Archive | Sudan

Pompeo tries to extort cash from struggling Sudan

by: Mitchell Plitnick

Mike Pompeo’s Middle East trip during the Republican National Convention has turned into a tour de force of scandal and failure. In that sense, it mirrors well both his tenure as secretary of state, and his boss’s time as president.

Starting in Jerusalem, Pompeo made a mockery of his office by giving a political speech, which might have been a violation of the Hatch Act, and doing so from foreign soil, a breach of diplomatic tradition in the United States.

Pompeo also visited Bahrain, where his attempt to convince the king to join the United Arab Emirates in normalizing relations with Israel was firmly rebuffed, and wound up his trip in Oman. There, Pompeo is reported to have discussed the ongoing blockade of Qatar by fellow Gulf Cooperation Council members Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. It is notable that Pompeo did not say that he had discussed this issue with Bahrain or the UAE, as one would expect if he were trying to resolve the stalemate. Instead, he discussed it with Oman, which has long been leading efforts to repair relations between the Gulf states.

Pompeo also attempted to convince Oman to increase efforts to normalize relations with Israel. Omani leaders have met with Israeli officials, including a 2018 visit to the country by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But there is no indication that Oman is prepared to move further than it already has in normalizing ties with Israel for the time being, despite some raised hopes in both Jerusalem and Washington. 

When he departed Jerusalem, Pompeo made the first-ever direct flight from Israel to Sudan. It was there that the secretary would demonstrate just how degraded the United States’ foreign policy has become under Donald Trump, and with Pompeo at the helm of the State Department.

Pompeo told Sudanese leaders that the United States would consider removing them from the list of state sponsors of terrorism — if Sudan pays us $330 million.

Let’s put this in context. In 1989, Omar al-Bashir led a bloodless coup and took over Sudan. He would rule for the next three decades, with an iron fist. Natural disasters, dictatorship, civil war, massive human rights violations, even genocide marked the history of Bashir’s rule. Sudan’s economy has been devastated many times, and it is one of the poorest countries in the world.

Last year, a popular, non-violent revolution forced Bashir out. The revolt’s leaders made a deal with the remaining military leadership to transition to a civilian and more democratic government. It’s a shaky arrangement, with many elements in the military government reluctant to cede power to civilian rule, and leading activists wary of the military. As University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes described it to me after visiting Sudan in January, it is “a civilian-led government with a majority on the three main governing bodies, albeit with strong military representation.”

The transition has been difficult and uneasy, and it is complicated further by Sudan’s presence, along with only Iran and Syria, on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism — or SST — list. Zunes told me, “The U.S. sanctions make it difficult for other countries and international financial institutions to do business with Sudan.”

Although many sanctions on Sudan were lifted in recent years, the country remains isolated from the global monetary system — the International Monetary Fund and World Bank — due to its SST listing. This prevents it from getting the capital it needs to recover from the devastation it suffered during Bashir’s rule, and the economic impact of losing much of its natural resources when South Sudan split off from the rest of country in 2011.

In other words, the Sudanese people desperately need to be removed from the SST list. Currently, about one in four Sudanese faces a shortage of food, and inflation in June was measured around 130 percent, a substantial rise over the African Development Bank’s already grave projection of 61.5 percent.

Sudan’s entire GDP was just $18.9 billion in 2019, and it is expected to drop to just $9.7 billion in 2020. That’s the country we are trying to extort $330 million from, a sum that would represent less than 0.00007 percent of our 2020 budget.

This is cruel and inhumane. It’s made all the more so by the fact that Sudan is being held responsible for crimes committed by Osama bin Laden, who was expelled from Sudan long before the September 11 attacks and, in any case, was only allowed in the country for a few years by Bashir and one of his aides, Hassan al-Turabi. Whether Sudan should be held responsible now that Bashir has been ousted is dubious but given the effects of the SST listing on the Sudanese people, it’s also irrelevant. A stable Sudan might be able to grapple with these issues and, if necessary, the costs. But extorting an impoverished country for what to it is a significant sum, but the U.S. amounts to less than pocket change is intolerable — especially as that country is actively trying to become more free and open.

Pompeo also tried to convince the Sudanese to open normal relations with Israel, something that had been floated this past February, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Sudanese General Abdel-Fattah Burhan, the head of the ruling sovereign council, and hastily announced that Sudan and Israel would move to establish normal relations.

The angry response from the Sudanese people made Burhan back off quickly. Sudan’s Information Minister Fasial Saleh reacted similarly this week to Pompeo, stating “The transitional government does not have the mandate… to decide on normalization with Israel. This matter will be decided after the completion of the transitional authority.” In other words, come back to us when we have a permanent government, we can’t handle the disruption now.

In February, it seemed Sudanese leaders were testing the waters on warming relations with Israel, knowing such a move would please Washington and maybe convince it to remove Sudan from the SST list. Whether the Sudanese government transitions to democracy, reverts to a military dictatorship, or lands somewhere in between, its economy desperately needs the international assistance it cannot access while still on the infamous list.

The Trump administration need not have attached a price tag for Sudan’s long-ago dalliance with Osama Bin Laden. There is little to be gained by this maneuver except to extend the suffering of the Sudanese people and make it harder for the civilian, democratic forces in that country to prevail. But this is the nature and character of the Trump administration. If Sudan should finally find its economic and democratic balance, they are not likely to forget how the United States treated them as they tried to build their country.

Posted in USA, SudanComments Off on Pompeo tries to extort cash from struggling Sudan

UN Says New Polio Outbreak in Sudan Caused by Oral Vaccine

By Maria Cheng

These are excerpts of a an AP Report

The World Health Organization says a new polio outbreak in Sudan is linked to an ongoing vaccine-sparked epidemic in Chad — a week after the U.N. health agency declared the African continent free of the wild polio virus.

In a statement this week, WHO said two children in Sudan — one from South Darfur state and the other from Gedarif state, close to the border with Ethiopia and Eritrea — were paralyzed in March and April. Both had been recently vaccinated against polio. WHO said initial outbreak investigations show the cases are linked to an ongoing vaccine-derived outbreak in Chad that was first detected last year and is now spreading in Chad and Cameroon.

“There is local circulation in Sudan and continued sharing of transmission with Chad,” the U.N. agency said, adding that genetic sequencing confirmed numerous introductions of the virus into Sudan from Chad.

On Monday, WHO warned that the risk of further spread of the vaccine-derived polio across central Africa and the Horn of Africa was “high,” noting the large-scale population movements in the region.

More than a dozen African countries are currently battling outbreaks of polio caused by the virus, including Angola, Congo, Nigeria and Zambia.

To read complete article, click here

Posted in Health, Sudan, UNComments Off on UN Says New Polio Outbreak in Sudan Caused by Oral Vaccine

Sudan: Justice Yet to Be Delivered in Sudan One Year After Massacre

On June, 3, 2019, a massacre in Khartoum left more than 100 people dead.

Thousands chanted anti-military slogans Wednesday to demand justice, freedom, full civilian rule for Sudan and to call for the perpetrators of the mass killing to be held accountable. 

Sudanese protesters who helped bring down former president Omar al-Bashir returned to the streets to mark the first anniversary of a massacre in Khartoum that left more than 100 people dead.

RELATED: Female Genital Mutilation Finally Banned in Sudan

Thousands of demonstrators chanted anti-military slogans Wednesday to demand justice, freedom, full civilian rule for Sudan and to call for the perpetrators of the mass killing to be held accountable soon. 

Protesters said they held the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a militia headed by the current deputy chairman of the Sovereign Council, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, responsible for the deaths. 

They also criticized the investigation committee formed by the Sudanese Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok last September to probe the circumstances of the massacre.

The brutal dispersal of a protest sit-in outside Khartoum’s army headquarters on June 3, 2019 led to protesters being gunned down, while others were rounded up. Tents were burned and an untold number of bodies were thrown into the Nile.

Many of the soldiers filmed themselves as they marched through the sit-in area, beating protesters with canes and demanding they chant in favor of the military. Within a few hours, there was nothing left of the sit-in that had lasted almost two months. 

Families of the victims hinted they might seek justice at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights if they are not satisfied with the results of the investigation.

Other marches have also been organized by the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), a member of the ruling political coalition of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), which led the protests against Bashir, and other resistance committees across the 17 states outside the capital Khartoum. 

Echoing the concerns of protesters, the United Nations has called for a credible investigation into the brutal attack against protesters on 3 June last year. 

In a press release on Wednesday, Gwi-Yeop Son, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Sudan, said that the body was fully committed to assisting the transition of Sudan towards democracy. 

Posted in SudanComments Off on Sudan: Justice Yet to Be Delivered in Sudan One Year After Massacre

Justice Yet to Be Delivered in Sudan One Year After Massacre

On June, 3, 2019, a massacre in Khartoum left more than 100 people dead.

Thousands chanted anti-military slogans Wednesday to demand justice, freedom, full civilian rule for Sudan and to call for the perpetrators of the mass killing to be held accountable. 

Sudanese protesters who helped bring down former president Omar al-Bashir returned to the streets to mark the first anniversary of a massacre in Khartoum that left more than 100 people dead.

RELATED:  Female Genital Mutilation Finally Banned in Sudan

Thousands of demonstrators chanted anti-military slogans Wednesday to demand justice, freedom, full civilian rule for Sudan and to call for the perpetrators of the mass killing to be held accountable soon. 

Protesters said they held the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a militia headed by the current deputy chairman of the Sovereign Council, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, responsible for the deaths. 

They also criticized the investigation committee formed by the Sudanese Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok last September to probe the circumstances of the massacre.

The brutal dispersal of a protest sit-in outside Khartoum’s army headquarters on June 3, 2019 led to protesters being gunned down, while others were rounded up. Tents were burned and an untold number of bodies were thrown into the Nile.

Many of the soldiers filmed themselves as they marched through the sit-in area, beating protesters with canes and demanding they chant in favor of the military. Within a few hours, there was nothing left of the sit-in that had lasted almost two months. 

Families of the victims hinted they might seek justice at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights if they are not satisfied with the results of the investigation.

Other marches have also been organized by the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), a member of the ruling political coalition of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), which led the protests against Bashir, and other resistance committees across the 17 states outside the capital Khartoum. 

Echoing the concerns of protesters, the United Nations has called for a credible investigation into the brutal attack against protesters on 3 June last year. 

In a press release on Wednesday, Gwi-Yeop Son, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Sudan, said that the body was fully committed to assisting the transition of Sudan towards democracy. 

teleSUR English@telesurenglish

#Thowra is Arabic for #Revolution and the woman was leading the chants for an anti-government protest in #Khartoum, the capital of #Sudan. #Womensempowerment6110:00 PM – Apr 10, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy40 people are talking about this

SudanSudan’s 2019 protestsAfrica
Middle East Eye
by teleSUR / ao – MP

Posted in SudanComments Off on Justice Yet to Be Delivered in Sudan One Year After Massacre

Sudan: Zionist warming ties

What is behind Israel’s warming ties to Sudan?

Israeli-Sudanese relations have been fraught with public tensions and secret collaborations — with the fate of refugees in Israel hanging in the balance.

By Inbal Ben Yehuda 

Protesters on a train coming from Atbra city about 300 km from Khartoum, during the Sudanese revolution, 17 August 2019. (Osama Elfaki/Wikimedia)

Protesters on a train coming from Atbra city about 300 km from Khartoum, during the Sudanese revolution, 17 August 2019. (Osama Elfaki/Wikimedia)

A meeting last month between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the interim leader of Sudan, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, caused widespread uproar over the perceived normalization of ties between the two countries.

Both men are in a complicated position: Netanyahu is entangled in legal affairs and leading a third election campaign this year, while al-Burhan — a military ruler and head of Sudan’s sovereign council — is struggling to distance himself from the regime of Omar al-Bashir, whose 30-year tyrannical reign came to an end last April. Al-Burhan and some of his peers in the transitional institutions were key figures under al-Bashir’s rule who participated in his violent oppression of Sudan’s marginalized groups, and of political dissidents across the country.

