<h3>Darfurian Delicacies</h3>

Medecins Sans Frontieres: Essential Services [Pic: Peter Casaer]

More populous than Iraq and infinitely more dangerous than Somalia, Sudan poses complex problems for a slack-arse Western media. Earlier this week, the Bashir regime mustered upwards of 100,000 protesters to voice opposition to Western governments deploying troops in blood-soaked Darfur. The African Union (AU) is prepared to commit 2,000 soldiers to protecting peacekeepers and aid workers in the region. Dispensing with pretences of impartiality, most English-language stories slipped "stage managed" into their reports of the demonstration. Stage managed? I don't think so.

Sudan, a Muslim country fast crumbling after decades of civil war, is now becoming a "story". That's bad news—not only for Lt-Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir's ruling cabal, but for the peoples of Darfur. Most Western perceptions of Sudan will be based on supposition, prejudice and the agendas of those who've had their eyes on Sudanese oil resources for the past century or two.

Today, as most U.K. and U.S. citizens slide into an acceptance of their false "lack of security", they're prone to accepting simplistic and glib tales of the genocide sweeping Africa's largest country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darfur is undoubtedly a hell hole in dire need of emergency aid and foreign initiative, but it is not Sudan—a country riven by decades of civil war. A quarter the size of the United States, Sudan is poor but proud. Resources are heavily centralised. The West Darfur state—one of some twenty-five—is home to 5.5 million people boasting 397 primary and 23 secondary schools. This compares to a tenth the number of people enjoying three times as many primary and twenty times as many secondary schools in Khartoum.

As poor as it is, Sudan has seen off its share of colonial invaders. It's a stone's throw from Saudi Arabia—across the Red Sea—and is bordered by no less than nine countries, many of which are dealing with cross-border or internal conflict. If the U.S. and Britain were to launch a pre-emptive military strikes targeting Khartoum, it would constitute the costliest and most irresponsible extension of George W. Bush's global land grab to date. Although it's not on the cards right now, such a foolhardy undertaking cannot be ruled out. It cannot be allowed to go ahead and should be resisted by every right-thinking person.

At the moment, Sudan may present as a possible shot at redemption through intervention. Appearances, however, have a recent history of being deceptive. In an earlier post, I pointed to several sites chronicling and documenting the ongoing carnage and suffering in Darfur. Many belonged to aid agencies. Rather than getting sucked into debating the wisdom of yet another great American military misadventure, most would do well to give what they can to aid organisations as they inform themselves of the complex issues wracking Sudan.

Yes, Bashir's governing council has its agenda and interests at heart. But one could do worse than scouring Sudan.net, ingesting the myriad essays of The European Sudanese Public Affairs Council, and following English-language links from the Sudanese government's site. And do read criticism of an A.A. Gill London Sunday Times story. It seems Western media are able to open themselves to scorn and derision without effort.

Nor can anyone looking for a halfway sane bearing on African political processes and a healthy approach to the way we generally do things around here go wrong reading Somali author Nuruddin Farah's 1993 Guardian interview, as well as a New York Times Op-Ed written by the same author. Joe Duemer, reading and reviewing Farah's latest novel, Links, does us a favour bringing Farah's work to our attention.