Views: 4039|Replies: 5

U.S. in Sudan Part 1 [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-18 05:04:20 |Display all floors
I collected the following data concerning Sudan more than a year ago while I was doing research for a political science project; that’s before I even joined this forum. After I became a member of this forum, every now and then, I’ll see a post by Fish regarding China’s involvement in Sudan. I didn’t really want to post this, for a number of reasons:

1.        There’s enough anti-U.S. venom on this forum; that particular camp didn’t really need any more ammunition (real or imagined) to blast the U.S. with.

2.        There are plenty of issues in China that Fish and other China-detractors can criticize. So I figured that Fish’ll get tired of carrying the Sudan torch and start bashing China with something else.

3.        This is the most important reason. Most of what Fish posted on this topic is true. Sure, some of his personal conclusions were a bit far-fetched, as typical of those tainted by the neo-liberal outlook; nevertheless, the “undigested” data checks out. China’s overt military and political support of the Khartoum government is, of course, open knowledge, and these aids don’t remain within official channels. On some level, I suspect that the Chinese government is aware of this or chooses not to pay attention to it. The Khartoum regime, as we all know, doesn’t shy away from playing dirty in this civil war. President Al-Bashir’s claim that the government doesn’t have connections with some of the most sadistic butchers (such as the Janjaweed militia) is quite laughable, as supporters of Janjaweed permeate the entire Sudanese government – central and local. In other words, the aids provided by China invariably trickle down to the government supported militias.

However, some recent posts seem to imply that China is solely responsible for the perpetuation of this civil war. Things aren’t that simple in a global context. The tragedy of Sudan is the end result of GLOBAL interest in the region, and China just happens to be ONE of these interests. Please review the following data.

“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.(3)”
        Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Nobel Peace laureate), December 1999

"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." (2)
        Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Nobel Peace laureate), April 2001

These are startling statements from our 39th President. What, exactly, is the U.S.’ role in this conflict?

On 21 October 2002, President Bush signed the “Sudan Peace Act” into law. This act calls for "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan." A noble sentiment to be sure, however, the methodology deserves further inspection. The "Sudan Peace Act" authorizes the appropriation of $100 million for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 for "assistance" to areas of Sudan outside government control, in other words, areas controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) – the rebels.

The Act also mandates that the U.S. President to "certify" within six months of enactment, and each 6 months thereafter, that the Sudanese government and the SPLA are negotiating in "good faith" and that the negotiations should continue. If American government deemed the Sudanese government not to have acted in "good faith", the U.S. President can implement the following measures: seek a UN Security Council arms embargo on the Sudanese government; instruct American officials to actively oppose any loans, credits or guarantees for Sudan from international financial institutions; deny Sudan access to oil revenues and downgrade or suspend diplomatic relations. On the other hand, the Act did not specify any penalties if the SPLA did not act in good faith.

You may ask, under such conditions, what incentives are there to motivate SPLA to “negotiate in good faith?” According to President Carter (a man who has been involved on the Sudan issue for over two decades):

        "I think [SPLA leader John] Garang now feels he
doesn't need to negotiate because he anticipates a victory brought about
by increasing support from his immediate neighbors, and also from the
United States and indirectly from other countries."

In 2000 and 2001, the U.S. Congress voted millions of dollars worth of assistance to the Sudanese rebels (5). The Sudan Peace Act is simply a continuation of that policy. Receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in aid a year from the U.S., most of which will be diverted to sustain its war against the government, is hardly an incentive for the SPLA to negotiate in good faith. After all, they now see a chance to win and replace the Khartoum government, instead of sharing power.

Who are the SPLA that we are supporting? Will they provide a stable, democratic future for Sudan? Well, here’s SPLA’s resume:

        "On the whole, SPLA commanders and officials of the Sudan Relief
and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA, its humanitarian wing), have seen relief flows as simple flows of material resources. The leadership has also used aid for diplomatic and propaganda purposes."(6) – African Rights

        The SPLA were diverting 65 percent of the assistance going into rebel-held areas of southern Sudan, even at the height of starvation in southern Sudan. – Statement by Monsignor Caesar Mazzolari (Roman Catholic Bishop of the rebel-controlled diocese of Rumbek)

        "Much of the relief food going to more than a
million famine victims in rebel-held areas of southern Sudan is ending
up in the hands of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), relief
workers said."(7) – Agency France Press

        "[w]e intended not to reach an agreement with the [Sudanese government]. This is what we did and we succeeded in it because we did not reach an agreement." (10) -- John Garang (SPLA leader) in the crucial November 1997 round of IGAD peace talks in Nairobi

        "sources...pointed out that among most of SPLM/A leaders there is no serious commitment to peace".(12) – United Nations Special Report on Human Rights, sep. 2001

        "I have noticed and revealed the duplicity with which you have participated
in the peace process. Many Southerners have spoken for some time about the need to arrive at a Southern consensus over the question of Self-Determination. They recognise the need to fill the vacuum created by
your vague goals for the war of liberation. After seventeen years of
this bloody war in which two million of our people have perished, the
Northern Sudanese political establishment as a whole has said that they
would negotiate a political agreement with you to work out the
modalities for a referendum on self-determination for the South. Yet,
you have personally dodged this issue - as seen in the way you have
briefed your delegations to the various rounds of the Intergovernmental
Authority for Development (IGAD) peace talks....Perhaps your own tactics
make you blind to this, but there is indeed increasing support among the
Southern Sudanese people for pursuing peace, if peace is pursued
honestly, diligently and in good faith by the other side. How many more
millions of Southern Sudanese do you want to die to satisfy your
ego?" – Personal message to John Garang from prominent southern Sudanese leader Bona
Malwal, a former culture and information minister, and publisher of the
opposition Sudan Democratic Gazette, May 2000

        SPLA has: "engaged for years in the most serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, beatings, arbitrary detention, slavery, etc."(16) – Joint Statement by CARE, World Vision, Church World Service and Save the Children, Nov 1999

        "The SPLA has a history of gross
abuses of human rights and has not made any effort to establish
accountability. Its abuses today remain serious".(17) – Human Rights Watch, Dec 1999

        SPLA "was responsible for egregious human rights violations in the territory it controlled".(19) "The SPLA has faced a tidal wave of accusations and condemnation from international human rights organizations and local churches over its human rights record." (20) – U.S. Sudan specialist John Prendergast speaking on record

[ Last edited by observer3 at 2005-12-18 08:21 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-18 05:06:00 |Display all floors

U.S. in Sudan Part 2

continued from above...

In other words, the SPLA that we’ve been so keen on supporting, seemingly unconditionally, are no less of a devil than what we paint the Khartoum government to be. Of course, our support of the SPLA is not limited to official channels:  

        “A November 1999 Norwegian television documentary, entitled 'Weapons Smuggling in Sudan', has highlighted the role played by NPA in logistically and politically perpetuating the Sudanese civil war.(8) There had always been considerable speculation as to whether NPA was militarily involved with the SPLA. This documentary confirmed that the NPA has for several years organised an air-bridge for the supply of weapons to battle zones within Sudan. One of the NPA pilots involved in the gun running stated that on one occasion his plane had landed at SPLA bases with some 2.5 tonnes of weapons. It was stated that Norwegian People's Aid had flown between 80-100 tonnes of weapons into Sudan in aeroplanes supposedly carrying humanitarian assistance. Among the tonnes of weapons flown into Sudan were landmines. The documentary also placed on record other clear evidence of NPA military involvement with the SPLA. Norwegian People's Aid openly states that "[a] major contributor to our programme in Sudan, is the USAID".”(9)

(Data provided by Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on October 25, 2002 at 12:48:09: EST (-5 GMT))

If China is guilty of supporting the brutal, sadistic, and tyrannical dictators of Khartoum as some have claimed, then the U.S. is guilty of supporting the brutal, sadistic, and tyrannical dictators of the SPLA. The Sudanese people suffer as the result due to the perpetuation of the civil war. The Europeans are hardly better, as the interests of EU are definitely tied to this oil rich region. Of course, the Europeans are more adroit at the ‘great game,’ since they have more practice at it. Instead of overt actions like those practiced by China and the U.S., they mainly channel their support through non-government organizations to BOTH sides of the conflict.

The following are some resources that can help those who are interest in further research. They encompass the entire political spectrum, so some of them are rather one sided in their approach, but they are good information nonetheless. Of course, this is for people who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Sudanese people and not just utilizing their suffering as an outlet to bash China.

2 "Carter Says Wrong Time for Mideast Talks", News Article by
Reuters, 24 April 2001.
3 "Carter, Others Say US Has Faltered in Africa", 'The Boston
Globe', 8 December 1999. For more details of American support to the
SPLA
see "Ex-President Opposes Policy of Aiding Khartoum's Foes", The
Washington Times, 25 September 1997; "Sudan's American-aided
guerrillas", 'The Economist', 25 January 1997; "US flies in howitzers to subdue Sudan", 'Africa Analysis', No 290, 6
February 1998; "Albright Meets Sudan Rebels, Pledges US Support", News
Article by Reuters, 10 December 1997; "U.S. said to promise aid to
Sudanese rebel areas", News Article by Reuters, 2 June 1998.
4 See, for example, amongst many overtures: "Interview - Sudan
Wants to Bury Hatchet with US", News Article by Reuters, 20 May 1999;
"Sudan Wants Dialogue With US, Bashir Tells Envoy", News Article by
Reuters, 7 March 2000; "Sudan Wants Better Ties with US's Bush", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 2 February 2001 and "Sudan Welcomes
U.S. Peace Involvement but Urges Neutrality", News Article by Associated
Press, 28 May 2001.
5 See, for example, "U.S. House Backs Efforts to Aid Sudan", News
Article by Reuters, 13 June 2001; "Sudanese Rebels to Receive Dlrs 3
Million in Assistance", News Article by Associated Press, 25 May 2001,
and "U.S. Slates $3 Million for Sudan's Opposition", 'The Washington
Post', 25 May 2001.
6 Alex de Waal (Editor), 'Food and Power in Sudan', African
Rights, London, 1997, pp.5,7.
7 "Aid for Sudan Ending Up With SPLA: Relief Workers", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 21 July, 1998.
8 Vapensmuglerne I Sudan, 'Brennpunkt', NRK Television, Norway, 17
November 1999.
9 See, for example, the Norwegian People's Aid website at
http://www.npaid.org/about_npa/funding.html
10 Summary of World Broadcasts, BBC, 15 December 1997.
11 See, for example, "Annan Calls on Sudan's SPLM Leader to Sign
Ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999.
12 'Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan', UN Special Rapporteur
Gerhart Baum, United Nations General Assembly, New York, A/56/150, 7
September 2001.
13 "Sudan's Government Calls On International Community to Push for
Cease-Fire", News Article by Associated Press, 5 June 2001.
14 "Sudan: Peace Talks Continue While SPLA Claim New Victory", UN
Integrated Regional Information Network, Nairobi, 29 September 2000.
15 Bona Malwal, "Open Letter to John Garang from Bona Malwal",
'Sudan Democratic Gazette', May 2000.
16 "Humanitarian Organizations Oppose Plan Providing Food to
Sudanese Rebels", Press Release by InterAction, the American Council for
Voluntary International Action, Washington-DC, 30 November, 1999.
17 "Rights Group Warns US Against Feeding Sudan Rebels", News
Article by Reuters on 14 December, 1999.
18 "Misguided Relief to Sudan", Editorial, 'The New York Times', 6
December 1999.
19 John Prendergast, 'Crisis Response: Humanitarian Band-Aids in
Sudan and Somalia', Pluto Press, London, 1997, p.77.
20 Ibid, p.72.
21 "Seeking Friends in the West, Sudan Tempers its Islamic Zeal",
News Article by Associated Press, 13 July 2002.
23 House of Commons Hansard Written Answers, 18 October 2001.
24 The Speech of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Sudan delivered to the Third Committee of the General
Assembly, 8 November 2001, New York.
25 'Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan', UN Special Rapporteur
Gerhart Baum, United Nations General Assembly, New York, A/56/150, 7
September 2001.
26 "Christians Face Difficulties in Arab Khartoum", 'The New York
Times', 5 April 1998.
27 See, "Sudan offers South secession", News Article by BBC, 22
February 1999; "Southern secession better than more war: Sudan's
President", News Article by Agence France Presse, 22 February 1999;
"Sudan Says Happy for South to Secede", News Article by Reuters, 7 May
1998.
28 "Khartoum Urges Rebels to 'Stop Fighting and Talk'", News
Article by Agence France Presse 5 June 2001
29 See, "Referendum agreed at Sudan peace talks", News Article by
BBC World on 7 May 1998, and "SPLA plays down deal on Referendum in
southern Sudan", News Article by BBC, 7 May 1998.
30 See, "Sudanese government declares ceasefire", News Article by
BBC World, 5 August 1999; "Sudanese government declares comprehensive
ceasefire", News Article by Associated Press, 5 August 1999; "Sudan
Government to Observe Ceasefire Despite SPLA Rejection", News Article by
Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999;"EU Welcomes Cease-Fire in Sudan",
News Article by Xinhua, 20 August 1999; "Annan welcomes ceasefire", News
Article by UN Integrated Regional Information Network, 11 August 1999;
"Annan hails Sudan cease-fire allowing aid to flow", News Article by
Reuters, 6 August 1999; "Annan calls on Sudan's SPLM leader to sign
ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999;
"Sudanese rebels reject peace plan", News Article by BBC World, 30
August 1999; "Sudanese Rebels Reject Government Cease-Fire", News
Article by Reuters, 5 August 1999.
31 See, for example, "Sudan's Government in Favour of Ceasefire in
18-year Civil War", News Article by Agence France Presse, 22 April 2001
and "Government "Ready for a Ceasefire", News Article by United Nations
Integrated Regional Information Network, 15 May 2001.
32 "Sudan Backs Combination of Arab and African Peace Drives", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 24 October 1999.
33 See, for example, "Sudan calls for Western Pressure on southern
Rebels to Accept Ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 26
April 2000; 'US Catholic Clerics Urged to Pressurise Garang into
Accepting Cease-Fire', News Article by Sudan News Agency, 27 March 2001;
"Britain Can Pressurize Rebels to Realize Cease-Fire, Sudanese
Diplomat", News Article by SUNA, 26 February 2001; "Sudanese Government
Welcomes Carter's Initiative to End the War in southern Sudan", News
Article by ArabicNews.com, 26 April 2001.
34 See, "Sudanese Rebels Reject Peace Plan", News Article by BBC
News Online Network, 30 August 1999; "Sudanese Rebels Snub Libyan-
Egyptian Mediation Effort", News Article by Agence France Presse, 30
August 1999; "Sudanese Rebel Leader Supports Peace Plan: Egypt", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 31 August 1999; and "Sudanese Rebels
Say They Can't Commit to Egyptian-Libyan Peace Drive", News Article by
Agence France Presse, 14 May 2001; "Sudanese Rebels Reject
Reconciliation Accord", News Article by Associated Press, 29 November
1999.
35 "Interview - Sudan Says US Harming Peace Prospects", News
Article by Reuters, 25 October 1999.
38 "Expelled Aid Agencies Say Million at Risk in Sudan", News
Article by Reuters on 1 March 2000.
39 "European Commission Statement on Southern Sudan", Statement by
European Union, 29 February 2000.

[ Last edited by observer3 at 2005-12-18 08:23 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-25 09:31:46 |Display all floors
I much rather to have this post just fade away, but someone has to imply that China's solely responsible for the civil war in Sudan again...
I'm resurrecting it, hopefully for the last time.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-12-27 12:54:40 |Display all floors

Where is Mr. Fish..when the truth gets spoken..

.....Mr. Fish..where are you??????

In the world of the 2 face God or Janus....

there is always two sides to the story.......

Just like in the story "My Fair Lady"...the Hungarian Liguist expert...actually allow "the con" to work....since as Mr. Higgins said.."the Braggard practises the art of swindle and blackmail"...imagine having a "flower gal as the princess of Hungary"....

ha ha ha ha ha

mr. Fish...America is "financing terrorism" all over the globe.....using the "christian bogey" (note: not catholic).....

time to repent....

make peace not war!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-12-29 15:25:22 |Display all floors

Mr. Fish...Bernard Shaw is an Irish dramatist...

..as far as i can see..he is pretty "close to nature"..ha ha

What other "movies" he created??????

I am all ears to understand more of your "Irish culture"!

happy new Year.

make peace not war!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-12-29 15:37:05 |Display all floors

Reply #4 greendragon's post

Yes Mr Dragon - Fish is actually Miss Fish

So you must know the way to her heart like how my Koi's love me
every morning!!! My Koi's even jumps up the water acrobatically to thanxs me for the feed!!!

Yes China gets Sudan oil and that's set off jealousy!!!
Normal for human is'nt it.
Cannot get, call out sour grapes!!!
What's on your mind now........ooooooooooooooo la la....Kind Regards

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.