
This is my interpretation of what they presented and of some other research I've done.

The conflict in Darfur involves three main issues.
The first issue is common to almost any large-scale conflict: Ethnicity.
The region of Sudan was actually simply thrown together after independance at the exodus of the English settlers. So the borders have very little significance in the concept of making a nation of unified and ethnically similar people.
The land is divided (generally) into three ethnic and religious groups. To the north is a group that considers themselves to be arabic muslims, to the south are the black Christians, and to the west in the Darfur region are black muslims. The ethnic hatred is basically as a result of a social hierarchy where the people who are considered "black" are looked down upon by those of the northern region who have paler skin and are thought to be more advanced. To people of western societies, such a distinction of being "black" would not be visable for us to understand, but Sudanese people can easily classify each other as "black" or "not-black" based on accent or last name. There is a lot of hatred between the black people of the western Darfur region as well as the south and the arabic people of the north. The capital city is Khartoum and it is in the northern region, which makes the whole country under a predominantly arabic muslim governance. Khartoum was initially founded as a trading post for black slaves, so the racism conflicts have been ingrained in Sudan since independence.
Within the Darfur region, although it is predominantly made of ethnically black christians, there are arabic nomadic herding tribes which call themselves the janjaweed that would associate themselves with the politically powerful people of the north capital.
This hierarchy and ideas of superiority give the basis of the conflict in the darfur region.
The second issue also follows the path of many other conflicts throughout international history: Oil.
It seems as though where ever there is oil, conflict arises. In the history of Sudan, there has been much poverty and the promise of any form of cash flow would obviously have many people in conflict over who reaps the benefits. In the Sudanese war for oil, the oil is found in the southern region of Sudan. The port, however, is in the northern region, where the political powers are held. Both the oil and the oil port are needed to export the oil. So, although all the oil comes from the southern region, the northern region has access to the benefits of roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure. When the south confronted the political powers in the north, they, in basic terms made no effort to defend their hoarding of the money. In fact the payments of the oil has had a lot to do with how the north has kept power. The south then launched a rebellion which is known as the 2nd Sudanese civil war for 22 years. The south eventually won, and the north was forced to sign a document that would allow a percentage of all profits to trickle down to the south region. In the west, the Darfur region was not a part of any of this and were left out entirely from the profits of the oil. They launched their own rebellion which is still being fought today. This conflict is fought by the Sudanese government in an absolutely atrocious manner. The object it would seem is to kill all even civilians within the darfur region simply to eliminate the group of rebels. The government would bomb entire villages and then send in the janjaweed later to kill off anyone left. More than 400,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur. The janjaweed rape the women who are left. Then they burn all of the houses and dig up the food store and pour diesel fuel on the food stores, and they through bodies into the wells so that there is absolutely nothing left for the darfur villages. The darfur civilians have been rounded up into camps for their protection, but these raids from the government and the janjaweed still offer the camps very little security. It is estimated that 2.5 -4 Million people have lost their homes.
The third issue is Desertification.
The concept revolves around the idea that the janjaweed (saudi) were born of a group of herding tribes and the black tribes were farmers. The issue of global warming is resulting in the expanding of the Sahara desert, which, obviously, makes it harder for farmers and herders to find land to live off of. There is almost water and the lifestyle of the peoples of the darfur region which was poverty-stricken in the first place is going even farther in terms of the lack of sustainability. There quite simply, is not enough water and good land for everyone to live off of. This has resulted in a conflict between the janjaweed and the black tribes. The janjaweed are, of course, backed by the Saudi Muslims political powers in the north.
Since all three of these issues have little to no chance of reversal or mitigation the conflict in Darfur has very little hope of being resolved.
You know what absolutely amazes me? the fact that there are humanitartian atrocities being committed in a small region of Sudan that are so dispictable and horrific, and in the past months there has not been a single article in the newspaper about it. Now- understandibly, Darfur is "old news" and people are looking to be informed on the newest "fads" of violence, but seriously- why is there no coverage of this? Also understandibly the newspapers can't be bogged down by the depressing stories from afar and still expect to sell, but, not even a small article in over a month? are newspapers now willing to sell out and not have a least a mention of the issues that are going on in the world. And are we so arrogant to believe that if we can't see it, it doesn't affect us? so comfortable in our own world? there has been no metion of this war at all. Does something seem wrong to the rest of the world, or is it just me?