Netanyahu and al-Burhan were representing two countries whose historical relations are fraught with tension and hostility, as well as secret collaborations and rapprochement efforts.

Israel has for decades considered Sudan an “enemy state,” while at the same time seeing it as a potential target in the “alliance of the periphery” — a policy by which Israel strove in its early decades to find partners among Middle Eastern and African countries, mainly out of narrow political and security-led interests. In the 1950s, on the eve of Sudan’s independence, Israel and the Sudanese Umma party made mutual attempts to create an alliance in order to curb Egypt’s influence in Sudan and the Middle East.

From the mid-1960s, the Israeli government closed off the route to Khartoum amid Sudan’s shaky political situation, while simultaneously supporting South Sudanese liberation movements. These groups were rebelling against their political exclusion and the Sudanese government’s violent control over the south of the country; in time, their ongoing struggle devolved into civil war.

Sudanese soldiers seen patrolling the streets of Juba, the capital of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on July 09, 2011, and soon thereafter also a UN member state. August 20, 2011. (Moshe Shai/FLASH90)

Sudanese soldiers seen patrolling the streets of Juba, the capital of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on July 09, 2011, and soon thereafter also a UN member state. August 20, 2011. (Moshe Shai/FLASH90)

During the same period, the regime in Khartoum increasingly identified itself with political Islam, developing warm ties with Iran after the 1979 revolution and with movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Against this backdrop, Israel has led several air strikes in Sudan in recent years, aimed at thwarting ammunition production and shipments to the Gaza Strip.

Over the past decade, Sudan has been viewed in Israel as the origin country of thousands of asylum seekers, most of whom are from the marginalized groups and regions in conflict with the Khartoum regime. These people, alongside other African refugee groups, have become a political tool and a burning issue among the Israeli public.

Common xenophobic arguments about jobs, crimes, and the so-called “globalist left” are used in conjunction with a uniquely Israeli anti-immigrant argument: that being non-Jewish, these immigrants are a “risk” to the Jewish demographic majority. And although Sudan’s image as a violent dictatorship was reinforced among Israelis, it did not always translate into greater tolerance of Sudanese asylum seekers.

Meanwhile, Israel has gained a significant place in the Sudanese mindset. In 1948, 1967, and 1973, Sudanese soldiers were sent to assist the Egyptian army in its wars against Israel. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Khartoum hosted a conference of Arab states that ruled against peace with Israel, against recognizing the country, and against negotiations. This agenda aligned with that of General Jaafar al-Nimeiri, who came to power in a military coup about two years later and who increasingly reinforced Sudan’s Arab identity and, eventually, its Muslim identity as well.

Nonetheless, al-Nimeiri collaborated with Israeli officials in the 1980s and allowed Ethiopian Jews to immigrate through Sudan under Operation Moses in late 1984, as part of his efforts to strengthen Sudan’s ties with the United States. This gesture was actually an attempt by al-Nimeiri to ensure his political survival; but while it brought him some financial benefits, it eventually contributed to the downfall of his regime.

Asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea wait in line to enter the Ministry of Interior in the city of Bnei Brak, in order to renew their temporary visas or submit their asylum requests, in the early morning hours of February 4, 2018. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea wait in line to enter the Ministry of Interior in the city of Bnei Brak, in order to renew their temporary visas or submit their asylum requests, in the early morning hours of February 4, 2018. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

The legacy of colonial rule in Sudan, and its conditions at independence — a vast, ethnically- and culturally-diverse territory — sparked a “war of visions” over whether the country would be “Arab” or “African,” Muslim or multi-religious and multicultural. As this contest deteriorated into civil war, the southern independence cause relied primarily on regional and global Christian support, as well as on Israeli backing.

Successive Sudanese governments, meanwhile, have embraced a strong Arab-Muslim identity, gaining legitimacy as Africans in the Arab world through, among other things, propaganda against Israel regarding its oppression of Palestinians. This propaganda, especially during the al-Bashir era, was supplemented and reinforced by the influence of Arab media outside the country, and helped implant Israel into the Sudanese public consciousness.

Accordingly, for certain groups of dissident Sudanese, a change in hostile attitudes toward Israel and Jews went hand-in-hand with expressing general opposition to the regime. Urban liberals, supporters of secularism or reformist Islam, activists from the peripheries at odds with the regime, and immigrants and refugees abroad, among others, began to take an interest in Israel as a complex, multi-narrative country, beyond a singular “Zionist entity.” For some, this was manifested by making contact with Israelis to learn various narratives about the state and its inhabitants, and even to learn Hebrew.

At the same time, a sense of nostalgia emerged for Sudan’s former small Jewish community, which gradually left the country following independence. Today, a spectrum of attitudes toward cooperation with Israel can be found among Sudanese liberals in the country and in the diaspora. These include groups heavily influenced by growing pro-Israeli propaganda efforts (including in Arabic), to staunch opponents who condemn Israel for systematically violating the human rights of Palestinians.

Bumpy road to normalization

Sudan is currently facing a challenging transitional period. The people who took to the streets en masse to overthrow the al-Bashir regime, and those who supported the revolution from the diaspora, are filled with hope and anxiety over the transitional institutions’ prospects of bringing political, security, and economic stability, and even democratic rule, to Sudan.

Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, listens to a speech during the opening of the 20th session of The New Partnership for Africa's Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Jan. 31, 2009. (US Navy photo by Jesse B. Awalt)

Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, listens to a speech during the opening of the 20th session of The New Partnership for Africa’s Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Jan. 31, 2009. (US Navy photo by Jesse B. Awalt)

In these conditions, Israel is offering Sudan a possible lifeline from a much-feared economic disaster. The meeting between Netanyahu and al-Burhan was the most publicized move to date between the two countries’ leaders, due to its suggestion of a rapprochement.

However, it is worth noting that during the final years of his rule, and like al-Nimeiri before him, al-Bashir had similarly viewed engagement with Israel as a channel for warming up ties with the U.S., even as his anti-normalization rhetoric continued.

This has to do with Sudan’s entanglement in the coalition of Arab Gulf countries and Egypt vis-à-vis countries like Iran and Qatar. This is expressed in part by Sudan’s dispatching of tens of thousands of soldiers — including children — to Yemen in recent years to fight against Yemen in a coalitional proxy war between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia.

Israel shares the latter’s anti-Iran stance, and has therefore provided Sudan with some lobby support in Washington, resulting in the U.S. lifting most of its economic and trade sanctions on Sudan in October 2017. Yet Sudan remains on the United States’ list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Among other sanctions, this makes it difficult for Sudan to obtain aid budgets, which are considered essential by the authorities for the success of the transitional period.

While many Sudanese see the warming of relations with Israel as an opportunity for economic survival, others highlight the problem of the country succumbing to the economic and political interests of influential Arab neighbors, Israel, and the U.S., especially while it is stuck in financial distress and at a diplomatic disadvantage.

Given the sensitive regional situation stirred by Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century,” as well as Sudan’s intricate domestic dynamics, resistance to normalization is based not merely on religious sentiments or a sense of Arab nationalism, but also on pragmatic considerations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a conference on Israeli-African relations, organized by Likud parliament member Avraham Negusie, at the Israeli parliament on February 29, 2016. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a conference on Israeli-African relations, organized by Likud parliament member Avraham Negusie, at the Israeli parliament on February 29, 2016. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

For one, Netanyahu met with Sudan’s military ruler but not with the head of the civil cabinet, Dr. Abdalla Hamdok, an apparent exclusion that has caused a great stir. The meeting thus illuminated the numerous difficulties in post-Bashir Sudan, including uncertainty over who is in charge — the military or civilians — and where Sudan’s interim leaders are taking the country at such a fragile moment.

Despite the clear opposition in some circles to normalization with Israel, foreign powers’ interests may yet compel Sudan to continue down this road. In the process, however, Sudanese asylum seekers in Israel could become a human, cultural, and social bridge, which also has business and economic potential. This group has both the knowledge and the skills to disperse preconceptions about Sudan, and to provide a more informed context to the discourse on normalization.

Still, despite a degree of integration and coexistence, the fact remains that the reality of life for asylum seekers in Israel has been defined by the country’s racism toward non-Jews in general, and African communities in particular. Unsurprisingly, there has been speculation regarding the potential deportation of Sudanese asylum seekers in Israel back to Sudan under the auspices of “normalization” between the two countries.

This issue serves as a reminder for the Israeli government that Sudan’s rulers do not represent the whole country, and that it is more than just a strategic asset. It remains to be seen how Israel will treat the citizens of the country it wishes to partner with, when those citizens are within its own borders.

Posted in Africa, ZIO-NAZI, SudanComments Off on Sudan: Zionist warming ties

Zionist Arab puppets Zionist secret history

Arab rulers and Israel’s leaders: A long and secret history of cooperation

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been actively seeking closer relations and alliances with Arab rulers (Illustration by Mohamad Elaasar]2.8kShares

In the last month, Israeli leaders have been actively seeking closer relations and alliances with Arab countries, including the Gulf states, Morocco and Sudan.

These are states that, we are told, have finally seen the light and realised that Israel, unlike Iran, is their friend not their enemy.

This is presented as some major change of heart on the part of Arab regimes, which had apparently always shunned relations with Israel in the interest of defending the Palestinians.

This was always a fiction. Most of the 20th century’s Arab leaders and ruling families maintained cordial relations with Israel and, before it, the Zionist movement.

False narrative

This false narrative of resistance has been presented by Arab regimes as well as Israelis. It’s been put about by pro-Israeli Arab intellectuals, who claim that these regimes unfairly spurned Israel or even went to war with it at the behest of the Palestinians, rather than in their own national and regime interests.

This line of thinking concludes with the assertion that now, finally, is the time that Arab governments put their own interests ahead of the Palestinians, as if they had ever prioritised Palestinian interests before.

The largest number of Arab leaders and ruling families have had cordial relations with Israel and, before it, the Zionist movement, throughout the twentieth century

This was most recently expressed by the Sudanese military commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda two weeks ago. It was hardly the first such meeting between Sudanese officials and Israel.

Secret overtures had taken place as early as the 1950s, when Sudan was still ruled by the British and Egyptians and the Umma party sought to gain Israeli support for Sudanese independence.

Following independence, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Khalil and Golda Meir, Israel’s fourth prime minister, held a clandestine meeting in Paris in 1957.

In the 1980s, Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiri met with the Israelis and facilitated the Israeli transport of Ethiopian Jews to Israel to become colonial settlers in the land of the Palestinians.

Hussein stands with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Washington in 1994 (AFP)
Jordan’s King Hussein stands with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Washington in 1994 (AFP)

More recently, in January 2016 and with Omar al-Bashir still in charge, foreign minister Ibrahim Ghandour sought to lift the US economic sanctions on Sudan by offering to open formal diplomatic ties with Israel. When questioned about his recent meeting with Netanyahu and the normalisation of relations, Burhan’s response was that relations with Israel are based on Sudan’s “security and national interests”, which come first. 

The history of Sudan’s leaders’ connections with Israel is hardly unique. Indeed, Arab cooperation with the Zionist movement goes back to the dawn of the arrival of Zionist officials in Palestine.

Cordial relations

It was on 3 January 1919, two weeks before the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, that Emir Faisal Ibn al-Hussein, then of the short-lived Kingdom of Hejaz and later the king of Iraq, signed an agreement with the President of the World Zionist Organization Chaim Weizmann. Faisal consented to the creation of a Jewish colonial majority in Palestine, in exchange for becoming the king of a large and independent Arab kingdom in all of Syria.  

The justification that Hussein used for his secret contacts with the Israelis was the preservation of his throne, conflated as Jordan’s “national” interest, in the face of Nasser’s pressure

While Faisal was denied his Syrian throne by the French colonial takeover, the agreement, which the Zionists used at the Paris Peace Conference to claim that their colonial-settler plans for Palestine had the agreement of Arab leaders, came to naught. 

