a brief moment of transitional government and renewed hopes for democratization, a brutal war erupted between two Muslim warlords: Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), who is still nominally head of state, and Lieutenant General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo — or Hemedti, meaning “little Mohamed” — the commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and one of the country’s wealthiest men.
Illustration: Mountain People
The RSF is behind some of the worst atrocities of the conflict, including the Khartoum massacre on June 3, 2019, when more than 120 protesters were killed, hundreds more wounded, thousands of women raped and many homes pillaged. Dagalo’s forces triggered a new cycle of violence on April 15 last year when they launched a broad assault on SAF bases across the country, including in the capital, Khartoum.
Although both sides express a vague commitment to democracy, no one takes such claims seriously. What they really mean is: “First we have to win the war; then we’ll see.”
This is an understandable position to take. To all those involved, a mostly benevolent dictatorship like Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s regime might be the best that one can realistically hope for.
Further complicating matters is the role of external forces. For example, Russia’s Wagner Group, the Libyan National Army, and the United Arab Emirates have reportedly furnished the RSF with military supplies, helicopters and weapons on a scale that has left it better armed than the SAF. Meanwhile, the SAF has been looking for its own backers, not least China.
However, the RSF has another major advantage: Dagalo controls a region with abundant gold reserves that allow him to purchase all the weapons he needs. The situation is a reminder of a sad truth facing many developing countries: Natural resources are as likely to be a source of violence and poverty as they are to underpin peace and prosperity.
The quintessential example is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo), which has long been cursed by its reserves of critical minerals, diamonds and gold. If it had no such resources, it would still be poor, but it might be a happier and more peaceful place to live. The DR Congo is also an exemplary case of how the developed West contributes to the circumstances for mass migration. Behind the façade of “primitive” ethnic passions exploding yet again in the African “heart of darkness,” one can discern the unmistakable contours of global capitalism.
After the fall of former DR Congo president Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, the DR Congo ceased to exist as a functioning state. Its eastern region now comprises a multiplicity of territories ruled by local warlords whose armies press-gang and drug children, and maintain business ties with the foreign corporations that are exploiting the region’s mineral reserves. This arrangement serves both partners: The corporations get mining rights without having to pay state taxes, and the warlords get money with which to buy arms. Many of these minerals then end up in our laptops, mobile phones and other high-tech products. The problem is not the “savage” customs of the local population, it is the foreign companies and the wealthy consumers who buy their products. Remove them from the equation and the entire edifice of ethnic warfare crumbles.
The DR Congo is no exception, as demonstrated by the de facto dismemberment — or, rather, “Congo-ization” — of Libya following NATO’s intervention and the fall of former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. Since then, much of Libya’s territory has been ruled by local armed gangs who sell oil directly to foreign customers, reminding us of capitalism’s tenacity in securing a steady supply of cheap raw materials. This is why so many states damned with the resource curse remain condemned to their plight.
The tragic upshot is that no party in ongoing conflicts is innocent or righteous. In Sudan, the problem is not just the RSF, both sides are playing the same brutal game. The situation cannot be reduced to a “backward” people who are not ready for democracy, because it is really about the continuing economic colonization of Africa — not just by the West but also by China, Russia and rich Arab countries. People should not be surprised that Central Africa is increasingly dominated by Russian mercenaries and Muslim fundamentalists.
Former Greek minister of finance Yanis Varoufakis has written eloquently about the passage of capitalism to “techno-feudalism,” as evidenced by the big tech companies’ de facto monopolies over their respective markets. However, in countries like Sudan and the DR Congo, we have something closer to the feudalism of medieval times. In fact, both descriptions are true: We are increasingly living under a combination of high-tech and analog feudalism. This is why Hemedti — even more than Elon Musk — is the true avatar of our era.
Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and the author, most recently, of Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS