While I am in agreement with most of Julie Flint's comments, it is necessary to highlight a grave inaccuracy in his article, namely, that Darfur has no geo-strategic importance and no oil, a misconception popularly repeated in many media articles.

She says: "Their region (Darfur) is of little or no strategic importance: it has no water and it has no oil...Their only asset was the support of the international community..."

I contend that Darfur is of strategic interest, both to the Khartoum government and the international community, because it does have potentiallly "abundant" unexploited oil reserves.

In support of this, please see "Oil discovery adds new twist to Darfur tragedy" at - an article which Pambazuka News also carried on 22 May last year. And "Briton named as buyer of Darfur oil rights" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1503470,00.html [5]

It is also crucial not to underplay the importance of oil in Sudan generally and in the region as a whole. Sudan and neighbouring Chad (which has been greatly impacted by the violence in Darfur), are so-called "marginal producers" in the world oil industry, but have the potential to produce substantially more oil. In view of concerns over oil supplies from the Arab world, their strategic importance to the oil-guzzling industrialised nations, as well as to China and Russia, should not be underestimated.

This goes a long way in explaining the Hollywood-supported calls for US intervention in Darfur (where the violence and humanitarian crisis are indubitably horrific), while the ongoing violence and terror in other regions of Africa such as northern Uganda and the north-eatern DRC go largely unremarked in the USA.

Another useful article is "How oil drives the genocide in Darfur " available online at [6]