Global Policy Forum

By Huang Peizhao

U.S. President George W. Bush has called for doubling the international peacekeeping forces and direct involvement of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Sudan's Darfur when he gave a speech in Florida a few days ago. In a telephone talk with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Bush stressed that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is deteriorating and NATO should play a bigger role. Meanwhile, Bush is planning to send more peacekeeping forces under the name of the United Nations (UN).

Darfur, a border area of turbulence in western Sudan, has been put under the spotlight in recent years thanks to intense coverage by western media and the "care" of the United States. Now the United States again puts an eye on it and wants to send more troops there. Why?

Analysts see two reasons behind this. One is the geopolitical importance of Sudan and the other is economic benefit, basically newly-discovered oil. From the geopolitical point of view, Sudan is the backyard of the Arab world and also the southern gate of Arab countries to Africa. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States began its "remodeling" of the Arab countries from the east. If it can make it in, it will cut off the way back for Arab countries and realize its overall strategy of "besieging" the Arab world. This is why the United States has constantly touched the Darfur issue. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Feb. 16 that the United States was deeply concerned with Darfur's turmoil which has left nearly 300,000 people dead over the past three years.

Meanwhile, the United States has tried to build in East Africa another camp composed of Horn of African countries including Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. The United States has had troops stationed in some of these countries to "prevent them from turning into a terrorists haven or a hotbed of terrorist activities," especially to prevent Somalia from being reduced to a harbor of terrorists. Putting Sudan into this camp surely will expand the scope of prevention and reap "greater achievements" in fighting against terrorism, which is in accordance with U.S. strategic interest.

As for the economic benefit, more and more oil has been discovered and exploited in Sudan, leaving American oil companies remorseful and envious for they tried but gave up half way. As many Sudanese media put it, the reason why the United States has been hard on Sudan in recent years is that Darfur serves as an entrance for the United States to deal with Sudan. Essentially, the White House is casting an eye on Sudan's oil for the sake of America's economic interest. No wonder many Sudanese scholars say that if it was not for Sudan's oil and geopolitical position, the United States "wouldn't be so interested."

The Sudanese government has expressed opposition to increasing peacekeeping forces in Sudan and referring the Darfur issue to international agencies. Sudanese President Omar Hassan El- Bashir said the Darfur issue was magnified by western media serving countries such as the United States in their political and economic interests.

Translated by People's Daily Online

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.