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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS