Post by maruf on Jul 15, 2004 9:17:00 GMT -5
History of colonialist intrigue in Sudan remains unabated
uploaded 06 Jul 2004
History of colonialist intrigue in Sudan remains unabated
Last week US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced a visit to Sudan and the Darfur region in particular. This was following on from the NATO summit in Turkey. Several western bodies have dubbed Darfur a flashpoint. However the saddening Sudanese situation should be understood in light of the US backing of the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army), coupled with the pressure placed on the Khartoum government. What also needs to be considered is the threat of US intervention and the plan to divide the country of Sudan on ‘ethnic’ lines. This spells a dire future for Sudan and the region as a whole.
Following the blood letting in Iraq the US government seems all the more insistent on its hegemonic ambitions. Its propaganda programs are in motion, planting the seeds for either an invasion or a mighty application of pressure. All this designed to force the Sudanese government’s hand in what is popularly labelled the finalised negotiated settlement. This may more accurately be described as a US enforced final solution that is designed to place control over the land of Sudan with the US, courtesy of agents such as Garang. The Sudanese government are just as, if not more, culpable in this plan. Its actions have provided a pretext to America’s colonialist intent. It has agreed to the American demands and placed the SPLA on a false pedestal of credibility. This has allowed the pushing through of SPLA/US demands. What therefore is the future of Sudan and how can the nightmare vision laid down for it be averted?
One of the principal elements of the treachery that the government of Sudan has agreed to be a part of is the complete acquiescence to America’s goals.
America aims to deceive the world into believing that it dreams of a magnificent peace through a negotiated settlement. The recent past suggests she is consumed by a rampant desire to impose her will and achieve her post-911 objectives under the guise of fighting terrorism and security global stability. Vice-President **** Cheney indicated as such when he pronounced that this war will not be completed in ‘our lifetime’, hence a perpetual pretext to intervene and interfere. Just as the world has come to know America’s intentions in Iraq were far from a charitable quest to remove a dictator and free a people. Rather it was a simple invasion and occupation. In a like manner her intentions in Sudan are far from altruistic.
As early as 1999 the US revealed her intentions towards Sudan. Although she had plotted prior to this date, 1999 has become a watershed. In October 1999 Madeline Albright the then Secretary of State met with the insurgent John Garang, whose SPLA was engaged in waging a war to force the separation of the South from the North of Sudan. Sudan being the largest country in the continent of Africa naturally attracted the eyes of the world’s leading nation. The existence of its natural resources helped wet her appetite. When Madeline Albright met Garang she extended the hand of friendship and increased “humanitarian aid”. All but the politically illiterate knew this was directed to help the SPLA’s flagging military fund. Some analysts concluded America was aiming to bolster the SPLA’s position, thus making it more important than it actually was. An elevated position may force the hand of the Sudanese government. Albright assured the SPLA that the talks would be exclusively within the framework of talks sponsored by IGAD (the Inter-governmental Authority on Development), this framework which was backed by the Sudanese government accepted the premise of the SPLA which asserts that the conflict in Sudan is built around an ethnic conflict between the North and the South. This placed the SPLA aim of secession of the South from the North on the agenda from the beginning of negotataions.
America had bombed Al-Shifa factory in Sudan in 1997 as a cover for Clinton’s stains, the factory was said to be producing chemical weapons and owned by Osama bin Laden, it actually produced human and animal medicines. She was not content with this aggression so she imposed sanctions on her under the claim that Sudan harbours terrorists. This claim was and is correct yet the real terrorists are the SPLA which vowed to make the South ungovernable in accordance with orders from the US.
Bush sent former Senator and episcopal minister Reverend John Danforth to Sudan as his envoy. Mustafa Uthman, Sudan’s Foreign Minister immediately committed himself to complete cooperation with Danforth. By December 2001 Danforth had brought the Southern Rebels and the treacherous Sudanese regime together in Sweden. A ceasefire was agreed over the area known as the Nuba Mountains region which has been neglected by successive governments since 1920 and was initially sidelined by the Colonialists, this flared up into war and agression against the citizens of this region leading to the murder of thousands. However yet America has been instrumental in this as well as other conflicts throughout Sudan through its agents. Following on from this agreement US Colonel Cecil Giddens was appointed to police the ceasefire. Simultaneously Sudanese government troops were disproportionately withdrawn in favour of the rebels who America backs in its one-sided crusade. This allowed the US a pivotal position in re-drawing the map of Sudan and consolidated the IGAD framework which legitimised the rebels secessionist claims. This hidden American intervention was backed by all sides including the government despite the fact that everyone is aware of the precedent this sets for future intervention and invasion.
Throughout the entire ‘negotiation’ (surrender) process, Garang made it clear that he was looking for a secular settlement that would wipe Islam from Sudan. Although Islam is not actually applied, except in a few minor instances. So, why do the opposition staunchly call towards a secular resolution? The answer lies in the established facts and they are that the SPLA do not possess a will detached from her sponsor the US. The US has been an avowed opponent of political Islam and has sought to discredit it at every juncture; she therefore hates Islam to the extent that it cannot even be raised as a slogan. This is not to say that the SPLA insurgents do not also believe this, as they seek a divided Sudan and therefore champion the patriotic call, yet it is important to understand this is the brainchild of the organ-grinder rather than the monkey.
The plans achieved a pinnacle of deception in July 2002 when the two sides met in Machakos in Kenya, the government of Sudan claimed it would establish peace and maintain the unity of the people and territory of Sudan. Yet with everything that has the fingerprint of the kafir colonialist, the reality is far removed from what is touted as fact. The agreement allows the right to self-determination for the South within a period of six years from the agreement, this guarantees the division of Sudan.
The Sudanese Presidential Special Envoy Dr Ghazi Salahuddin said following the signing of the Machakos Protocol was signed on Sudanese television,
“What we have signed to today is the same thing that we refused in 1994. It is contrary to my own personal convictions but I only execute the state policy. There are new developments in the international arena.”
This is because what was signed was to the letter of the American policy envisioned for Sudan and which did not change with successive administrations in spirit. The Machakos Protocol rewarded the criminal John Garang and the reprobate rebels of the SPLA, there is a background to this and this ought to be explored.
Unlike what the media would have you believe, the Sudanese ‘civil’ war is not a new one. It began 34 years prior to the establishment of the government of the National Islamic Front (NIF). The US government far from acting as an honest broker has stoked the conflict to achieve the division of Sudan and the ready control over her resources. The SPLA was established in 1983 by John Garang with the intention of gaining independence through terrorist actions. Madeline Albright’s meeting with John Garang in 1998 confirmed publicly what many suspected in private that the US was funding the SPLA. The funding is reported to be channelled through proxy client regimes that neighbour Sudan including Uganda, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
the Boston Globe reported on 8th December 1999 “To the peril of regional stability, the Clinton Administration has used northern Uganda as a military training ground for southern Sudanese rebels fighting the Muslim government of Khartoum.” The Sunday Times revealed that the Clinton administration “…has launched a covert campaign to destabilise the government of Sudan... More than $20m of military equipment, including radios, uniforms and tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of those countries, much of it will be passed on to the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which is preparing an offensive against the government in Khartoum.” [The Sunday Times, 17th November 1996].
uploaded 06 Jul 2004
History of colonialist intrigue in Sudan remains unabated
Last week US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced a visit to Sudan and the Darfur region in particular. This was following on from the NATO summit in Turkey. Several western bodies have dubbed Darfur a flashpoint. However the saddening Sudanese situation should be understood in light of the US backing of the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army), coupled with the pressure placed on the Khartoum government. What also needs to be considered is the threat of US intervention and the plan to divide the country of Sudan on ‘ethnic’ lines. This spells a dire future for Sudan and the region as a whole.
Following the blood letting in Iraq the US government seems all the more insistent on its hegemonic ambitions. Its propaganda programs are in motion, planting the seeds for either an invasion or a mighty application of pressure. All this designed to force the Sudanese government’s hand in what is popularly labelled the finalised negotiated settlement. This may more accurately be described as a US enforced final solution that is designed to place control over the land of Sudan with the US, courtesy of agents such as Garang. The Sudanese government are just as, if not more, culpable in this plan. Its actions have provided a pretext to America’s colonialist intent. It has agreed to the American demands and placed the SPLA on a false pedestal of credibility. This has allowed the pushing through of SPLA/US demands. What therefore is the future of Sudan and how can the nightmare vision laid down for it be averted?
One of the principal elements of the treachery that the government of Sudan has agreed to be a part of is the complete acquiescence to America’s goals.
America aims to deceive the world into believing that it dreams of a magnificent peace through a negotiated settlement. The recent past suggests she is consumed by a rampant desire to impose her will and achieve her post-911 objectives under the guise of fighting terrorism and security global stability. Vice-President **** Cheney indicated as such when he pronounced that this war will not be completed in ‘our lifetime’, hence a perpetual pretext to intervene and interfere. Just as the world has come to know America’s intentions in Iraq were far from a charitable quest to remove a dictator and free a people. Rather it was a simple invasion and occupation. In a like manner her intentions in Sudan are far from altruistic.
