Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectu.s. interference in Sudan conflict.
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=12145&mesg_id=12146
12146, u.s. interference in Sudan conflict.
Posted by abduhu, Mon Jul-23-01 03:23 AM
http://www.sudmer.com/The%20House%20of%20the%20representative.htm

The House of Representatives of the U.S.A keeps fueling the bloody internal conflict in Sudan that has raged since 1955 ... before Sudan independence . ESPAC-20 June 2001.

An in-depth analysis with referential historical facts, events and testimonies authentically presented by the London-based the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council attracting the attention of the international community to the destructive nature of the unfortunate move recently adopted by the House of Representatives of the U.S.A against Sudanese people and against their legitimate aspirations for peace , stability and development , as well as against the same aspirations of the peoples of Africa .

Begins Text :-

THE 'SUDAN PEACE ACT': PERPETUATING AFRICA'S LONGEST WAR

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: June 2001
On 13 June 2001, the United States House of Representatives passed "An Act to facilitate relief efforts and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan", also referred to as the 'Sudan Peace Act'. A more explicit example of confused, distorted and poorly-informed legislation would be hard to find. It is an Act that while paying lip service to the need for a "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan" at the same time provides one side to the conflict with millions of dollars worth of logistical assistance. It is an Act that decries the manipulation of food aid while ignoring the fact that the side it is supporting has been accused of diverting two-thirds of food aid within the areas it controls. It is also an act which decries the abuse of human rights within Sudan but provides millions of dollars to those accused of appalling human rights abuses in Sudan.

In so doing the United States seeks to continue foreign interference in a conflict that has raged since 1955, fought, in its most recent phase, since 1983 between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) led by John Garang. Even a brief examination of attempts to achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan and relief efforts within that country reveal the deep flaws within this legislation.

A "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan"
In any examination of the search for a "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan", a little should be said first about those people who drafted this Act. The Act was drafted by legislators such as Representatives Tancredo, Wolf and Payne and Senators Frist, Brownback and Feingold, whose previous involvement with Sudan had resulted in an escalation in the Sudanese conflict and regional tensions. In April 2001, former United States President Carter, one of the most respected and objective commentators on events within Sudan, said of this period: "For the last eight years, the U.S. has had a policy which I strongly disagree with in Sudan, supporting the revolutionary movement and not working for an overall peace settlement." (1)

This echoed earlier concerns voiced by Carter. In December 1999 he had observed: "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." (2)

It is clear, then, that these legislators are hardly the best qualified group of people to talk about peace in Sudan. Far from working for peace they have stood by while the United States militarily and economically destabilised the largest country in Africa. They helped shape American Sudan policy from 1993 onwards - precisely the period referred to by Carter. While they publicly lament the numbers of deaths during this conflict, they are themselves directly responsible for the deaths through war, starvation or disease of thousands of Sudanese. Far from taking Carter's concerns into consideration, the 'Sudan Peace Act' merely perpetuates the Clinton Administration's failed and farcical Sudan policies. The United States Congress has shown itself either amazingly na´ve or blatantly hypocritical in drafting the 'Sudan Peace Act'. In either case this piece of legislation reflects very badly indeed on Congress. This American attitude is all the more regrettable since the Sudanese government has repeatedly invited constructive United States involvement within Sudan. (3)

A "comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan"?
While making for good rhetoric, Congressional calls for a comprehensive solution illustrate either naivety or cynicism. For a solution there has to be some sort of political objective on the part of those waging war on the Sudanese government. The political complexion of the SPLA movement has varied from professedly Marxist through to now politically identifying with American Bible-belt Christian fundamentalists. Even on such a fundamental issue as to whether the SPLA is fighting for a separate south or a united Sudan, there continues to be confusion. (4)

The war has always been about the political status of southern Sudan.
While the SPLA appear to be confused, the Khartoum authorities' approach would appear to be clear. If the SPLA are fighting for autonomy or even separation this has already been offered by the government. In 1997, having already introduced a federal system and exempted southern Sudan from Sharia law, the Sudanese Government, in the Khartoum Peace Agreement, also offered, amongst other things, the holding of a free and fair, internationally-supervised, referendum in which the people of southern Sudan could, for the first time ever, choose whether to remain as a part of Sudan or to become independent. This offer has also been written into the 1998 Constitution, and repeated on several occasions (5),

most recently during the June 2001 peace talks in Nairobi. (6)

It is an offer that has also been acknowledged by the SPLA.(7)

The Sudanese government has repeatedly offered a comprehensive ceasefire.(8)

Throughout 2001, the Sudanese government once again called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In April and in mid-May 2000, Khartoum once more declared its readiness to enter into "an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire" and to restart negotiations for the achievement of a comprehensive peace: it called upon the SPLA to do the same. (9)

Khartoum appears to have sought out every possible peace forum. (10)
The Sudanese government has also repeatedly requested international assistance in securing a peaceful end to the conflict.(11)

It is difficult to see how much further towards a comprehensive solution the Sudanese government can go. The SPLA's inability to articulate what they are fighting for is echoed in its approach to the peace process. In erratic shifts in position, the SPLA has both accepted and then refused regional attempts at peace-making, sometimes within the space of 48 hours. (12)

Its commitment to a peaceful solution is questionable. John Garang, for example, commenting on the November 1997 round of peace talks in Nairobi, stated that "We intended not to reach an agreement with the . This is what we did and we succeeded in it because we did not reach an agreement." The 'Sudan Peace Act' has exacerbated an already critical situation. While professing to wish to see an end to war in Sudan, the 'Sudan Peace Act' actually authorised the release of $10 million dollars in assistance to what they called the National Democratic Alliance. This followed an earlier payment of three million dollars. (13)

All this funding will be channelled to the Sudan People's Liberation Army. As prominent American Sudan specialist Stephen Morrison, the head of the Sudan project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington-DC, has pointed out: "The NDA is a bit of a phantom. It is basically the SPLA and a few elements." (14)

Commenting on the release of American funds for the SPLA, Morrison also stated: "This package feeds false hopes and expectation on the part of the southerners and sustains excessive paranoia in Khartoum." (15)

For all the immediate implications of such clear American assistance, of even deeper concern is the fact that such aid serves to encourage the SPLA, already patently without any clear political objective, to continue with what is an unwinnable war. Shortly after the announcement of American assistance, for example, the SPLA launched a concerted offensive in the Bahr al-Ghazal region of southern Sudan in May 2001. The offensive continued during a regional peace summit in Nairobi in early June, with the rebels ignoring further calls for a peaceful solution to the conflict. (16)

It was thus particularly ironic that Congress passed this Act at the time it did given that amongst the "findings" of the Act was the claim that "he Government of Sudan has intensified its prosecution of the war against areas outside of its control".(17)

The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels had themselves launched this offensive in the Bahr al-Ghazal region of southern Sudan in late May and June which had certainly intensified the civil war in that country. In so doing they had ignored repeated offers of ceasefires by the government. This SPLA offensive has resulted in massive displacement of southern Sudanese civilians. On 8 June, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the offensive had led to the displacement of at least 20,000 civilians. The Sudanese Catholic Information Office reported that most activities within the region had been halted by the offensive: "locations from Tonj northwards remain no go areas forcing both church and humanitarian agencies to suspend their flights to the region." (18)

By 11 June, the United Nations estimated that 30,000 civilians had been displaced within Bahr al-Ghazal. (19)

Two days later, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rumbek, Bishop Mazzolari, reported that just under 60,000 civilians had been displaced by the offensive, and that these civilians were in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. (20)

to be continued.....................

The Glorious Qur'an - Surah 6, Al-An'am:

75. So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude.
76. When the night covered him over, He saw a star: He said: "This is my Lord." But when it set, He said: "I love not those that set."
77. When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said: "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
78. When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah.
79. "For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah."


the biography of Prophet Muhammad (saws):
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).