Not to be outdone by his brother, Emir Abdullah of Transjordan embarked on a lifelong relationship of cooperation with the Zionists, in the hope that they would allow him to be king of Palestine and Transjordan, within which they could realise their goals under his kingship. This cooperation led to his assassination in 1951.

His grandson, King Hussein of Jordan, authorised the first secret meetings between one of his army generals and the Israelis in 1960 in Jerusalem. By 1963, he himself was meeting with Israelis secretly at his doctor’s office in London. By the mid-1970s his covert meetings with Israeli leaders would take place regularly inside Israel.

Hussein’s long friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (who had personally expelled the Palestinian population of the city of Lydda in 1948, and initiated the break-their-bones policies against West Bank and Gaza Palestinians in 1987) was evident during Rabin’s funeral in 1994.

King of Morocco Mohamed VI (L) chats with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres (R) as President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika (C) looks on, 11 March 2005
King of Morocco Mohamed VI (L) chats with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres (R) as President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika (C) looks on, 11 March, 2005 (AFP)

The justification that Hussein used for his secret contacts with the Israelis was the preservation of his throne, conflated as Jordan’s “national” interest, in the face ofEgyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pressure and later that of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. 

Zionist alliances

Aside from the Hashemite princes and kings, the Maronite Church of Lebanon, as well as right-wing fascist Maronite leaders like the Phalangists, allied themselves with Zionists from the mid-1940s. This alliance continues to the present, in the interest of setting up a sectarian Christian republic in Lebanon, modelled after the Jewish settler-colony.

Why have Arab rulers accepted the Trump deal?

Read More »

By the early 1950s it would be Tunisian nationalists of the Neo Destour party who met with Israeli representatives at the United Nations to help them obtain independence from the French, eliding Israel’s colonial-settler nature. Tunisia’s authoritarian leader Habib Bourguiba would maintain these friendly relations with Israel until the end of his rule in 1987.  

In the 1960s, Israel would support Saudi Arabia’s efforts in maintaining the rule of the imamate in Yemen against the republicans – the Israelis airlifted weapons and money to the Yemeni monarchists, which were well-received.

The warmest relations in North Africa would be between Israel and the late King Hassan II of Morocco.

While Israeli leaders met with Moroccan officials in the late 1950s, warm relations had to wait till King Hassan assumed the throne. From 1960 onwards the Israelis, through secret agreements with Morocco, airlifted Moroccan Jews to become colonial settlers in the land of the Palestinians.

The Moroccan connection

By 1963, Moroccan minister Mohamed Oufkir had concluded an arrangement with the Israelis to train Moroccan intelligence agents. Israel also helped Morocco track its opposition leaders, including Mehdi Ben Barka, who was captured and killed by Moroccan intelligence in 1965. Indeed, Yitzhak Rabin was invited by King Hassan to visit Morocco secretly in 1976.

By 1986, there were no more reasons for secrecy, and Shimon Peres visited Morocco with much public fanfare. In 1994, Morocco and Israel officially exchanged liaison offices.

In 2018, Benjamin Netanyahu met secretly at the UN with Morocco’s foreign minister for talks. In the last few weeks, the Israelis offered the Moroccans their help in securing US recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara in exchange for Morocco’s formal normalisation of relations with Israel and endorsement of Donald Trump’s so-called “deal of the century”.  

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (R) shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) during a meeting in the Egyptian Red Sea resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh on May 11, 2009.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (R) shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) during a meeting in the Egyptian Red Sea resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh on 11 May, 2009 (AFP)

As for the great love affair between the Egyptian political and commercial classes with Israel, it has been a public affair since the late 1970s.

Since 1991, we have seen Israeli leaders, officials and athletes visit most Gulf countries openly, including Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and secretly Saudi Arabia, never mind the opening of liaison or trade offices in these countries.

Public enemy number one

Arab relations with Israel, whether hostile or friendly, were never governed by the interests of the Palestinian people, but rather by their own regime interests, which they often misidentify as “national” interests.

Israel-Sudan: Is Abdel Fattah al-Burhan evolving into a Sudanese Sisi?Read More »

Only the latter part of the history of their love for Israel has coincided since 1991 with the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accords, which transformed the Palestinian national leadership and the PLO into an agency of the Israeli military occupation; this is testament to Israel’s ceaseless efforts to co-opt Arab political, business, and intellectual elites.

It is also testament of how co-optable these elites are and have always been. 

While Israel has been mostly successful in its task as far as the political and business elites are concerned, it has failed miserably to co-opt the Arab intellectual class, except for those amongst them on the payroll of Gulf regimes and Western-funded NGOs. Even less has it gained any popularity among the Arab masses, for whom national interests and the colonisation of Palestinian lands, unlike for the Arab regimes, are not separable at all, and for whom Israel remains the major enemy of all Arabs. 

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Africa, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, SudanComments Off on Zionist Arab puppets Zionist secret history

While Americans Slept in 2019, Uprisings Reshaped Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, and Algeria

All four of these popular revolts caused a sitting prime minister or president to step down.

by: Juan Cole

As 2019 began, Saad Hariri was prime minister of Lebanon. On 17 October small street protests broke out against corruption, gridlock, lack of services, failure to collect garbage, lack of electricity, sectarianism and new taxes on the Whatsapp messaging program. (Photo: Javier Barrera/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

As 2019 began, Saad Hariri was prime minister of Lebanon. On 17 October small street protests broke out against corruption, gridlock, lack of services, failure to collect garbage, lack of electricity, sectarianism and new taxes on the Whatsapp messaging program. (Photo: Javier Barrera/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

In 2019, the Middle East was shaken by a new round of street revolts. As the year began, Abdelaziz Bouteflika had announced a fifth run for the presidency of Algeria. Then the peaceful “revolution of Smiles” broke out and by April he had resigned. A small elite has for decades monopolized Algeria’s oil resources and has rewarded its supporters while marginalizing everyone else. On December 12, Abdelmadjid Tebboune was elected president, amid continued massive demonstrations in major cities and a protester boycott of the election itself. The crowds are clearly unconvinced that switching out one president for another, when both are lackeys of the small Oil elite, will actually change things.

