|
|
 Re: مشكلة دارفور فى المناظرة الأولى بين بوش وكيري (Re: malamih)
|
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: ENCOURAGING MESSAGE FOR OMER EL BASHIR
By Elias Nyamlell Wakoson
October 1, 2004
I watched the whole of the ninety-minute debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry and came out of it depressed. Both Presidential candidates did not mince their words when talking about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Osama Bin Laden; and the connection between all the above to American security and global terrorism. The message is very clear that terrorism anywhere in the world will not be tolerated by any American administration. The message is clear that America will use all its military might to destroy terrorism in any part of the world, if that terrorism threatens American security. This is the kind of message we in the New Sudan would like to hear, since we have been fighting a terrorist military junta for the last twenty years. On the contrary, we have heard that “terrorism” in the Sudan is spelled differently from that in the rest of the world. I could not believe what I heard.
When the moderator brought in a question on Darfur, the multiple-non-standard aspects of American foreign policy became obvious. John F. Kerry admits that there is genocide in Darfur, there is an ongoing genocide, but his Administration will not send American troops to Sudan to stop the genocide. Kerry asserts further that he would only provided logistics for the African Union monitoring forces. Mr. Bush acknowledges that there is genocide in the Sudan, but makes it clear that he will not send troops to the Sudan to stop the genocide. Mr. Bush mumbled some sentences about envoy Danforth and peace process between Khartoum and South Sudan and working with the United Nations Organization for possible “sanctions” against the Bashir regime. Senator Kerry also mumbled some phrases to the effect that what has happened in Rwanda should not be allowed to happen in the Sudan. This particular point of view from Kerry almost stopped my heart.
Starting with what John F. Kerry has said, one wonders what kind of thinking and logic is being applied to the Sudan. To say that what has happened in Rwanda should not be allowed to happen in the Sudan is as shallow as saying, let us close the barn after the horses have already bolted. Genocide has happened in the Sudan and it is still happening, thus the issue is not about not allowing genocide to happen, but rather what international concerted action should be taken to stop the genocide. I cannot help, but infer from the policy of the two Presidential hopefuls that, the American resolve to eradicate terrorism globally is actually limited only to cases of terrorism that pose threat to the American people. If "terrorism" ia an American-specific issue, why is America trying to mobilize the whole world to fight terrorism. Becoming an ally in the war against terrorism is a very resky and dangerous proposition, and if small nations and peoples, like South Sudanese and DarFurians commit themselves to fighting terrorism, the United States, as the super power, should have the moral obligation to protect them against the machinations of global Islamic terrorism. What is significant to us as people of the New Sudan is actually the ramification of the positions of the two Presidential candidates. Let us examine the adverse effects of the positions on our struggle and quest for peace.
The first, and most disturbing aspect of the stated positions is that, both American leaders are not concern with the causes of the genocide and humanitarian crises in Darfur and South Sudan. President Bush is more concerned about securing money for humanitarian assistance to the people affected by the genocidal machination of the Khartoum junta rather than provided effective methods of stopping the genocide, which, itself, has caused people to flee from their homes to avoid being slaughtered like farm animals. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur is the result of the terrorist policy of the Khartoum military junta, thus could be considered the metaphorical symptom of the disease. In order to cure and serious illness, one should deal with the “disease” and not with the symptoms. Thus, the Bush Administration is posing to the world that it is doing something about the tragedy in the Sudan, when in reality it is doing nothing and intends to do nothing tangible.
With the public pronouncements from Washington, the NIF regime will now gain confident in its defiance of international condemnation. Khartoum now knows that it is in no danger of any serious action from the super powers of the world. Khartoum’s course of action is likely going to be, not to return soon to the Naivasha Peace Talks in Kenya and not to disarm the janjeweed. There are now no more compelling reasons for Khartoum to do the two. If Khartoum goes back to the Naivasha Peace Talks, it will be to flex its muscles and mock the serious and genuine efforts of the IGAD moderators.
On the international scene, the Sudan will become a backburner item for most countries. It will be impossible for the UN Security Council to pass any resolution putting pressure on the Khartoum regime. China and Russia are now encouraged by what the two Presidential candidates have said to use their veto powers to block any UN Security Council resolution that could affect Sudan adversely. The Sudan is now an important customer to Russia. The Sudan has recently bought several Mig fighters from Russian, and the later is not going to do anything stupid to cut off the source of hard currency from Khartoum. China has the same commercial interests in the Sudan. In short, the US has become impotent to lead any successful campaign against the Sudan in the UN Security Council, and neither will it mobilize an alliance of friends to deal with the problems of the Sudan. Many of America’s European allies will find in the debate statements the pretext to refrain from Sudan as a way to appease the Islamic terrorists.
We are now left with the African Union forces to check the genocide in the Sudan. The African Union forces will not do any good since most of the donor countries do not have resources to sustain such a force. Nigeria that could have been the giant in the African force is having its own domestic rebellion that could soon escalated to that of serious crisis. The Northern States of Nigeria are not going to be very supportive of Nigeria’s effective participation in a force that will check the activities of an Islamic government.
The above is part of the political scenario that the Presidential debate will create for the Sudan. The most likely outcome of this scenario is that, Khartoum will resume massive military campaigns in Eastern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, and South Sudan, on top of what is currently going on in Darfur. The other most likely scenario is that Khartoum will just ignore the Naivasha Peace Talks, or make everybody dance to the tune that it plays.
===========================================================
There are many questions I have asked myself, the most important of them is: Nyamlell, What can you do in a positive way for other people in this universe? The answer is in my WORDS, DEEDS, and What others SAY about me, including my "enemies," if I have any. If we can't connect to other people, then humanity is DEAD.
| |
 
|
|
|
|
aosman
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست