When asked which person best represents the worst tendencies of our brutal age, Yahya Sinwar (leader of Hamas in Gaza), Benjamin Netanyahu, Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin will be the first to come to mind. First of all, because we are bombarded with news about these leaders. If we broaden our focus and consider the horrors largely ignored by the Western mainstream media, we see that the leaders of the warring parties in Sudan’s civil war stand out even more. The new warlords are showing shocking cruelty and indifference to their own people (or anyone living in areas under their control), including the systematic obstruction and hijacking of humanitarian aid.
The situation in Sudan exposes a global economic logic that is not so clear in other cases. Mass demonstrations in 2019 overthrew the longtime dictator, Omar al-Bashir, whose rule at least maintained a semblance of peace and stability after the secession of South Sudan (a predominantly Christian country now rocked by its own civil war). Then, after a short-lived transitional government and renewed hopes for democratization, a brutal war broke out between two Muslim warlords: General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) who is still nominally head of state, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagal (known as Hemedi, meaning “little Muhammad”), the commander of the Rapid Support Force (RSF) and one of the richest men in the country.
The RSF is behind some of the worst crimes in the current conflict, including the massacre in Khartoum on June 3, 2019, when more than 120 protesters were killed, hundreds wounded and thousands of women raped, and many homes looted. Dagal’s forces launched a new cycle of violence on April 15, 2023, when they attacked SAF bases across the country, including the capital Khartoum.
Although both sides claim commitment to democracy, no one takes such claims seriously. What they really mean is, “First we have to win the war, and then we’ll see.” That’s an understandable position. For all parties concerned, some sort of largely benevolent dictatorship, akin to Paul Kagame’s regime in Rwanda, may be the best they can realistically hope for.
Things are further complicated by the role of external forces. Russia’s Wagner group, the Libyan National Army (under the command of Khalifa Haftar) and the United Arab Emirates reportedly supply the RSF with military supplies, helicopters and weapons on a scale that gives it a significant edge over the SAF. In the meantime, SAF is finding its sponsors, above all China.
But the RSF has another big advantage: Dagalo controls a region rich in gold reserves, which allows it to buy the weapons it needs. It is a reminder of the sad truth that many developing countries face: natural resources can be a source of violence and poverty as much as a support for peace and prosperity.
A typical example is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has long been cursed with reserves of critical minerals, diamonds and gold. Without those resources, it would still be poor, but at least it could be a happier and more peaceful place to live. Congo is also an example of how the developed West contributes to the conditions for mass migration. Beneath the surface of the “primitive” ethnic passions that explode again in the African “heart of darkness”, the contours of global capitalism are unmistakably visible.
After the fall of Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, Congo ceased to exist as a functioning state. Its eastern region is now torn between local warlords, whose armies forcefully recruit and drug children, while maintaining business ties with foreign corporations that exploit the region’s mineral reserves. This arrangement benefits both parties: corporations get mining rights without paying taxes to the state, and warlords get money to buy weapons. Many of the minerals from those areas will end up in our laptops, cell phones, and other high-tech products. The problem is not the “savage” customs of the local population, but foreign companies and the wealthy consumers who buy their products. Take them out of the equation and the whole edifice of ethnic conflict crumbles.
Congo is no exception, as shown by the dismemberment – or, rather, the “Congoization” – of Libya after the NATO intervention and the fall of Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011. Since then, most of the Libyan territory has been ruled by local armed gangs that sell oil directly to foreign buyers; it is a reminder to us of how determined capitalism is to ensure a stable supply of cheap raw materials. That is the sickening fate of resource-cursed countries.
The tragic outcome is that no participant in the ongoing conflicts is innocent or just. In Sudan, the problem is not just the RSF; both sides are playing the same brutal game. The circumstances cannot be explained by a “backward” people who are not ready for democracy, because it is really about the continuous economic colonization of Africa – not only from the West but also from China, Russia and rich Arab countries. It should not surprise us that central Africa is increasingly dominated by Russian mercenaries and Muslim fundamentalists.
Yanis Varoufakis has written eloquently about the transition of capitalism to “techno-feudalism”, which is evidenced by the de facto monopolies of large technology companies over their markets. In countries such as Sudan and the Congo, however, something more like medieval feudalism prevails. In fact, both labels are correct: we increasingly live in a combination of high-tech and analogue feudalism. That’s why Hemedi – even more than Elon Musk – is the true avatar of our era.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net, translation: M. Jovanović)
News
(Opinions and views published in the “Columns” column are not necessarily the views of the “Vijesti” editorial office.)
Source: www.vijesti.me