As 2019 began, Omar al-Bashir was president of the Sudan, as he had been for 30 years. A brutal dictator implicated in genocide in Darfur he was widely considered a war criminal after an International Criminal Court ruling. By April 11, continued urban unrest and strategic rallies led by the leftist Sudanese Professionals Association and, behind the scenes, by mystical Sufi orders, had pressured the officer corps into making a coup against al-Bashir. Not satisfied with replacing one general with another, the crowds continued to pressure the military to step down in favor of a civilian government. Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear to have backed the military junta against the people, but could not forestall a compromise. In the end a form of cohabitation developed, with a new civilian government but continued military oversight and a promise of transition to pure civilian rule. Sudan lost the revenue for South Sudan’s oil in 2013 when that region became an independent country, and its elite floundered in finding a new business model. Inflation was running at 75%, hurting people on fixed incomes or who depended on imports.

All the air in American politics seems to have been sucked up by Trump and his Power Tweets, so that cable television seemed to have little energy to spare for the big developments in the world that had the potential to affect the United States.

In ordinary times, the fall of al-Bashir should have been a huge story in the US, where at least lip service has been paid to caring about his Darfur genocide.

As 2019 began, Adel Abdulmahdi was prime minister of Iraq. Although voters had indicated in the 2018 election that they were fed up with the handful of parties that has dominated Iraq since the Bush era, Abdulmahdi was nevertheless chosen as PM. He came out of the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council. Massive protests broke out at the beginning of October in Shiite cities like Nasiriya and in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square. The Iraqi security forces and Shiite paramilitaries replied with deadly force, killing over 500 in October, November and December. Abdulmahdi was forced to resign. The crowds had demanded an end to corruption and to the party spoils system whereby the bigger parties in parliament were rewarded with government jobs for their supporters. They also wanted electoral reforms to block the dominance of the parties that keep winning the elections. Just last week, the Iraqi parliament moved away from the list system, in which you vote for a party list, and toward a system were voters can vote for individual politicians. Although Iraq is pumping 3.5 million barrels a day of petroleum, the billions in receipts that go to the government have not been invested in Iraqi jobs or infrastructure. Corruption runs so rife that the Iraqi treasury is said to be dry. All the $500 billion earned from oil sales since the Bush era seems to have just disappeared into the pockets of politicians. Crowds wanted more services and a share in the national oil wealth. Yesterday, Assad al-Eidani was nominated as prime minister. A member of the 2005- elite from the pro-Iran Islamic Supreme Council and the governor of Basra, his nomination holds out little hope of improvement of the sort the crowds demand.

As 2019 began, Saad Hariri was prime minister of Lebanon. On 17 October small street protests broke out against corruption, gridlock, lack of services, failure to collect garbage, lack of electricity, sectarianism and new taxes on the Whatsapp messaging program. By 18 December, Hariri had bowed out of consideration for another term as prime minister. The crowds are not mollified by simply switching out the prime minister for someone equally bad, and clearly intend to keep the government’s feet to the fire. Trump all this fall withheld military aid from Lebanon.

All four of these popular revolts caused a sitting prime minister or president to step down. All four demanded an end to corruption and an end to government inaction on providing jobs and infrastructure. Many wanted more and better jobs. All were nationalistic rather than fundamentalist in character. Sudan’s Association of Sudanese Journalists is a leftist organization.

Algeria, Sudan, and Iraq are all oil states where the distribution of oil proceeds was closely held by the state.

All the air in American politics seems to have been sucked up by Trump and his Power Tweets, so that cable television seemed to have little energy to spare for the big developments in the world that had the potential to affect the United States.

In 2011 the American public was mesmerized by the youth street revolts that overturned governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and which plunged Bahrain into a further authoritarian miasma and kicked off an 8-year civil war in Syria. Yet they showed little interest in the similar movements this year.

Posted in USA, Africa, Iraq, Lebanon, Middle East, SudanComments Off on While Americans Slept in 2019, Uprisings Reshaped Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, and Algeria

Sudan’s Withdrawal from Yemen Is Part of Its Alignment with the U.S.

By Paul Antonopoulos

Global Research,

In an October article, I made the argument that Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s “Vietnam” because despite their technological, demographical and economical advantage over Yemen, it has completely failed to break the Yemeni resistance, headed by the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement. Although “Saudi Arabia mobilized about 150,000 of its soldiers and mostly Sudanese mercenaries,” this large force has not been able to break the dogged Yemeni resistance.

The Ansarullah Movement announced in November that 4,335 Sudanese soldiers have been killed in the ongoing conflict in the country since 2015, with military spokesman Yahya Seri, saying that the Sudanese people, like other peoples in the region, were subjected to false propaganda by the media to conceal facts. Seri revealed that the 15,000 Sudanese mercenaries were divided on the northern border under the supervision of Saudi Arabia and on the south and west coast under the supervision of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He then went onto to allege that Sudanese soldiers in the last two years have conducted sexual abuse against women and children, war crimes and violations of human rights – reminiscent of Sudanese war crimes in Darfur and South Sudan.

Many parties and deputies in Sudan have stated that the presence of Sudanese military forces in Yemen had a negative effect on the relations of the peoples of the two countries and called for the withdrawal of these forces. Former President Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown by the military coup in Sudan earlier this year, argued that Sudanese forces should take part in the Yemeni war at every opportunity possible to help their Saudi friends.

However, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok said that he would recall Sudanese troops from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, correctly asserting thatWhat Happened in Sudan?

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen, either from us or from the other side of the world. The problem needs to be solved by political means.”

This is part of Sudan’s efforts to normalize relations with the West by demonstrating it is a responsible country, with Hamdok even having talks with U.S. officials to discuss the process of removing Sudan’s name from the list of countries that support terrorism. Although Washington lifted the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan since 1997 in October 2017, they did not remove Sudan from the “list of countries supporting terrorism” that was imposed in 1993 for hosting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Yemeni Defense Minister Mohammed Nasser al-Atıfi asked Sudan to withdraw its troops from the country just days ago in a written statement, explaining that the UAE does not want peace in Yemen, before reiterating their call “to the Sudanese regime to withdraw its troops from Yemen before it is too late.” With this, Hamdok announced the reduction of Sudanese forces in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000. Part of this effort to completely withdraw from the impoverished Arab country.

