Email 
Print 
Janjaweed now killing each other, say Darfuris
Written by: Jonathan Erasmus
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
A Sudanese refugee sits in Seneit near the Chad/Sudan border, November 14, 2006.REUTERS/Stephanie Hancock
With an estimated 200 people killed in vicious clashes at the beginning of January, locals in South Darfur believe infighting between Janjaweed militia factions is largely to blame. Gun battles recently broke out near the south Darfur capital, Nyala, but in what appears to be a new development, people believe they were sparked by internal problems between the Arab militia. When police and army officials brought the bodies of 21 people into the town, they were forced to move them to an army compound on the suburbs after locals bombarded them with rocks and stones. The Janjaweed is believed to have split into various factions following tribal tensions and leadership disputes. The fighting is said to have erupted in a row over territory. The two groups involved opened fire on each other just 10 kilometres from Nyala and as a result tensions in the town are now running high. "I have not heard of the Janjaweed attacking each other before," said one Sudanese aid worker. "They have attacked many villages and killed thousands of people but not each other. They usually only target black Africans, not other Arabs." "When the police brought the bodies into the town, senior officials came out of their offices to view them. I think the locals must have recognised some of the bodies as Janjaweed so they started throwing stones at them." The Janjaweed is a heavily armed militia which is blamed for waging a campaign of rape, killing and pillage in Darfur. An estimated 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million forced to flee their homes during four years of fighting. Violence erupted in 2003 when rebels took up arms, accusing Khartoum of neglecting Darfur. U.N. officials say Khartoum backed the militia to quell the revolt - something the government denies. Khartoum has rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising 22,500 peacekeepers, but appears to have agreed to allow some U.N. support for the struggling African Union force in Darfur. Many Darfuris say this has caused friction within the Janjaweed - some feel betrayed by Khartoum, while others are trying to integrate with the Sudanese army maintaining their support for the government. Khartoum denies any links to the militiamen and rejects claims that any Janjaweed are being integrated into the army. Many people in Darfur say otherwise. Khalid, a trader who witnessed the dead bodies being brought into the town, told me: "The government gave them weapons and told them to attack our villages. Now they are using the weapons to kill each other. The government has lost control." Locals in Nyala said tensions had been rising within the group for some time. "They are fighters and only want what is best for themselves," said Osoman, a medic. "When they split some factions started seeing others as enemies, just like they do the rebels. Because they have guns, violence and killings were inevitable." Many media reports have claimed the fighting is a tribal issue between Arab nomads and black African farmers, but Darfuris say this is a naïve understanding of the situation. They say that in reality there are few problems between Arabs and black Africans and that the government is spotlighting clashes in order to divert attention from its own misdeeds. "Many Arabs and black Africans live together peacefully in Darfur," a senior Sudanese aid official told me. "There are occasional problems with fighting between tribes but by no means are these fights the problem in Darfur like the government would have you believe. "The big problems stem from the government wanting power and control. It is a region rich in resources and they want to exploit Darfur for their own gain," added the aid worker who did not want to be named. "The government is aware the international community is watching closely and it is for this reason it has made sure the problems in Darfur appear to be founded on tribal clashes. The reality is, officials in Khartoum are behind these battles. They are the instigators and financers." The aid worker said the government was creating tribal conflicts to cover up the fact they have been bombing and attacking not just rebel groups but civilians. "The government's problem now is that with all of its game-playing and meddling it has lost control of certain groups. For example there are factions of the Janjaweed no longer obeying orders from Khartoum. Instead they are now biting the hand that once fed them," he said.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
7 responses to “Janjaweed now killing each other, say Darfuris”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
22 Jan 2007 17:26:17 GMT
As we in richer nations, farther removed from this violence continue to ignore it, how often when it is touched on at all in the news, have we been told that the issue is violent Muslims slaughtering Christians? Certainly there must be some small tension, but how supportive of the American actions in the Middle East it is to suggest that the same genocide happening in Darfur by Muslims is being averted in Iraq by this nonsensical war. I've heard a lot of ugly racist remarks against Muslims over the last few years and many times this tragedy is sited as a reasonable basis for intolerance towards the Muslim community. I wonder how much more we can find out by actually getting there and maybe keeping enough people alive to ask them about it.
23 Jan 2007 10:17:31 GMT
Freshwatermermaid apparently likes to fish in troubled water: the only reasonable sentence is the last one. So my advice is to follow the suggestion. The article does not mention Muslims slaughtering Christians at all. Yes the JJ are predominantly Muslims, but their victims could be anything, and not neccessarily Christians. And Muslims are no race, but a belief, so where are the racist remarks. I have lived and worked in Nyaly for 2 years, and recently worked in the area bordering Chad for 6 months. I agree with what is said in the article; and where FWM sees any connections with Iraq or American policies in the Middle East: total rubbish. Average people in Darfur have never even heard of all that, and includes the JJ and the rebels.
23 Jan 2007 15:11:43 GMT
I do agree with DVK that Ms Mermaid's comments are total rubbish, but I also view the analysis put forth in the article about the GoS's instigation of the Darfur uprising as total rubbish. After the civilians of Darfur, the GoS has been the biggest loser in this war. It has lost international respect and credibility, has been forced to concede heavily to the SPLM, has lost its grip on internal politics, is facing the imminent loss of half of its country, and is in a deep financial crises as a result.
The Darfur rebellion was started by Turabi when he was forced out of the government, in order to destablize his former allies (the GoS) and force them to concede power to him. Turabi is an Islamic extremist. All the people of Darfur are muslims. Turabi funded the Darfur rebels, provided them with weapons and vehicles, and ordered them to start the insurrection by attacking army barracks and GoS installations in Darfur. Turabi should be the enemy of the West, as he is associated with Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. Instead, he is now their best friend and ally. Shows you how much the West understands politics in the Middle East and Africa... Darfur is rich in oil and mineral resources, and everyone wants to grab it, particularly the US. The rebels want to become rich African despots to exploit this wealth. They have no interest in reaching a peaceful solution with the GoS. They want power, and that is why they continue to violate all the accords. The West wants to seize Darfur's oil and uranium. They fear that the GoS will give the concessions to China, as it did the other Sudanese oil fields. Chad and Libya both want to invade Darfur and claim it as their territory, and so they each back their own rebel groups. Stop being so naive, open your eyes: this is about wealth, enormous wealth. Nobody cares about the people of Darfur, least of all you hypocritical Europeans. All your governments want is the oil and the uranium.24 Jan 2007 16:52:22 GMT
Yara Aboudy, people are complaining because the US is *not* interfering in Darfour, not because it is. Wake up and open your eyes, it is not really possible for any nation, especially the US, to "sieze" any other country's natural resources. The US, and other countries, actually have to BUY the oil. And oil prices are controlled by OPEC (the federation of oil exporting countries). Of which the US is not a member.
25 Jan 2007 10:25:16 GMT
I donât think I would take any satisfaction in the fact that the Janjaweed are killing each other, because I donât really know what the nature of the disagreement is. Is it a petty disagreement between factions much like criminal organizations fighting over turf? Does the disagreement have to do with a change in political policy on the part of the Sudanese government?
I approach this problem as a blind man, because I know nothing of the internal politics and factionalism within the Sudanese Government. Which factions within the government are connected with the Janjaweed in Darfur, and which oppose? How much control over the Janjaweed does the Sudanese Government have? Islamist organizations have a long history of rigidly defying any governments attempts to control them. Even if the Sudanese government wanted an eventual political solution the Janjaweed may have very different ideas.25 Jan 2007 10:27:54 GMT
I am curious, Ms. IllTemperedOldWoman. The US can only muster approx. 3% of its fossil fuel energy needs from within its boundaries. The water situation doesn't look too healthy either from this view being directly north. What about using and abusing natural resources such as other country's soil for US food corporations that have been hop skipping around the world, moving on to the next country when the soil has been deadened and the people impoverished? The Military Complex and invasions are very expensive enterprises. What happens if the US runs out of money therefore can no longer buy? What do you think would happen before bankruptcy?
25 Jan 2007 13:57:48 GMT
The US "New Middle East" strategy includes the dismemberment of large multi-ethnic countries like Sudan, Iraq, Algeria, in order to create small states dependent on the US for their existence. In this way, the US and its EU allies can syphon off the resources of these new banana republic countries through bribing their corrupt puppet leaders. I don't see where you find this confusing Illtemperedoldwoman. It has happended before, and it will happen again.
Already, US corporations have approached the Sudanese authorities offering to end the Darfur problem if they are given the oil concessions for the whole of Darfur. Wonder why? The West African pipeline which already runs from Chad to the Cameroon can easily be extended to the Darfur oil fields, hence avoiding the Red Sea and the the Middle East entirely, thus greatly reducing US dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The only problem is: Darfur is part of Sudan, a Middle Eastern, largely Muslim, mostly Arabic-speaking country. Solution: split Darfur from Sudan, say its really african not arab, and the rest is history.