The Imbuement of the American Dialogue with Hamdoc by Saeed Adnan

12:56 PM May, 07 2021

Sudanese Online
سعيد محمد عدنان-UK
My Library
Short URL


– London - Britain
We watch in amazement the “obtrusion” and contradictions between rankers of the Revolutionary top hats, even with its groups’ representatives, between who is in the Power and who is not, in a chairs game or through the guile of the Spectre Quest. Especially in the backdrop of a presence of stability and anchorage sought by the Free World envoys to Sudan, whose news flooded the Sudan media, who hurriedly advanced to pull Sudan from the abyss it had been doomed to; by their vision؟ Yes. For their organised vision differentiates between reality and dreams, so that dreams do not intervene with reality and become nightmares, and reality never part from dreams, causing chaos in politics and subverting dreams to be replaced by cancers trailing with the chancers like those in our non-free world.
My subject today focuses on this vision, ours, and theirs. For while their vision is the sum of their dedicated studies, not of today alone, but a cache of the sums of information they compiled during the birth of Sudan, the good and the bad, and its progress in the New World Order that is built by all nations (of course under the leadership of the poles of power in the world, to whom we raise our hats for they sponsored a peaceful resolve for the wellbeing of all human beings), in honouring all religions and that is by attacking the politicised religions, the main reason for the warring and displacements, and which fostered the issue of “Human Welfare” and was responsible for forming empires, and remains today the disease on the body of the New World Order, requiring its immediate eradication via the consolidation of Peace and Human Rights.
Yesterday I went over a TV hosting of Dr. Hamdoc, the Sudanese Prime Minister, on a political and technical envisagement of the GERD erected by Ethiopia, in the American CNN news net (sponsored the Democratic Party). I was surprised – in a twining with a shock – by two issues:
First: Dr. Hamdoc’s attributes and achievements, is an erudite in Economics, and is well conversant in with the English language, the language with which he had carried out his Doctorate Thesis, I believe, and had practised in most of his career, and which he used most in his diaspora. It does not mean he is a scholar in English language by using it in his thesis, as it does not give him its fluency and redemption of its idioms by heart. So, unless the script is for a statement, the idiom compacted and well-chosen wordings is the core for such a discussion.
And, as there is a debate and a questionnaire, it would not help holding a script and reading from it, even if the questions were specific and pre-selected. In such cases, the Protocol goes to prepare a script for the interviewee with questions and points of answers, with all alerts of when awkward hurdles could be faced, where reciting is highly needed (particularly for the interviewee’s caution not to enter himself in an embarrassment that might render itself food for social media against him)
The issue is doable, though, via: talking while “sneaking a glimpse” on the script, putting his finger on it to free his attention to expand his explanation to the audience whenever is needed, or to add to its description from his own, then switching back to where his finger is to continue his thread of speech. That means he has to be conversant with the subject from all sides, and has to have a re’sume’ of its ins and outs prepared for him by the technical or legal team.
But Dr. Hamdoc was transfixed on the script before him, reciting it with little awareness of the acuteness of the question, while the hostess kept repeating the question to him and he repeats the answer to her, without spotting the repetition intended.
His interview reeked with his falling to an imbuement for head to heal.
Imbuement, which clouded the Sudanese politics impregnated with a enormity of differences and the frightening cache of points of differences, and with details sourced from the doggedness of the adversaries or groups behind them ‘to create a run-away philosophy’, all because of refusing to lose the long wasted walk, coupled with the inferiority complex, and such groups are many, as expected, as the political leaders in Sudan had been the military or the princes of patronisation, and suddenly the chance had opened for the leadership of the well manned parties, and which have been laden with the tribal apperception and identification of its ancient history; but it has no rejuvenation of the main venue of its activity and its resonation with International Society’s. Thus statements are flown haphazardly, and the chancers are in a rush to swarm the media with their address and their concocted viewpoints in an attempt to win the ‘lottery’ of leadership.
That is the very place of the imbuement; and the most intense imbuement is that which tends to handle the technical issues of the state, and which should only be spawned by dedicated and documented scientific research; it misguides them with a tumult and distraction – i.e., big mouth work.
Now we analyse the interview of his excellency the Prime Minister of Sudan as follows:
The hostess asks him: Do you believe Egypt in its threats to hit GERD؟
(the precise response is: No, for it neither benefits her nor save her, nor would she escape the punishing repercussions of such an unwise decision)
His answer: All matters about GERD are serious. Al Sissie, like us, wants to alert the world of the danger of this dam on people (؟), even though its negotiations would not take more than weeks.
Q: You had been talking of demanding an international intervention, so you ended up with the Emirates, Egypt (and this one slipped unnoticed by him or deliberately ignored to appease the Head of State, Burhan!), and America, while Ethiopia thinks Africa is the one to be invited, so why do you object؟
A: (ignoring that Ethiopia is holding that attitude because of her distrust of the axis the hostess mentioned), We are the first to call for an African Union mediation, and they were all present as observers “inactive”, and all we asked for is to promote them to mediators (؟؟؟؟؟) – (so how can he miss to see the sudden request for a mediation after signing the Memorandum of Understanding, had triggered distrust on the purpose of the caller for mediation to recant from a signed and sealed commitment, without even the consent of Ethiopia, which alternatively would be taken for an international adjudication).
The hostess noticed the Prime Minister avoiding the question (or maybe he did not configure it), so she precisely repeated the question.
Q: for many years Sudan was happily embracing GERD. What happened to change you؟
A: it is true GERD has got its positive points for us, but, and to achieve it, we need a binding contract that Ethiopia would not control our waters, which we need for our irrigation. We need a resolution by international law (which law is that؟ Is there no protocol between nations that no plane is to disembark its passengers wherever it chooses, or in secret enclaves, in the host country؟ Or take passengers from the host country without the country’s knowledge, like what recently happened from one of the armed militias ordered by Hamidti, to transport a throng from a armed group, in hold of a passport, a travel document, an identity, or not, en route to a neighbouring country; then again returning part of the group with others who were not departed earlier from Sudan and hold no identification, mostly entering Sudan unlawfully, via Khartoum International Airport. Is that not a present example؟ Is Sudan going to lodge legal case against the nation that violated that protocol without a contract with Sudan to do so؟). Of course, there exists a protocol regulating such interactions from long ago, as is happening between Sudan and Egypt to observe the managements of dams by one over the other to oversee a homogeneity of action to suit both. Everybody knows that Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, everyone of them, including the government of Sudan.
The Hostess repeated the question once more in a slightly different perspective
Q: You required the International community to intervene, and Ethiopia saw that the African Union is the only agreeable source of intervention to them.
A: (again) We are the first who called for African mediation; other nations joined in as observers. All we needed is to promote those do-nothing observers to be mediators.
The Hostess then went on talking about the tension with Ethiopia after the Prime Minister appeared set to avoid settling the issue of dispute.
Q: For years gone, Sudan remained amicable with Ethiopia, yet now there is not only a dispute between you on GERD alone, but on borders too.
A: The issue of borders was resolved in 1902, and remained agreeable by by all consecutive Ethiopian governments, and we really do not know what changed (really؟); and now we have been in a dialogue for the past six months, and there is plenty of space for a resolution to that dispute.
Q: And what about normalisation with Israel؟
A: We follow a peaceful policy with ourselves and with others. Peace with Israel is left to the Peoples’ representative council to come (that could be a true statement, no doubt, but it does not answer the perspective of the State as to the International New World Order convening, which is the essence of the question. It would have been more fitting to ascertain commitment of the right of Israel for a home to her people, and to stay there peacefully in lieu of the conventions of the United Nations before when she was maliciously provoked, and a confession of fault of the provocation that caused the war, and that Peace between her and the Palestinians requires amicable relations between the two in order for the war spoils (occupied lands) to retrieved in good faith, and an assertion of no more hostilities. We, as a mediating nation, and through our parliament, would not object to review what the matter might require helping the different points of view to get closer to each other and enhance an integration of neighbourhood between them for the good of both, which will surely patch up any fissure from past hostilities).
Our vision is enclosed within the Power, and when we are educated, it would include the identity.
No objection to those two visions, for Power is paramount for action, though it needs containing its negative faces. As to the identity, it is of course the base stone of the nation, and it requires observation and controlling it or fervently studied to contain what might spawn from it that mightcause the nation to collapse. This requires a peaceful co-existence with the rest of nations in their similar quest too.
Regarding the fluency needed for press hostings in the bend Sudan is traversing now, and in the contradictions between what it had been raised with from the start, or had been inspired through concocted philosophies by fast passing governments, or infused on it via foreign interventions or influence of axes revolving to change reality with new philosophies, either by displacements hordes, or militia activities, or via coordinated chaos meant to disable the prevalent old regime, or disabling the regime actioned by dictators. This latter, comes out of the steeping of the narrator’s thoughts in what the narrator coexisted the what was happening and what all axes and activists drive to achieve, pertaining to his envision, or the envision of whom he represents, in New Sudan’s direction.
New Sudan envision here progresses according the progress of the civil state of civil service, researches and statistics, for a prolonged period, and how its institutions partially collapsed during earlier democracies owing to the political parties having been cultic, though it exercised democracy better than its matches thereabout, or via military coups raising the banner of reform, whilst most fall in the trap of gambling visioners of racial or theological philosophies, from the civil cadre associated with them and the military too. In that overarching bamboozling, that always ends up purely military, the civil nation did not only gradually fragment, but damaged are its joysticks pertained to the privilege it gained during its colonisation via the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not the Colonies Ministry like other colonies, that privileged it with educating a complete set of qualified civil servants in all civil service tiers to a high level and managed by brains of highly qualified studies. This huge precious qualified staff were purged or provoked, that they chose to put their fruits with other nations that welcomed them, and, or chose to be in the diaspora, and, in Sudan, the civil state collapsed and the vision is lost, because the vision is replaced with one of warring and weapon mastery; the need for reclaiming that civil cadre rose over everything else.
Sudan deteriorated until it entered the worst failed ten countries in the world. It competed with Somalia for the top and second of the list, until South Sudan joined and reserved the top of the list for itself, leaving the other two to compete on the second and third places.
In such a desperate case, victorious were the ‘’Dissees’s and Kandakas, the Miracles” sons and daughters of the December revolution, who started wrecking the worship idols that long lived their age, and burst out the Gallant December Revolution. The world were surprised as it found to anchor other than that of the endemic itself, the Military and the cultic Guardianship, both of which had been sterilised from presently rising owing to their suffocation of the ‘Oxygen’ needed, which is the membership manning, which, as another major surprise, turned to have pooled as united Sudanese in the equipollent fighting against that endemic.
We have now a Sudanese People learnt from experience and ended up mature and innovative. All the variants of the pandemic from Militarisation or patronisation to contain it by division, sedition, force, noise and confusion, which all failed.
The outside world is watching, adding to its glory confidence and will to lend a hand to that choked Civil State via ‘the created chaos, not creative chaos’.
When the international community declared its will, and began sending delegates to Sudan, the lines of the cultic reactionaries, which sadly are lead by non but the enemies of democracy: from militaria, military rebels, greedy or fearful militias in proxy in political animosity towards the Sudanese revolution, or that of intelligence of neighbouring nations voracious of Sudan’s natural wealth.
They are helped with the propaganda, not only our poor media, but added to it the work of what is remaining of the fading regime or their support from fifth columnists, or fifth columns of foreign voracious nations, by indulging in, even by persisting on the imbuement regime.
My address is now to the militaria and the civils in the transitional government, and for the registration of parties plus the management of Freedom and Renovation Forces administration, which oversees the present road map, in this imbuement it is mandatory you lay in bold letters that are missed by nobody, like the way the freedom fighting forces declared with their bold letters their ultimatum of the establishment of peaceful secularism, free of any religious politicisation; similarly it is obligatory on you bold letters on the following:
First – No militance towards neighbouring countries, nor calling for it.
Second – No militance against Israel, leaving naturalisation with it to the elected government.
Third – Forbiddance of any call for warring in any issue or with anybody, this being a matter of the nation’s sovereignty and to be decided by it.
Fourth – people to indulge and get involved on helping organising visions on the huge investment of the large wealth of Sudan and its capacity and how to benefit and help benefit neighbouring and friendly countries to build gateways with them to protect and preserve Sudan and its legendry revival.

There is an Arabic version of this essay in the url below:
https://sudaneseonline.com/board/505/msg/1620332877.html

Arabic Forum