D<$>ARFUR is a name that is heard increasingly frequently in the international news although in this part of the world it probably raises very little interest.Located in northeast Africa in the Sudan, Darfur is one of 26 states that make up this largest African country. Its current notoriety stems from the ongoing conflict in the region which has pitted the people of Darfur against the central government of Sudan in Khartoum.

The ongoing civil war has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people with tens of thousands more being forced to flee their villages and towns at the behest of Khartoum-sponsored militias which have been indiscriminately killing and terrorising a helpless population.

Like the southern part of Sudan, which has just seen the end of its own bloody war with the Arabic-Islamic dominated north, Darfur is largely populated by black Africans. But unlike their southern fellow countrymen, who are Christian/Animists, Darfur’s population is Muslim.

While the divide between north and south can in part be blamed on racial and ethnic differences between the two regions, one would have thought the Khartoum regime may have stayed its hand before going to war with its black co-religionists in Darfur. But not so.

In fact, there are a number of demographic and religious factors at play here, one which dates back to ancient times and the beginnings of the Asian invasions of what is known today as North Africa.

In ancient times there was no such thing as the black population of Africa being confined to the sub-Saharan region. All of Africa was known as the land of the blacks (the name name Africa comes to us from the Romans, who used the name Africa terra — “Land of the Afri” — for the northern part of the continent. The Afri were a tribe who dwelt in the Carthage area in what is now modern-day Tunisia).

As early as 3,300 BC Egypt had emerged as a great African state. Later civilisations included Carthage, the Kingdom of Aksum, the Nubian kingdoms, the empires of the Sahel Kanem-Bornu (Ghana, Mali and Songhai), Great Zimbabwe and the Kongo.

In the 7th century event occurred destined to have a permanent influence on the whole continent. Beginning with an invasion of Egypt, a host of Arabs, believers in the new faith of Islam, conquered the whole of North Africa from the Red Sea to the Atlantic and continued into Spain.

Throughout North Africa Christianity nearly disappeared, except in Egypt (where the Coptic Church was allowed to continue), and Upper Nubia and Ethiopia, which were not subdued by the Muslims.

In fact, at a certain point in time, when the Arabs had conquered Egypt and attempted to wipe out the Copts, Ethiopia , who also practised Coptic Christianity, warned the Muslims that if they attempted to wipe out the Copts, Ethiopia would block the Nile water from getting to Egypt.

This was because Lake Tana, which was in Ethiopia was the source of the Nile. This is now believed to be one of the reasons that the Coptic minorities still exist today.Arab influence and the Islamic religion thus became indelibly stamped on northern Africa. Together they spread southward across the Sahara. They also became firmly established along the eastern seaboard, where Arabs planted flourishing colonies, such as Mombasa, Malindi and Sofala.In this way the divide we know today between North Africa and Africa south of the Sahara came into existence. In fact, history shows that there was a great retreat on the part of black Africa from the invasions spearheaded by the Arabs.

There is a clear line running across the north of the African continent which marks the limits of the Arab invasions. Such modern states as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, to name some of the larger Arab-dominated north African states, are still ruled by the descendants of those early Arab conquerors.

But sometimes this line cuts through countries — in Nigeria, for instance, where the north of that country is dominated by Islamists while the population in the south is largely Christian or subscribes to traditional African religious beliefs. And then there is Sudan. Friction between the two major religious and ethnic groupings has been the cause of friction and conflict there ever since Islam was introduced into what were then known as the Kushite kingdoms from Arab-ruled Egypt starting in 640 AD.

The war in Darfur began just as the decades-long North-South civil war was ending in early 2003. The black Moslem rebels accused Khartoum of ignoring Darfur although there is uncertainty regarding the objectives of the rebels and whether they merely seek an improved position for Darfur within Sudan or outright secession.

Both the government and the rebels have been accused of atrocities in this war, although most of the blame has fallen on Arab militias — the feared Janjaweed <$>— allied with the government. The rebels have alleged that these militias have been engaging in ethnic cleansingin Darfur.

The war has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, many of them seeking refuge in neighbouring Chad. The government claimed victory over the rebels after capturing Tine, a town on the border with Chad, in early 2004. But the violence has continued and, if anything, worsened.

What are the underlying reasons for the conflict in Darfur?

Well, that hinges on what is under the soil of Darfur as well as the fertile condition of the land in the region. Oil has been discovered in Darfur and the government of the north wants to control it, diverting petroleum revenues from the state authorities directly to Khartoum.

And the land itself is good for major agricultural undertakings — and it is clear the government in the north has embarked on a policy of forcing the indigenous people off the land before investing in such farming projects.

To carry out its policy the Khartoum government can depend on some powerful allies. First there is the Arab League, which has been conspicuously silent over this open and brutal oppression of a fellow Islamic people by one of its members.

Then there are its backers in the United Nations which have consistently blocked stern UN action against the Khartoum government. Among these is an increasingly oil-thirsty China, which has its eyes on the large crude reserves under Darfur’s soil.America<$> has called the atrocities being committed in Darfur acts of genocide. But Washington cannot be seen to be openly intervening in the region for fear of being accused of interfering into the affairs of another Muslim country in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq not to mention its continued support of Israel in its war of attrition against the Palestinians.Ideally, Africa should intervene; it is an African problem, but the new African Union (AU) remains weak, Africa cannot yet impose its own peace in its own region.

To its credit it has attempted to do so. It has sent a 7,000-man military force to the region but these peacekeepers are wholly insufficient for the job at hand, under-funded and with a limited mandate which allows Khartoum to continue to carry out its policies in Darfur.

The UN has proposed a much bigger force, but its efforts remain stalled as Khartoum can depend on its friends in the UN to block any such move.

Meanwhile the people of Darfur continue to suffer, awaiting that strong hand which will deliver them from their travails.