UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appears to have fallen under the spell that all of our problems stem from global warming. What a shame ... I had high hopes for this guy.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.
"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.
UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.
"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.
"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.
When Darfur's land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.
With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing.
"For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out," he said.
Wow, talk about a lack of historical perspective. Sudan has had a major problem with Arabs fighting Africans for centuries now, and it had little to do with global warming. The first Sudanese civil war started in 1955, and lasted until 1972. It was fought between north and south Sudan. South Sudan being Christian, and north being Muslim. There were geographical and political reasons for the conflict as well, but the Muslim, Christian thing is pretty important.
The second Sudanese civil war started in 1983, but is considered by most to merely be a continuation of the first civil war. Again ... it was fought between Arab, and non-Arab. Southern Sudan has been trying to get autonomy, or outright secession from the north for many years to no avail.
Just so we are clear ... this conflict between the two cultural populations of Sudan has been happening since the 1700's ... LONG before global warming. Well, at least man-made global warming.
One of the reasons the conflict has been going for centuries is natural resources. The south has more oil, and fertile land (due to vastly more rainfall). The northern part of Sudan is on the edge of the Sahara Desert. A place that is not known for rainfall ... even before global warming. The north wants to control these resources, and the south wants to hold onto them ... hence the warfare. Unlike what Ban had to say ... this conflict has been raging for centuries, and there was no "welcoming" of Arabs to use the African Sudanese's water.
That's right ... the same reasons the northern and southern part of Sudan have been waring for centuries is exactly what caused the genocide in Darfur. The northern Arab Sudanese want the oil, water, and fertile land that the southern Sudanese people have always had. There is no new variable such as man-made global warming that has contributed to this conflict. The conflict between these two regions predates the nation of Sudan itself, and it predates the Industrial Revolution.
Looks like the BBC has been biased in their global warming coverage. Don't take my word for it ... take theirs.