As early as 1999 the US revealed her intentions towards Sudan. Although she had plotted prior to this date, 1999 has become a watershed. In October 1999 Madeline Albright the then Secretary of State met with the insurgent John Garang, whose SPLA was engaged in waging a war to force the separation of the South from the North of Sudan. Sudan being the largest country in the continent of Africa naturally attracted the eyes of the world’s leading nation. The existence of its natural resources helped wet her appetite. When Madeline Albright met Garang she extended the hand of friendship and increased “humanitarian aid”. All but the politically illiterate knew this was directed to help the SPLA’s flagging military fund. Some analysts concluded America was aiming to bolster the SPLA’s position, thus making it more important than it actually was. An elevated position may force the hand of the Sudanese government. Albright assured the SPLA that the talks would be exclusively within the framework of talks sponsored by IGAD (the Inter-governmental Authority on Development), this framework which was backed by the Sudanese government accepted the premise of the SPLA which asserts that the conflict in Sudan is built around an ethnic conflict between the North and the South. This placed the SPLA aim of secession of the South from the North on the agenda from the beginning of negotataions.
America had bombed Al-Shifa factory in Sudan in 1997 as a cover for Clinton’s stains, the factory was said to be producing chemical weapons and owned by Osama bin Laden, it actually produced human and animal medicines. She was not content with this aggression so she imposed sanctions on her under the claim that Sudan harbours terrorists. This claim was and is correct yet the real terrorists are the SPLA which vowed to make the South ungovernable in accordance with orders from the US.
Bush sent former Senator and episcopal minister Reverend John Danforth to Sudan as his envoy. Mustafa Uthman, Sudan’s Foreign Minister immediately committed himself to complete cooperation with Danforth. By December 2001 Danforth had brought the Southern Rebels and the treacherous Sudanese regime together in Sweden. A ceasefire was agreed over the area known as the Nuba Mountains region which has been neglected by successive governments since 1920 and was initially sidelined by the Colonialists, this flared up into war and agression against the citizens of this region leading to the murder of thousands. However yet America has been instrumental in this as well as other conflicts throughout Sudan through its agents. Following on from this agreement US Colonel Cecil Giddens was appointed to police the ceasefire. Simultaneously Sudanese government troops were disproportionately withdrawn in favour of the rebels who America backs in its one-sided crusade. This allowed the US a pivotal position in re-drawing the map of Sudan and consolidated the IGAD framework which legitimised the rebels secessionist claims. This hidden American intervention was backed by all sides including the government despite the fact that everyone is aware of the precedent this sets for future intervention and invasion.
Throughout the entire ‘negotiation’ (surrender) process, Garang made it clear that he was looking for a secular settlement that would wipe Islam from Sudan. Although Islam is not actually applied, except in a few minor instances. So, why do the opposition staunchly call towards a secular resolution? The answer lies in the established facts and they are that the SPLA do not possess a will detached from her sponsor the US. The US has been an avowed opponent of political Islam and has sought to discredit it at every juncture; she therefore hates Islam to the extent that it cannot even be raised as a slogan. This is not to say that the SPLA insurgents do not also believe this, as they seek a divided Sudan and therefore champion the patriotic call, yet it is important to understand this is the brainchild of the organ-grinder rather than the monkey.
The plans achieved a pinnacle of deception in July 2002 when the two sides met in Machakos in Kenya, the government of Sudan claimed it would establish peace and maintain the unity of the people and territory of Sudan. Yet with everything that has the fingerprint of the kafir colonialist, the reality is far removed from what is touted as fact. The agreement allows the right to self-determination for the South within a period of six years from the agreement, this guarantees the division of Sudan.
The Sudanese Presidential Special Envoy Dr Ghazi Salahuddin said following the signing of the Machakos Protocol was signed on Sudanese television,
“What we have signed to today is the same thing that we refused in 1994. It is contrary to my own personal convictions but I only execute the state policy. There are new developments in the international arena.”
This is because what was signed was to the letter of the American policy envisioned for Sudan and which did not change with successive administrations in spirit. The Machakos Protocol rewarded the criminal John Garang and the reprobate rebels of the SPLA, there is a background to this and this ought to be explored.
Unlike what the media would have you believe, the Sudanese ‘civil’ war is not a new one. It began 34 years prior to the establishment of the government of the National Islamic Front (NIF). The US government far from acting as an honest broker has stoked the conflict to achieve the division of Sudan and the ready control over her resources. The SPLA was established in 1983 by John Garang with the intention of gaining independence through terrorist actions. Madeline Albright’s meeting with John Garang in 1998 confirmed publicly what many suspected in private that the US was funding the SPLA. The funding is reported to be channelled through proxy client regimes that neighbour Sudan including Uganda, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
the Boston Globe reported on 8th December 1999 “To the peril of regional stability, the Clinton Administration has used northern Uganda as a military training ground for southern Sudanese rebels fighting the Muslim government of Khartoum.” The Sunday Times revealed that the Clinton administration “…has launched a covert campaign to destabilise the government of Sudan... More than $20m of military equipment, including radios, uniforms and tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of those countries, much of it will be passed on to the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which is preparing an offensive against the government in Khartoum.” [The Sunday Times, 17th November 1996].