Natsios .. Reproducing Israel in Africa

The essay of Andrew Natsios, the former US special envoy to Sudan in 2006-07 during George H.W. Bush era title (War, War and More War for Sudan) raised a lot of tumultuous comments in the media.
Magdi Al-Jozouli provide me - thanks to him for his translations – with the original essay in English from the New York Times published last Saturday – before publishing it in Assarq Alawsat on 27th of August, 2012 –
The essay included two worth reviewing ideas and the rest of the essay is full of obscurities.
In fact, I started despising this US envoy since I went through his book “Sudan, South Sudan, and Darfur: What Everyone Needs to Know”. As the said book was full of malice, lies and false information.
The book revealed foul facts which do not fit with its position as peace envoy.
Sudan in his book is the place of malicious arrogant Arabs who monopolized the power and wealth and prevent other African tribes.
He went on in saying that he spent two thirds of his time as US envoy to Sudan in reinforcing, modernizing and linking the SPLA with the US military institution; so the SPLA was provided with the technical equipment and training besides building its military institutions.
Then he said that last May he urged Obama to provide the South with weapons!
The question is if this man was a peace envoy, then what will the Pentagon envoy do?
Back to above mentioned essay Natsios said that the end of Al Bashir is approaching; but he retreated and said (Yet his removal would not end the conflict; it could even trigger a new civil war. The groups challenging Al Bashir are united by their common hatred of him and his party rather than by a shared vision for Sudan’s future. But were they to topple him, they would soon be at odds with one another over a longstanding, unresolved debate that has haunted Sudan from its founding: the proper relationship between Islam and the Sudanese state.)
In another paragraph of the essay he said that there is no hope in the future as he said: (It is not certain that the rebels can topple the Al Bashir government. But even if they do, they might only be setting the stage for a new civil war. If they and their allies in the West want Al Bashir out, they should have no illusions about prospects for a democratic, peaceful future for Sudan.)
According to Natsios' analysis toppling Al Bashir through peaceful opposition or through rebels' weapons will lead to chaos or the outbreak of wars, besides the lack of hope in democratic and peaceful future for Sudan.
It seems that this essay, which warns against chaos in Sudan, represents the official stance adapted by the US Administration.
The current US envoy Princeton Lyman expressed the same in more than one time when he said that do not intend to change the regime in Khartoum, added to that their increased pressures on the so-called Sudan revolutionary Front.
If toppling the regime in Khartoum will lead to chaos, hence instability in the region, then the logic is do deal with the Sudanese government according to this reality through strengthening the ruling regime.
What is strange is that the above outcome reached by the US envoys, did not lead to improving the relations between Khartoum and Washington.
On the contrary it resulted to detribalize those relationships.
The only explanation to this discrepancy is that the US Administration recognizes the situations on the ground; but the pressing groups yield its hands from dealing positively with the Sudanese government, despite its public recognition that the Sudanese government supported America in it war against terrorism and availed the opportunity to southerners for self-determination.
Those were the US Administration conditions to lift sanctions from Sudan – before attaching Darfur, the Blue Nile and South Kordofan in the conditions' list.
The question is what is the goal of Natsios in his essay, as it seems that there is something beyond warning against chaos in Sudan, especially when this is linked to his call for providing South Sudan with the strongest weapons just like the case with Israel; or as he said that the only result which could be obtained is that the balance of power will be in favour of the Republic of South Sudan (ROSS); so it the chaos occurs ROSS can establish (settlements) or (safe zones) outside its borders as is the case now in South Kordofan, then expanding northwards like what happened in Higleg.
Does Natsois attempt to make Sudan another (Israel) in Africa? Stability, democracy, settlements and superiority in weapons over all the neigbouring states?
What is strange that Natsios in his book does not show confidence in South Sudan leaders accusing them of corruption and ridiculed them when he said that the salaries payrolls in the south are fake and full of cows' names!
(Extracted from Al-Sahafa Daily – Last Page – Wednesday August 12, 2012 – issue No. 6854)

By Al-Sahafa Daily

Arabic Forum