The question then remains why Sudan is now withdrawing from Yemen. Sudan has now demonstrated that it wants to act to serve its own direct interests, in which it has none in Yemen. Hamdok has a clear vision for Sudan, that is becoming ever closer to the U.S. His vision for Sudan is to become a leading country in the region that yields significant influence, however, it appears Hamdok does not have much self-confidence and believes this can only be achieved by aligning with Washington.

Discussing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam that has been a source of tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia, Hamdok added that he wanted to bring the two rival countries together with the Washington to reach an agreement between the three African countries. These tensions started when Ethiopia began construction of a dam in 2011 to increase its electrical capabilities, which worries Egypt as it relies on for 90% of its water needs from the Nile. Egypt believes this waterflow from the Ethiopian highlands could be affected by the dam. Although it was Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who requested Trump to help mediate during a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly summit in September, Sudan is demonstrating that it also wants to spearhead efforts to normalize relations between Ethiopia and Egypt.

Hamdok’s efforts to expand Sudanese influence has been in complete opposition to former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who wielded the military with great power. By withdrawing from Yemen and supporting dialogue so that the tense relations between Ethiopia and Egypt can be eased shows a Sudan that is changing dramatically. With its improving relations with the U.S., Sudan could become a state in northeast Africa that is more aligned to Washington in a region that is increasingly coming under Chinese influence, and it all begins with Sudan’s slow withdrawal from Yemen.

Posted in SudanComments Off on Sudan’s Withdrawal from Yemen Is Part of Its Alignment with the U.S.

Sudanese Transitional Government Faces Profound Challenges

Administration holds discussions seeking to resolve conflict and normalize relations with the West

By Abayomi Azikiwe

Global Research,

Interim Prime Abdallah Hamdok of the Republic of Sudan visited the United States during early December seeking to have sanctions lifted against his newly-created administration.

In meetings with members of Congress and the National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, Hamdok requested the removal of Sudan from the list crafted by Washington of those states ostensibly involved in supporting “terrorism.”

These events come in the aftermath of a series of negotiations with internal opposition groups inside Sudan. Some of these grouping are armed and have been engaged in military operations against the former administration of the ousted President Omer Hassan al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir was overthrown in a military coup on April 11 amid ongoing mass demonstrations and rebellions which had spread throughout the oil-rich nation. The protests began during December 2018 over the rise in food prices and soon escalated into demands calling for the removal of the National Congress Party (NCP) government.

With the removal of al-Bashir, a new Transitional Military Council (TMC) was established in an effort to end the unrest. After the continuing post-coup demonstrations and a massacre of civilian protesters in June outside the defense ministry headquarters where a sit-in was being held, the TMC agreed to the creation of an interim coalition administration composed of the FFC and the military junta.

Sudan demonstrations during 2019

The new Prime Minister Hamdok is attempting to reconfigure the posture and image of the Sudanese government. He has opened up negotiations with the political parties and coalitions which created the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) movement and the TMC as well as seeking to resolve the conflicts led by the several groups within the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) based in Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, Blue Nile and other regions.

New Prime Minister Makes Further Overtures to Washington

While in the U.S., Hamdok addressed the Atlantic Council in Washington requesting the removal of sanctions and the delisting of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism. He emphasized that the presence of leading military figures in the transitional government should not deter the Trump administration from normalizing relations with Khartoum.

His addressed pointed out that the civilian and military forces are working together to create a new political dispensation. Nonetheless, the prime minister noted that doubts remain in the U.S. among leading officials that a genuine transition is still not assured.

In an article published by the Sudan Tribune on December 6, it says that:Military and Opposition Forces Reach Agreement in Sudan While Tensions Persist

“Hamdok disclosed that he has a negotiating team in Washington that is conducting talks with the American administration on the delisting process. The direct and frank style that Hamdok adopted during the event shows an increase of confidence on the SST’s (State Sponsored Terrorism) rescission as he used in the past to make law-profile statements. The lifting process requires a formal review for over six months.”

National Security Advisor O’Brien said in a public statement that the U.S. administration is willing to delist Sudan from the SST. There were however, outstanding issues related to removing Khartoum from the list as these were compensation to families of those killed in an attack on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the destruction of USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000 and the commitment by the interim government to assist the U.S. in its war against terrorism.

The previous NCP administration of President al-Bashir had denied any culpability in the attacks on the USS Cole warship or the embassy bombings in East Africa which killed hundreds of people. In addition, the NCP government had categorically rejected any responsibility for funding or training those organizations such as al-Qaeda which have been the propaganda target of Washington in its so-called anti-terrorist campaigns internationally.

Hamdok went as far as to pledge support to the Trump administration in carrying out joint operations against alleged terrorist groups operating in the North and West Africa region in recent years. The prime minister reiterated this position in a quote published by the Wall Street Journal stressing:

“When it comes to combating terrorism, we would like to benefit from U.S. experience, not only of training but intelligence sharing, gathering, equipment, training.”

Revolutionary Transformation Stifled by the Neo-Colonial Status Quo

Such statements from Hamdok shed light on the political outlook of the interim government now operating in Khartoum. How does this foreign policy posture towards Washington differ fundamentally from what was being pursued under former President al-Bashir?

The NCP government had been cooperating with the U.S. in its war against Yemen since March 2015. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have engaged in massive bombing and ground operations in Yemen under the guise of preventing the Ansurallah (Houthis) Movement from taking control of the entire country, the most underdeveloped in the Middle East region.

U.S. warplanes guided by the Pentagon’s targeting and refueling technology have facilitated the war against Yemen which has killed thousands and displaced many more. The social impact of the war on Yemen has been designated as the worse humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Although Hamdok announced after returning to Khartoum from Washington that Sudan had reduced the number of troops serving in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000, he restated a commitment to maintaining his government’s participation in the continuing war which is in line with U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. The Ansurallah is accused of receiving military and political support from Tehran, a claim the Iranian government has denied. (See this)

Since the military coup against al-Bashir, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pledged $3 billion in assistance to Khartoum to prop up the interim administration. Just recently, the Sudan Tribune reported that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) had conducted joint exercises with Qatar.

The Sudan Tribune article reports that:

“According to a statement by the Qatari Defense, the military exercise was attended by Major General Rashid bin Nasser, Head of Qatar’s Authority of Military Institutes and Colleges, and Major General Hafez al-Taj Makki the Red Sea Governor.

Al-Nasser praised the military training of the Qatari officers saying it would enable them to carry out their duties. However, he did not speak about the duration of the training of the exercises. The Sudanese army did not issue a statement about this exercise. On 29 November, the Eritrean government issued a statement accusing Qatar of continuing to provide military support to the opposition groups. Asmara did not accuse the Sudanese transitional government of taking part in this plot but stressed that Qatar uses Sudan as a springboard for its subversive activities.”

Of course states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar operate within the imperialist sphere of influence and not only in the Middle East. There are numerous interventions through their military operations by these Gulf monarchies in the internal affairs of African nations such as Djibouti and Eritrea.

The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) has been highly critical of the role of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in recent developments involving the interim government under Prime Minister Hamdok. Their criticism was so severe that it prompted a response from the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash.

In an article published by the Middle East Monitor, its reveals:

“Gargash explained that Al-Khatib’s comments: ‘are based on used and abused ideological concepts associated with his party.” He continued: ‘Our relationship with Khartoum is historic, and the Arab role in supporting Sudan in its current circumstances is necessary.’ It is noteworthy that Al-Khatib delivered a speech in the Omdurman region, last Friday, accusing the UAE and Saudi Arabia of ‘quick intervention during the first days of the uprising’ in Sudan against Al-Bashir regime.”

The SCP in October called for mass demonstrations demanding the dismantling of the former governing party the NCP. The Communists have rejected the political agreements between the opposition FFC and the TMC.

Consequently, the direction of the foreign policy of the interim government is clearly reflective of its class politics related to the domestic situation. The Sudanese people will not be fully liberated within the context of imperialist domination. A struggle for genuine revolutionary democracy and self-determination is the only solution to the current crisis of governance and economic instability.

Posted in SudanComments Off on Sudanese Transitional Government Faces Profound Challenges

The Sudanese Revolution And Its Current Dilemma

news-details

Three weeks ago, we shared the joy of the Sudanese masses, led by the Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change, when they forced the Transitional Military Council, particularly through the massive June 30 protests, to back down from its coup attempt against the mass movement and to re-open the way to free prosperity. This movement, including restarting the Internet, is his main tool of communication, and to return to the path of negotiation and bargaining after trying to impose his will by force of arms.

We pointed out at the time that the Sudanese revolution entered a third round after the first round culminated in the fall of Omar al-Bashir on April 11 and the second round culminating in the retreat of the military on the fifth of July, stressing at the same time that «each round is harder than before» We are confident that the forces of the Declaration of Freedom and Change, especially its main faction, the Sudanese Professionals’ Association, are aware of the dangers they face, have maintained the mass movement, and continue to strengthen it in response to the ongoing battle and anticipation of another to come.

By saying that a round and a more difficult round has begun, it is clear that we are still facing partial victories, namely, bargaining between the past and the future and the forces that represent them mainly, the “Transitional Military Council” on the one hand, and the “Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces” on the other. In fact, the bargaining embodied in the political agreement between the two parties this month reflects the duality of the existing governance on the ground in Sudan, in this transitional period, between a military leadership determined to keep the ministries of defense and interior (ie the armed forces and security forces) under their control. Like the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, a revolutionary leadership mobilizes popular energies in confronting the military and seeks to employ the mass movement (“war of maneuver”) in a “position war”.

The Sudanese Communist Party is leading the line of those who have criticized the political agreement with its concessions and insist on achieving the goals of the revolution in full, as stated in the Declaration of Freedom and Change. Anyone who sees this situation is wrong to divide and weaken the revolutionary movement

Proving the revolutionary leadership its ability to meet the aspirations of the peaceful, social and economic masses becomes a key factor in its ability to exert influence on the armed forces and democratize its ranks.

In this context, the Sudanese Communist Party leads the line of those who criticized the political agreement with its concessions and insist on achieving the goals of the revolution in full, as stated in the Declaration of Freedom and Change. Anyone who sees this situation is wrong to divide and weaken the revolutionary movement.However, other fundamental forces of the “Declaration of Freedom and Change”, particularly in the “Sudanese Professionals ‘Association,” share the communists’ resentment of the conditions the military insists on imposing a price for accepting power-sharing. It is in the interest of the Sudanese revolution and of the forces of the Declaration of Freedom and Change that a part of the movement play a revolutionary, non-compromising role, to stimulate revolutionary radicalization and counterbalance the reactionary and radical role played by the radical Islamic forces, which the military council invokes in its hardening position.

The next leg of the current round will be the legislation of the ‘Transitional Constitutional Document of 2019’, which in its current form combines principles that can be described as very advanced, more advanced than all Arab constitutions, including the new Tunisian constitution, and the consecration of the balance of power and dual power. In terms of legitimizing the participation of the leadership of the armed forces in political power, even worse than Egypt’s current constitution. However, such bargaining is still hampered by the presence of a military leadership that is trying in various ways to circumvent the demands of the movement and distort them in the implementation, as it did recently in the alleged investigation of the massacre committed by the “Rapid Support Forces”, as well as the wing of the most reactionary armed forces persevering in Sabotage the bargaining and push things towards a military resolution, as evidenced by the killing of demonstrators in Abyad on Monday.

One of the adage of the Chinese revolutionary leader, Mao Zedong, is that “political power emanates from the barrel of a gun.” If it is true that this reflects a revolutionary experience that was carried out by force of arms through a prolonged popular war, it nevertheless contains the obvious fact that political power is incomplete without the holding of armed force. The big bet for the Sudanese revolution lies in the ability to ultimately control the armed forces by employing the power of the powerless people to that end.

Posted in SudanComments Off on The Sudanese Revolution And Its Current Dilemma

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk