Articles and Analysies
Hidden Motives for Resolution (1706) Revealed by Military Analysts /By: Al Sammani Awadallah
By [unknown placeholder $article.art_field1$]
Sep 9, 2006 - 12:51:00 AM

Hidden Motives for Resolution (1706) Revealed by Military Analysts
By: Al Sammani Awadallah
Why did Government reject UNSC Resolution (1706)? Was the African Union requested to leave Sudan? Do International Forces seek to protect civilians in Darfur? Was the rejection decision made by NCP alone?
These are all questions raised by the Sudanese public opinion which is presently incited by the interlacing incidents especially after issuing the (1706) UNSC Resolution which calls for transforming African Union Forces in Darfur into United Nations Forces. This comes at a time when observers perceive that the resolution will definitely rob the Central Government of its authority and will-power.
This apprehension is clearly asserted by President's Advisor, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail saying, "The Security Council Resolution directly encroaches on Sudan's sovereignty on account that article (8) (9e) stipulates that the tasks of the International Forces are based on recording cross-border activities especially through regular investigations both on land and from air. This means that the process of securing borders, which is a pure sovereignty issue for which the National Armed Forces are responsible had become a responsibility of these International Forces. In addition to that the Resolution stipulates structuring police systems as to cope and harmonize with activities of police forces that are characterized by democracy."
A number of Sudanese believe that Resolution (1706) denotes intentions of colonial hegemony and seeks to execute American strategy. Many of them recall memories about Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon.
It is quite obvious that Washington had imposed pressures on Security Council member countries to vote for the resolution.
Moreover, the Council ignored the plan set by the Government on agreement of the UNSC in the Banjul Summit. It was not presented for discussion by the Council. This indicates that there are some predetermined intentions against Sudan.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergi Laffrov whose country is one of the members having the "Veto Right, sees that the resolution is faulty and that it was taken hurriedly. It was taken without making discussions with the Sudanese Government."
Sergi asserts that the resolution of passing over African Union tasks to the United Nations should have been made on approval of the main base of the United Nations, which sees that such a resolution should be agreed upon with the Sudanese Government.
The Russian Minister regretted taking the resolution hurriedly and without discussions with the Sudanese Government, while his country and China were hoping discussions would continue, but that did not happen.
On his part, President's Advisor, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail stated that Sudan had started to doubt USA intentions towards it. He summed up the reasons for this in that Washington has classified what happens in Darfur in a way different from that of the International Community. It classified it as genocide and stated as soon as the resolution was issued, that it does not need Sudan's consent, while Kofi Annan stated that Khartoum's consent is necessary. Moreover, USA is still imposing all sorts of sanctions on Sudan.
The President's Advisor stated that USA strategy seeks to weaken the Government for the sake of making it a subordinate country or even depose it. Moreover, it had been trapped into the problem of fighting terrorism and intends to transform Darfur into another Iraq. Ismail asserts that it was the African Union Forces which terminated their mission in Darfur. It fixed the 30th of September as a final data for its presence there, and did not apply for an extension for its presence in Darfur. He goes on to state that the Government has no problem with the AU Forces deployed in Darfur if they request extending their authorization after the 30th of September and asserted that the Council of Ministers did not decide to expel the forces from Darfur. It kept always requesting AU Forces to leave Sudan only after the end of the period agreed on, because the Government will not agree on changing them into UN Forces.
The Advisor goes on to say, "We are not against African Forces, but against their being the first batch of International Forces. If AU Forces want to stay as African Forces they are welcome, but if they refuse extensions then they can leave. We shall not allow them to be part of International Forces, because we reject the presence of International forces in Darfur.
Observers, on the other hand, consider that the Government suspicious about the resolution and its integrity it as arising from the fact that Sudan, since the nineties and until now had been targetted by over (20) UNSC resolutions including the (1706) resolution which will raise talk again on it. Does USA actually have secret or hidden motives for intervention in Sudan?
According to political analysts the resolution implies that America and its allies had chosen it as the shortest routes for the objectives. Moreover, the resolution had, unlike its predecessors, narrowed the alternatives for both International Community and the Government for future dealings and accounts that it overstepped several articles in Chapter Seven to deploy forces that have all alternatives including use of military force.
French military analyst Doa Ceaser, in an analysis in Liberation French paper sees the resolution as a gateway for an American invasion into Egypt in 2015. He expects USA, in case it occupies Sudan to invade Egypt for the sake of controlling River Nile water resources and distributing Nile water as it wishes, and in aim of instigating tensions among religious sects and political forces to repeat the Iraqi scenario.
Ceaser warns that Egypt's falling into American captivity will mean that all Arab countries will fall in Washington's grip thus changing the political map of the region.
He asserts that development of International Forces in Darfur will be a legitimate cover for USA to enter Sudan and colonize it with the  aim of exploiting its petroleum and water resources.
Observers and those following up what goes on call on those supporting the (1706) resolution for the necessity of deliberating on the decision carefully so as to understand why the Government rejects this decision, and why it demands that AU Forces leave Darfur. It will be then that they demonstrate against America and call on Al Bashir "Proceed on Bashir, We are your supporters for the Change". 

© Copyright by