Civil wars seldom start because of one factor, and seldom end with one easy answer.  The situation in Darfur is no different.  There are many factors, historical and economic, which play into the events unfolding in Sudan.  Below is a humble attempt to explain some of the major elements that created the situation we see today.

When Sudan gained its independence from British-Egyptian rule in 1956, colonial rule was replaced by the birth of a new state. Originally Darfur was an desert buffer region between French held Chad and British-Egyptian held Sudan.  This area, due to its arid climate offered little in economic gains and remained uncontrolled for the most part until 1956.  It was at this point that the region of Darfur (home of the Fur) was incorporated in the state of Sudan.  The issues that arise from colonial divisions of Africa persist today, and are part of the root issue, which led to today’s crisis.  The colonial rule in the region intensified the division between the north and the south leaving tensions between the two regions high.  Since the independence of Sudan, there has been a perpetual conflict between the north, which are mainly Arab-Islamic and the south, which has identified themselves as black African with fewer ties to the Islamic faith.  Those in the south have generally perceived their identity as being separate from those in the north, with differences in ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds.  Although differences in these areas do not lead directly to conflict of themselves, they do act to polarize communities when there are conflicts of interest, particularly in regards to resources or personal freedom.  This conflict between the north and south was only intensified when oil was found in the southern part of Sudan around 1983.  At this time Colonel Gaafar Mohamed Al-Nimeiri implemented Sharia rule in all of Sudan.  This conflict is the longest lasting humanitarian crisis Africa has ever seen with over 2 million deaths and 4.5 million displaced people.

These and other events increase tension between the north and south, leading to the third party intervention by Troika (the UK, the US and Norway).  It was this agreement process that increases the perception of marginalization by those in the region of Darfur because they were not represented in these peace negotiations.  From the perspective of those running the peace negotiations between the north and the south the rebels in Darfur could be seen as spoilers.  (‘Spoilers’ is a term used by negotiators to describe groups or individuals whose interests can be seen as a threat to the goals of their negotiation, regardless of the validity of their interests.)

These two conflicts are obvious linked, but it is important to realize the difference between the 20-year conflict between the north and the south, and the current 2.5-year conflict occurring in Darfur.  The conflict between the north and south has to do with the south’s desire to secede from Sudan due to cultural and religious differences, the people of Darfur are seeking representation in the government. Marginalizing a region the size of France from negotiations cannot, however, lead to effective results.  It was these grievances that the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) hoped to bring to the attention of the government and mediators when they attacked the capital city in Darfur. Increased scarcity of resources and the conflict between the pastoralist (generally Arab African) and the agriculturalists (non-Arab Africans) only further incited the Justice and Equality Movement to take action against the government.