Home, for now: Salopek was released after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson negotiated with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Rick Scibelli/Getty Images

FOREIGN POLICY: What is the biggest misconception about the crisis in Darfur as reported in the Western media?

Paul Salopek: Well, I think it’s been oversimplified as this Manichean struggle between ethnic Arab herders who are armed by Khartoum, and these helpless African farmers who are struggling for their rights in this very desolate, Western region of the Sudan. I think that has a fundamental truth to it, and that has been historically a problem that goes back for generations, if not centuries. But I think that perception has to be overlaid with much more complicated tribal rivalries that are then manipulated at the national level in Sudan. Even internationally, there’s a layer of interests that are tugging and pulling at that area of Sudan.

FP: Do you think your case is a harbinger of things to come in Darfur?

PS: From what I’m hearing even through the grapevine, it’s become much more dicey in that part of the world. A couple colleagues visited me while I was there, and they were explaining to me how difficult it is to work there, even through official channels, much less coming through the Chad border, as many of us have. And I’ve also heard reports that parts of the border that used to be fairly open and untrafficked now have Sudanese government army patrols along them. So I think it’s definitely become a different place, even the last few weeks, certainly since Abuja [the peace agreement between the Khartoum government and a major rebel faction] has been signed.

FP: You’ve mentioned that some of the locals hadn’t heard about the peace deal. Will the truce change the situation on the ground?

PS: I don’t think so. I think the [internally displaced people], the people in the camps inside of Sudan, are subject to a certain amount of influence or pressure, if you will, from the insurgent groups. Different camps have different allegiances, depending, unfortunately, largely on their ethnic orientation. That said, the average person that I met in the camps on the Chad side, where, as you know, there are at least 200,000 people, seemed very politicized and very adamant about their position vis-á-vis Abuja or whatever. The majority of the people I talked to—I went out and specifically sought out the women, whose voices aren’t often heard in these scenarios—had really no clue about what Abuja meant. If they had heard of Abuja, they had only a foggy notion of what its precepts were.

FP: Thinking about this experience in the context of your career, how did Darfur compare to some of the other war zones you’ve been to?

PS: It’s very reminiscent of a few African war zones that I’ve been to. The thing that sort of came to mind, which is scary, is that it reminded me a bit of eastern Congo, which is a very anarchic place, where for years now there’s been a civil conflict whose political underpinnings had come unmoored and political agendas didn’t mean anything anymore, and it became a warlord-type situation. And in that sense, it also reminded me a little bit of Angola. But that war has since been resolved. And of course, in the Congo, there’s been a truce declared and a political process is now coming out of it. So that gives me hope. But at the same time, what sort of surprised me, given my own readings in the press about what Darfur was about, I was surprised at how much of a lack of vision there was on the part of some rebels that I met. They didn’t seem to have much of an agenda, much of a plan for the future for the people of Darfur and seemed much more focused on their own well-being.

FP: I understand you’re not speaking too much about this, but did your treatment in jail differ from what you expected when you were first detained? Did you expect to be killed?

PS: Yeah, I don’t go into too much detail. I’ll share with you what I’ve decided to write. But on two levels, one, because it’s an experience I’m still processing. And also to basically honor the context, i.e., the millions of Africans who go through much worse on a much more regular basis makes my own experience seem puny and a bit grotesque actually to focus on it. But no, the treatment was rough at the beginning, and it got progressively better as we were handed off to various agencies. By the time we were in civilian authorities’ hands in Sudan, our treatment was quite good, very humane. The last 16 days or so that we spent at a courthouse jail were very congenial, or as much as it can be when you’re in prison. The guards were human beings; the judge who was going to try our case came by and checked on our well-being almost every day.

FP: Do you ever plan to go back?

PS: Yeah, I do. As we were departing, an official at the Khartoum airport invited me back. He said, “Come back, this time with a visa.” And of course, I’d be delighted to take him up. It’s an important country. It’s the largest country in Africa, roughly a million square miles, the size of Western Europe. And it’s positioned strategically at the crossroads between the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and it always has been. So its history, for millennia, up until now, has been fascinating and important for the rest of the continent. It’s basically a microcosm of the continent itself, with an arid, Arabic influence north and a much more lush, tropical, African influence south. In that sense, it’s a mini version of all of Africa.

FP: Did you ever imagine you’d become a symbol for press freedom?

PS: Not at all. Not at all. I’d never had any—still have no—desire to be any symbol for anything but a reporter.

Paul Salopek is a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune.