User talk:Sudania 5

What a Sad Story

(SV)

Is it the fate of our people to accept such unpleasant realities? It was disheartening to read from time to time about the stories of those who lost their lives and those who lost their dear ones in such senseless bloodshed at the time when people believe they are living during peace time.

Following the signing of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, our people in the Southern Sudan celebrated the event as the most significant achievement in their history, dreaming of saying farewell to the old bad days of fear, hunger and bloodshed. Those who came from the IDP camps scattered throughout the big cities and towns and those who took their small belongings from the refugee camps from the neighbouring countries and others who rooted themselves in their homelands despite the high risks. They are all dreaming a better life which can allow them and their children to substitute the old tragedies of the diffused and displaced life. It is hard to read the stories circulated yesterday that about 180 of our people lost their lives in South Sudan state of Jonglei in what is branded as a tribal conflict. The event was not the only of its nature but it should be the last and someone from within whether a politician, a leader or even among the tribesmen themselves should say ‘enough is enough’. Our people do not deserve to lose their faith in the CPA as their biggest achievement. Instead they should question the GoSS and whether they have realized the role of the Government in defending its citizens since the incident is not the first of its kind.

What are the measures and precautions taken by the government to address the security issue seriously? If not to defend the very risk confronting every citizen then why a government? What objectives can be realized from the parliament, the executive, the security and the army apparatuses? Other than serving the life of their people in a restless effort to get than a better life as an incentive for their long suffering.

The GoSS is seriously obliged to answer many questions one of them is about the arm supplies to the tribes and the widespread of such lethal weapons in the hands of as many people as those destabilizing the region and steal the lives of the others.

It is quite clear the theory of the SPLA as a party army has failed in ensuring peace for Southern Sudan and it is a high time that there should be a new theory for a new army adopting a citizenship measures more than a party old style measures. In many of those incidents SPLA appeared to be taking parts in such clashes not as a regional neutral body but as a party army with party motives which finally disturbs and harm the social fabric in Southern Sudan.

The other question should be raised to the international organization and its UNMIS in saving the life of our people where it is not enough to issue a press statement condemning the incident and then waiting for the next to do the same condemnation.

And finally, the GoSS is morally obliged to deal delicately with such environment through hard work getting all people on board. The GoSS should not limit its role as a partial government belonging to SPLM. Instead ordinary citizens should have a deep feeling of their participation and contribution in the government as a shareholder. To come direct to GoSS, it should be widened to involve all the people of Southern Sudan so that no tribe, no clan and no citizen feel isolated.

Bring all Jonglei attackers to justice
Written By: Zechariah Manyok Biar (ST) Armed youth from Uror County of Jonglei State attacked Twich East County of the same State, killing 6 people and wounding 8 others. Even though the evidence is clear based on the information coming from those who fought the attackers from Dachuek community of Twich East and the information coming from those who are related to Uror community from both Duk and Twich East, clearly implicating Uror community in Twich East attack, the MPs from Uror tried to deny the involvement of their community in Twich East attack.

The only thing the government of South Sudan (GoSS) has done about Twich East attack is to send GoSS Minister of Commerce Dr. Marial Benjamin and Deputy Governor of Jonglei State, Mr. Mar to Uror County to talk to Uror community about the attack on Twich East County. No sign of bringing the culprits to justice.

On August 2, 2009 Murle armed men attacked Akobo, killing 185 people, including SPLA soldiers, and wounding more than 30 people. Now there is a tough talk about it from the Vice President of South Sudan Dr. Riek Machar.

Dr. Machar was quoted as saying, "The government of Southern Sudan will not tolerate this careless act that claimed innocence lives of 173 women and children in Akoba County while more innocent people were also killed by foreign culprits in Western Equatoria. The government will do everything in its capacity to apprehend these criminals" (Sudan Tribune, August 4, 2009).

What is interesting is that Dr. Machar never mentioned the attack on Twich East County in his tough talk against the attack on Akobo. Twich East County is known to be a staunch supporter of GoSS of which Dr. Machar is Vice President. That could be the reason why the killing of its civilians is never taken seriously by Dr. Machar. Maybe Twich East County leaders and intellectuals will learn to lessen their support for GoSS in order to protect their innocent people.

People may look at this issue differently, but I think both the attack on Twich East County and the attack on Akobo are unacceptable. What is good about the attack on Akobo is that SPLA soldiers understood that it was part of their job to protect innocent civilians from the attackers. That never happened in Twich East.

Sometimes, the way our government operates in South Sudan baffles me. I hope GoSS will not turn everybody against it because of its vague policies.

The Vice President of South Sudan Dr. Machar and Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon are now calling for GoSS to bring the attackers of Akobo to justice. I agree with them. Bringing the killers of innocent civilians to justice is the only way GoSS can stop this unacceptable practice.

I still stand by this recommendation. It is good that Dr. Machar and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon are calling for the same justice. Human beings fear law when the law can hold them accountable for the wrong they commit. Forgiveness can come after a person is shown that what he or she has done is wrong.

In the above mentioned article, I also gave the following recommendation:

“The only way that GOSS will make criminals pay for their crimes is to know ways of putting the hands of law on the criminals. In addition to registration of all rifles with their numbers, all chiefs down to the level of clans must be registered. These chiefs must be accountable for anything that happens in their communities. The government should provide chiefs with phones or radios so that they report to police in their areas any criminal activities.” Chief Conference was held after that, and I am sure chiefs were given responsibility for their communities.

If GoSS had given chiefs the responsibility to control their communities, then I recommend now that GoSS arrest chiefs in Uror and in Murle areas that attackers of Twich East and Akobo came from. These chiefs must identify the attackers and those who collaborated with them. The attackers will have to pay compensations for the people they have killed in both Twich East and Akobo.

The Vice President Dr. Machar should not be like those who condemn the killings of civilians only if they belong to their communities. That would be a weird leadership. It would not make any sense to get on the necks of Murle and leave the killers of Twich East civilians free. Justice must be provided to all if GoSS is sincere in its impartial governance.

Step Forward
(SV) Last Sunday the Republican Palace witnessed the Presidency meeting chaired by President of the Republic, Field Marshal Omer Hassan Al Bashir, in the presence of First Lieutenant General Salva Kiir Mayardit and Vice President Ali Osman Mohammed Taha.

Such meetings of the Presidency used to be received with comfort by all the Sudanese people. But the last meeting was viewed by many people as a step forward in affirming the commitment of the people of the Sudan to accept the challenges of peace and peace-making. Finally, the Presidency has endorsed the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on the Abyei issue.

Since that ruling, both the directly concerned parties represented by the NCP and SPLM have voiced from the very minute of the issuance of the ruling their unconditional commitment to accept and apply it in letter and spirit and in a good faith. By taking the last decision, the Presidency told the people and the international community that they are up to their words and far from doubts and skepticism concerning the credibility of the two parties, things seem to go smoothly beyond the pessimistic people’s views.

The moment the decision was aired through the press and media, it was widely welcomed by the public and the concerned sectors as well as the Sudanese people at large.

The Sudan Tribune website reported that the traditional leaders and citizens of Abyei welcomed the decision confirming the interim administration under the leadership of Brigadier General Arop Mayak. The Sudan Tribune quoted Sultan Arop Kuol as saying, “our interest as citizens of Abyei is to have a government accountable to our concerns.” In its statement, Sudan Tribune stressed generally the traditional rights of all the people of Abyei.

We would like here to highlight a very important point concerning the PCA ruling that Abyei area and its inhabitants, there may be some misunderstanding or misconception connecting the land to certain tribes which is dangerous and can never serve our objectives of peace and unity.

Any citizen in Abyei area whether a Dinka, a Nuer, a Misseiriya or any other Sudanese tribes should enjoy his/her full citizenship as far as there is a reason connecting him/her to the area. That is to say there should not be any  discrimination based on tribal backgrounds of the people since they are all Sudanese and they have the reason and cause to be considered as the area citizens.

Another point to be highlighted is that the area will have the right of choosing to be in the South or North Sudan in the referendum as stipulated in the Abyei Protocol. Till that time of the referendum comes, the people of Abyei may have the opportunities to turn their area as a symbol for peaceful coexistence allowing each community to serve and maintain his/her interest.

We will like also to invest in the success of the two parties, the NCP and SPLM, in the Abyei issue as a symbol that the people of Sudan through their own freewill adopted once and for all the option of peace and that through good faith and patience of the two parties, the people of Sudan with the help of the international community the CPA can afford to overstep any complications or obstacles on our long road to peace as the overall objective of our nation.

The 'genocide' in Darfur isn't what it seems
The "Save Darfur" movement is one of the largest American activist movements in recent history. It emerged in the summer of 2004 in reaction to an issue that had little impact on the lives of average Americans: a year-old civil war in Darfur. Horrific stories of rape, murder, and genocide began to appear in US newspapers and define Darfur. Millions were moved by these accounts and organized a movement to stop the violence. In the next five years, however, the war in Darfur became one of the most misunderstood conflicts in recent history. That's because the activist campaigns mischaracterized and sensationalized it in order to grow the movement. Such distortion helped the PR effort, but it arguably hurt the very people who needed help. Activists inflated casualty rates, often claiming that hundreds of thousands of Darfurians have been "killed." What they tended to leave out was that the majority of the casualties occurred as a result of disease and malnutrition ( stemming from war). Differentiating between those may seem insignificant in the shadow of the horrific acts of war crimes in Darfur, but ignoring these categorizations has led many activists to put pressure on the US government to fund violence-prevention plans and international peacekeeping troops, often in lieu of providing humanitarian aid and funds for peacemaking. The Save Darfur Coalition has been particularly effective in using its scores of followers to pressure policymakers. They have hired lobbyists in Washington to draft legislation and pressure politicians to focus their efforts on violence prevention and UN troop deployment. Before these lobbyists were hired, the US had sent a total of $1.01 billion dollars to Darfur. Of this, $839 million (83 percent) was allocated to refugee camps and humanitarian assistance, while $175 million (17 percent) was directed to fund peacekeeping activities. These numbers show that Washington was initially more focused on providing humanitarian aid than peacekeeping. From 2006 until 2008, when the Save Darfur Coalition and many other groups began to pressure the government, the allocation of US funds shifted dramatically from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping, presumably due to the influence of the lobbyists and public pressure campaigns. Of the $2.01 billion that was spent, $1.03 billion (51.3 percent) was spent on humanitarian aid, while $980 million (48.7 percent) was spent on funding peacekeeping missions, a significant shift toward peacekeeping. In the end, these proportional changes were problematic because, as many casualty surveys show, the number of people who were "killed" in Darfur declined significantly after the April 8 cease-fire of 2004, while the rate of those who were dying of disease and malnutrition remained high. Had the Darfur activists not advocated for a reallocation of funds, more lives would probably have been saved. Many activists have also mischaracterized the nature of the violence in Darfur, intimating that the government of Sudan and rogue Arab tribes have been responsible for most, if not all, of the bloodshed. "Save Darfur" advertisements, newsletters, and websites frequently use the term "ongoing genocide" to describe the conflict. The term "genocide" was originally used to provide a sense of gravity so that international governments and institutions would respond more rapidly to the conflict. Despite the good intentions of activists, the popularity of the word "genocide" posed many unanticipated problems and it distorted the balance of culpability and innocence. Using the term "genocide" implies that there is a unidirectional crime taking place. To be clear, horrible crimes have been committed, but the perpetrators aren't as clear-cut as the term would make it seem. The government of Sudan has killed many people and is responsible for war crimes in Darfur, but the rebel insurgents bear some responsibility, too. When the United Nations conducted its International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, it found that many of the rebel groups engaged in "serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law." By using the word "genocide," and attaching the term to only one side of the conflict, the opposite side is easily ignored. The "Save Darfur" movement is one of the largest American activist movements in recent history. It emerged in the summer of 2004 in reaction to an issue that had little impact on the lives of average Americans: a year-old civil war in Darfur. Horrific stories of rape, murder, and genocide began to appear in US newspapers and define Darfur. Millions were moved by these accounts and organized a movement to stop the violence. In the next five years, however, the war in Darfur became one of the most misunderstood conflicts in recent history. That's because the activist campaigns mischaracterized and sensationalized it in order to grow the movement. Such distortion helped the PR effort, but it arguably hurt the very people who needed help. Activists inflated casualty rates, often claiming that hundreds of thousands of Darfurians have been "killed." What they tended to leave out was that the majority of the casualties occurred as a result of disease and malnutrition ( stemming from war). Differentiating between those may seem insignificant in the shadow of the horrific acts of war crimes in Darfur, but ignoring these categorizations has led many activists to put pressure on the US government to fund violence-prevention plans and international peacekeeping troops, often in lieu of providing humanitarian aid and funds for peacemaking. The Save Darfur Coalition has been particularly effective in using its scores of followers to pressure policymakers. They have hired lobbyists in Washington to draft legislation and pressure politicians to focus their efforts on violence prevention and UN troop deployment. Before these lobbyists were hired, the US had sent a total of $1.01 billion dollars to Darfur. Of this, $839 million (83 percent) was allocated to refugee camps and humanitarian assistance, while $175 million (17 percent) was directed to fund peacekeeping activities. These numbers show that Washington was initially more focused on providing humanitarian aid than peacekeeping. From 2006 until 2008, when the Save Darfur Coalition and many other groups began to pressure the government, the allocation of US funds shifted dramatically from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping, presumably due to the influence of the lobbyists and public pressure campaigns. Of the $2.01 billion that was spent, $1.03 billion (51.3 percent) was spent on humanitarian aid, while $980 million (48.7 percent) was spent on funding peacekeeping missions, a significant shift toward peacekeeping. In the end, these proportional changes were problematic because, as many casualty surveys show, the number of people who were "killed" in Darfur declined significantly after the April 8 cease-fire of 2004, while the rate of those who were dying of disease and malnutrition remained high. Had the Darfur activists not advocated for a reallocation of funds, more lives would probably have been saved. Many activists have also mischaracterized the nature of the violence in Darfur, intimating that the government of Sudan and rogue Arab tribes have been responsible for most, if not all, of the bloodshed. "Save Darfur" advertisements, newsletters, and websites frequently use the term "ongoing genocide" to describe the conflict. The term "genocide" was originally used to provide a sense of gravity so that international governments and institutions would respond more rapidly to the conflict. Despite the good intentions of activists, the popularity of the word "genocide" posed many unanticipated problems and it distorted the balance of culpability and innocence. Using the term "genocide" implies that there is a unidirectional crime taking place. To be clear, horrible crimes have been committed, but the perpetrators aren't as clear-cut as the term would make it seem. The government of Sudan has killed many people and is responsible for war crimes in Darfur, but the rebel insurgents bear some responsibility, too. When the United Nations conducted its International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, it found that many of the rebel groups engaged in "serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law." By using the word "genocide," and attaching the term to only one side of the conflict, the opposite side is easily ignored. In Darfur, the use of the term "genocide" has allowed the rebel groups to slip under the radar and commit crimes against humanity without the rest of the world taking notice. Had "genocide" not been the focus, activist campaigns might have challenged the rebel groups and checked their criminal acts. For example, Eritrea, Chad, and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement were the principal funders of the rebel groups in Darfur. They were and are also allies and aid recipients of the US government, which means they could have easily been pressured to cut their lifelines to the rebel groups. Today, the situation in Darfur continues to be mischaracterized. Most of the ongoing violence can be attributed to banditry, lawlessness, and fighting between rebel groups. According to the latest United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) report, 16 fatalities were recorded for the month of June and none of them was linked to the conflict between Sudanese forces and the rebel groups. The conflict in Darfur has not met the 1,000 casualties per year threshold that most political scientists consider necessary for a conflict to be categorized as a "civil war" since last year. Despite these changes, many continue to argue that the government of Sudan is waging a large-scale assault on Darfur. The terms "ongoing genocide" and "war in Darfur" are still used frequently in activist literature and advertisements, which has left the American people believing that not much has changed in Darfur. President Obama himself has recently used the word "genocide" to refer to the current situation. Similarly, the State Department and the US ambassador to the UN distanced themselves from the US presidential envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, who dared to suggest that the genocide in Darfur was over. If they wish to help ameliorate the conflict, officials in Washington and activists alike must recognize that there have been big changes in the scale and nature of the violence in Darfur. Instead of focusing on military intervention or the punishment of only one participant in the conflict (the Sudanese government), efforts should be directed toward funding the peacemaking process and the safe return of more than 2 million displaced refugees.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0819/p09s02-coop.html

Democracy from Within
SV) Both figures are known for their long ties adhering to democracy, human rightd and good governance. The statement of SPLM indicated that the reason behind sacking the two politicians was that both of them acted contrary to the political line drawn by the party leadership. As an MP, Gazi Suliman spared no effort to defend the case of SPLM on all fronts.

May be one of his major guilt was his deep belief in full meaningful democracy even within his party, the SPLM. In discharging his freedom as a Sudanese national, Gazi voiced some opinions which seem to be unacceptable to some of the communist figures in the SPLM.

To be clear on particular the camp of Pagan Amum and Yassir Arman. And while many of Gazi Suliman’s opinions are typical of the Sudanese public opinion reflecting their traditions and values towards their dignity, integrity and sovereignty, his dismissal only contradicts the beliefs of the SPLM communist figures but not of Southern Sudanese.

For sure, there are hidden reasons that the SPLM statement prefers not to mention. Since the move of the ICC general prosecutor Ocampo, like majority of the Sudanese people, Gazi voiced his absolute rejection of that step.

May be Pagan and his group consider such a move as unacceptable even when the First Vice President Salva Kiir headed the highest committee to counter the ICC decisions. When people like Pagan called on US not to lift sanctions imposed on Sudan and not to remove the country’s name from states sponsoring terrorism, Gazi introduced himself as a national advocate who branded all those sanctions as imperial acts and continued to call on the international community to distance itself from the colonial hidden agenda.

It is sad that the partner of the CPA which should act in symbolic way with regards to democracy that the party cannot afford to accept democracy and free opinion even with its leading figures.

It is not a secret that the SPLM/A is blocking any political activities for Southern Sudanese in the South and continues to deny the rights of its opponents to perform their political activities there.

It was also not secret that the defections of Dr. Lam Akol and other leading figures are due to the undemocratic tendencies in the party given as the reason behind their defections to form the SPLM/DC, the new party. May be today is Gazi Suliman and Manoa Aligo but there should be many others to expect their defections or dismissal by SPLM tomorrow.

SANCTIONING THE UNSANCTIONABLE
Mohamed EI-Samani EI-Wasila*

President Bush sincerely wants to do the right thing by Sudan. Help turn it into a democratic, stable, equitable, prosperous and, preferably, united country. Trouble is he doesn't seem to know how. At least that's what it looks like judging by the Bush administration's obsession with placing new, and keeping old, US economic sanctions on Sudan, ultimately to make Sudanese President Bashir speed the change up. US sanction make steering Sudan on to the right track tougher not easier. High time the American government and. public recognize it and lift the sanctions.

Take Darfur. The US government and public bought quickly into rebel claims of deliberate, long-standing economic neglect by President Bashir as moral Justification for war. But it wasn’t the unwillingness, rather the inability of the Khartoum authorities till a few years ago to stump money to develop Darfur , or any where else in the country , owing largely to tight us sanction. Successive American governments since President Reagan steadily cut off all

financial aid to Khartoum, and toughened bilateral trade and investment sanctions to hobble public finances further. They also persuaded Western allies.

to follow its lead on cutting financial help and the World Bank, too. It stopped loans to President Bashir's government nearly 15 years ago; Sudan's last dime from the IMF came back in 1985. US-led isolation meant the Sudanese government got, for example, just $56 million in foreign budgetary support during 1994-1998 according to IMF data. At roughly forty cents per person per year, that's hardly enough for the government to build some roads and a couple of schools in Darfur, never mind cater for all Sudan. US economic sanctions have also hiked the cost of living for ordinary Sudanese

- their main gripe with government. They de facto forced the authorities to pursue an economic rescue (read liberalization) programme, but without the standard donor-funded social safety net. Worse still, President Bush and his predecessor both pushed the IMF to chase payment of Sudan's $1.7 billion odious debt, incurred by President Nimeiri during1969-85.

Khartoum has paid an average $52.million back to, the IMF ,every year since 1994, mainly late interest fines. That's a very harsh anti-development tax on all Sudanese, especially without even the guarantee of fresh loans from the Fund in the future. Don't be fooled by today's oil-induced boom. US economic isolation of Sudan, worked a treat for nearly 20 years: petrol shortages so severe' that even the capital lacked proper bus transport, and basic items like sugar and bread rationed.

Protracted, severe constraints on public finances in one of the world's largest (10th), but poorest countries (141 out of 176 in the 2006 UN Human Development Index) could only ever lead to one outcome. Crystallizing or, in the case of Darfur, reviving older badges of identification (kinship, religious, locality and ethnic ties) due to the collapse of public investment  and welfare spending over most of the last two decades. Eroded nation-state loyalties usually tend towards war against the state or other groups, both evident in 'Darfur, to grab a larger share of public funds and other valued resources ( e g . land, water ,and livestock ). in other words, the impact of us sanctions on livelihoods battered the social fabric of Sudan – Darfur included .and not malign neglect by an Arab supremacist psychopathic state caricature                                                                                                                                                                            beloved of Congress, Hollywood activists, think tanks, and the media in the US    'Excess' deaths from US sanctions - those who may have lived if sanctions had not crippled clinics and other vital public services - probably runs into the hundreds of thousands.

That's a tragedy of the first order, especially as Sudanese (who, presumably, supporters of the sanctions claim to act in their name?) never demanded economic isolation from the US in the first place, unlike the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid grassroots movements in South Africa. Take note: no Darfur rebel group called for sanctions either, making

tightening by President Bush since the conflict look at best misguided or, at worst, self-indulgent to the majority of Sudanese.

So, what's in it for President Bush to lift the sanctions? Big dividends. It would give President Bashir political space to hasten changing Sudan to an equitable, democratic country, as specified by the landmark 2005 north-south Sudan peace agreement – the focus of US government.

Removing sanctions would help Sudan's political institutions mature, too. The deafening criticism of Khartoum by Washington accompanying US sanctions often crowds out civil society and government discourse on other important, but normal policy issues. Agriculture reform for example. US private investment into southern Sudan, thus far stifled by reputation risk fears. Would also grow strongly following the abolition of the sanctions.

Sure, Khartoum now has access to money from China and, since 2003, sizeable oil revenue, with public spending on the poor doubled twice in real terms since 2005. Even so, it's. not enough to quench the urgent backlog of basic development needs throughout Sudan like railways, rural feeder roads, and maternity clinics; projects that help strengthen nationhood.

Playing catch-up in the global race for economic development to lift millions out of acute poverty is hard enough. More so when isolated from a, quarter of the world economy. No need to wait until the AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force deploys in Darfur before lifting the US sanctions. Do it now President Bush.

It's not about punishing or rewarding the government of President Bashir. It's recognizing the severe price ordinary Sudanese and the challenge of building a modern nation – state both keep paying for US sanctions.

Help change Sudan into the country its citizens want it to become, and Americans wish it could be. Lift US sanctions from Sudan, Mister President, because the victims of Darfur were victims of them too.

The author is the minister of state for foreign in the government of national unity, Khartoum, Sudan he is currently in Washington D.C. heading the Sudanese government delegation in talks with senior US government officials on arrange of bilateral issues.

General Agwai: War in Darfur 'is over'
There is no more war in Darfur, according to the outgoing military commander of the joint UN-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force in the western Sudan region. "As of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur," Martin Luther Agwai told correspondents.

(Agencies)

There is no more war in Darfur, according to the outgoing military commander of the joint UN-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force in the western Sudan region.

"As of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur," Martin Luther Agwai told correspondents.

"You see, the causes of the conflict in Darfur have changed completely," said the Nigerian officer, who will be replaced next week by Rwandan Patrick Nyamvumba.

"If war is a conflict whereby today you attack and then go back home and stay until three, four, five months and come back... If that is a definition of war then there is a war in Darfur.

"But if that is not the definition then there is no war as of now in Darfur," said Agwai, according to a transcript of his statements given late on Wednesday.

Today, rebel groups in Darfur have fragmented into around 20 small groups, of which only the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) headed by Khalil Ibrahim, has the ability to launch attacks against the government, Agwai said.

"Since May until today, what have we had on the ground? The only thing I see is banditry taking place now: carjackings, breaking into people's homes to look for electronics and mobile telephones," Agwai said.

"I think the real thing now is to speed up the political process. Militarily there is not much," he concluded.

Earlier, Rodolphe Adada, outgoing head of UNAMID, told AFP in a interview that his soldiers have ended the massacres that long plagued the Sudanese region.

"I have achieved results. The main result is the end of massacres in Darfur," Adada said as he prepared to step down as head of the world's biggest peacekeeping operation.

Diplomats and observers have slammed UNAMID as inefficient, knocking Adada for his conciliatory tone with the Sudanese authorities, which the West accuses of atrocities in Darfur.

"I would like to be judged, for UNAMID to be judged, on the number of deaths in Darfur," since the force's deployment there in 2008, said Adada, a former foreign minister of the Republic of Congo. "That's how we should be judged."

Darfur Is No Longer a War Zone
In their final statement, the African leaders acknowledged that Darfur is no longer a war zone. The statement came at the end of the AU Summit in Tripoli, Libya and declared that the war is over in Darfur and that what is left are some isolated criminal acts here and there like some sorts of banditry.

It is not something easy nor was it accident that the African leaders came to this conclusion in their final statement which clearly admitted the end of the war in Darfur. For sure, the bold decision was a result of many observations, reports and in-depth follow-up of the situation in Darfur.

That is to say what was adopted by the African leaders was not just a view whether from individuals or a group. The decision in its full meaning should be taken seriously by the international community including the UN and other great powers.

Only less than two weeks ago, two prominent figures delivered same statement. The Head of AU/UN Joint Operation UNAMID Rodolphe Adada and the Commander of the hybrid forces General Martin Luther Agwai stated that the war is over in Darfur and that what is left are some banditry activities, car-hijacking and some minor tribal clashes.

And now when you have those clear messages from the African leaders, AU obsevers and UNAMID officials and military leaders all admitting that Darfur is no longer a war zone, in this case UN should realize that reality regardless of some hostile western press and media which continue to echo the old joke of “war torn Darfur”.

What is in fact needed currently was pointed out by the AU Summit “the political solution” and from Tripoli there is some good news that seven Darfur factions have agreed to unify their ranks and join peace process. It is highly important to take the advantage of those statements for all people to push towards comprehensive peace negotiation.

And it is up to the international community to reach to its responsibility and to head for the final solution. And the Sudanese people are the final voice who can realize genuine peace and they have done that several times before

SPLM Has Gone Beyond All Limits in Harassing Its New Opponent
Written By: Nasr Addeen Ghatas (SV)

The observers are saying that SPLM-DC has become as a pain in the neck of SPLM. The recent conflicting statements of the leaders of the movement are clear indication of the disorder inside SPLM.

Many attribute the current immature behavior of SPLM to the SPLM-DC, the new comer to the Sudanese political arena.

SPLM is adopting all the legal and illegal means for oppressing the members of the SPLM-DC throughout southern Sudan. Only before a few days, SPLM has issued clear directives to the SPLA to use force to prevent the southern citizens from attending the general conference of the SPLM-DC in Khartoum. SPLM has also ordered Nhial Deng to circulate the previous directives to all intelligence units in the South.

Definitely, SPLM-DC has become a real threat to the old SPLM, so its members are subjected to arrest and displacement in the South. From the beginning, SPLM made several failed attempts to penetrate the new party, but these attempts have only contributed to the strengthening of the new party. After long discussions, SPLM leaders have come to the facts behind Akol's breakaway saying that his removal from the ministry of foreign affairs and the liberation council besides leaving him without posts inside the movement were the reasons behind his breakaway from the viewpoint of the movement. SPLM didn't give any consideration to his tribal influence and his heavy political power. Some SPLM members are claiming that their movement is a democratic one and anyone has the right to break away and shape his own party or political body. However, such words are baseless because the situation on the ground is contrary to that. No party is allowed to carry out political activities in the South except SPLM. And we have the example of George Kongor when he was forbidden from meeting his adherents in Juba.

Actually, the current conditions in the South would help reinforcing the status of the new party because SPLM has achieved nothing there in addition to that the security situation is very poor and the south is suffering a looming famine. SPLM is losing every other day new lands for the benefit of its new rival, since it's just looking foolishly to the daily tragedies of the South.

Press Censorship to be Lifted Soon, Intelligence Chief
National Security and Intelligence Service (NSIS) Chief, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Atta urged working out  a substitute version for press censorship that would preserve the freedom,  values and security of the country, accepting the version reached by the joint committee.

Atta said the above statement while he was commenting on the speech delivered by the Journalists Union Chief and the Chairperson of the Sudanese Journalists Association, Dr. Mohieddin Titawi,  during the Ramadan breakfast he hosted at his home the day before in the presence of a number of Editors-in-Chief, columnists, reporters and other media representatives.

Mohammed Atta stated that what worries them is the deliberate and continued excitement and sabotage against the country's policies and public opinion, pointing out that the Constitutional Court resolution on the censorship of publications supports their understanding of the legal aspect of censorship. "We want to roll back this issue, as we need the  press to be by our side while we counter the challenges in the offing," commented Atta

He further urged coordination between NSIS and press community for preservation and maintenance of public freedom, adding that the Sudanese press can help in managing objectively the coming electoral process.

In that respect, Dr. Titawi, proposed a meeting on the new version of censorship to be held tomorrow at the Association premises by the joint committee that includes the Association, Editors-in-Chief, Press Council and Information Department in the NSIS. During its meeting of last Wednesday, the Cabinet approved the National Security Bill for the year 2009, presented by the Justice Minister, Abdul-Basit Sabdarat. The Bill will be deposited with the Parliament for passage during its coming session scheduled for October, 2009. In a press statement, Cabinet spokesman, Omer Mohammed Saleh, said the bill focuses control on the trend of tribalism and racism. He was quoted to have said that the bill emphasizes impartiality in respect of political conflicts, noting that the bill has guaranteed detainees a number of rights including prohibition of physical, psychological or moral torture, respect of dignity and healthcare rights. Furthermore, the bill authorizes attorneys to inspect jails for insuring application of proper legal measures and respect of detainees’ rights. He concluded saying that the bill bars detention of women outside venues allocated for them, with stress on women special rights, noting that the NCP and SPLM have agreed on the bill after it had been subjected to intensive debate by Cabinet members

Juba Convention: A Show Case of SPLM Duality
Written By: Abdallah Khalil Zakaria (SMC)

Throughout the years that followed the signature of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) has been practicing a declared sort of political duality, through which it retains workable links with the opposition parties while insisting on keeping all its gains provided by the agreement.

This duality has crippled the political performance of the SPLM, because it drags the movement in a track of being an opponent to the same government it shares a considerable portion in its structure that is on one hand.

On the other hand, it led it to form a very odd type of partnership with the party with which it has genuinely signed a peace agreement that brought it to the power. The continuous disputes between the National Congress Party ( NCP) and SPLM are in part due to the doubtful links between the later and the opposition parties, which retain hostile stances toward the NCP.

The recent political intimacy between the northern opposition parties (Umma, Popular Congress, Communist and others) and the SPLM is a show case of the stages the parties have passed in their approach with the SPLM.

The Juba convention they have agreed to hold in spite of the absence of the NCP, stands as a proof of the parties readiness to go further in their relations with the SPLM, regardless of the expected negative consequences of the conference on the future of the partnership and the peace agreement.

The political calculus of the northern opposition parties in approaching the SPLM is a manifestation of exploitation and self-interest. The opposition parties, a league of hopeless and powerless splits, deeply understand the state of political and organizational weakness they are suffering, which enable them no ability to establish a competent force to run the next election by themselves.

This situation renders the NCP the ultimate dominator of the northern politics, a reality that severely hurts the northern opposition parties, taking into an account historical and subjective factors.

Having proved incapable of fighting their own battle alone, the northern opposition parties sought to bolster their positions at the expense of the SPLM, utilizing the strained relations between the later and the NCP. This exploitation of the SPLM by the same parties (except the Popular Congress) is nothing new, the recent history of Sudanese politics provides a fresh case of how the SPLM was used on the military front by the so-called National Democratic League to topple the same people they are now opposing. The difference this time is that the exploitation is on the political front.

For the SPLM, this situation of bringing together the northern opposition parties serves its strategy of pressurizing the NCP by retaining links with the opposing parties in its very sphere of influence. It also provides the SPLM a future advantage of proxy political forces, which will serve its agenda in the Northern Sudan if its people in the South vote for secession.

The north that is dominated by the NCP, according to the SPLM, will pose a huge threat to its rule of the newly born state in the South. A friendly and fortified northern opposition will derail the pace of that threat and give the SPLM the relief they need to lay the foundations of the state far from troubles coming from the North.

The expected political gain for the SPLM out of such deals will add no real value to its conduct as a political party that suppose to lead a potential state and compete a well established and experienced party like the NCP. They will achieve no mutual interest, but the confirmation of the status quo characterized by weak and profiteer opposition parties and an SPLM at odd with its partner, the NCP.

The Advocacy Groups and the Illusion of the Ongoing Genocide in Darfur
Written By: Abdallah Khalil Zakaria (SV)

Since the eruption of the conflict in Darfur region, the Western advocacy groups have adopted the genocidal prescription in diagnosing the situation there. Activist groups and organizations such as Save Darfur Coalition, Enough Project and Genocide Intervention Network were hasty in declaring that the conflict in Darfur amounts to genocide, a propaganda that they have been campaigning since then fiercely and tirelessly.

The impact of such a persistent and perpetuated campaign of genocidal governmental behavior in Darfur pursued by those activists has managed to shape the political landscape in the West, on both levels, officially and publicly.

They have successfully mobilized the general opinion there in a robust and highly emotional manner. The official stances of the governments in the West, regarding Darfur, were formulated and decisions were made under the influence of the public being motivated by the advocacy groups.

As the situation in the region is getting remarkably improved in security and humanitarian points of view, compared with the peak of the violence during the early years of the conflict, the rejectionist behavior of the activist is getting more adamant to confess the ground realities. They have relentlessly intensified their campaign against the government of Sudan, airing hostile media propaganda, continue to mobilize and recruit sympathizers and exerting huge pressure on their governments to take tougher actions against Sudan.

This bizarre, well funded and supported wave of activity sends indicative evidences about the realities behind the scene of the advocacy in the West. By labeling the situation in Darfur as genocide, the activists guarantee the existence and effectiveness of their life line, without intensive violence, atrocities and war crimes, the beloved words of the advocacy community, they have no chance of leading successful media campaigns and raising of donations.

The purposeful sticking by the advocacy groups to the word ‘’genocide’’ and its implementation to the situation in Darfur is starkly manifested in their tireless digging and exploring in the statements and declarations made by the officials.

They trace every statement about Darfur looking for their beloved word, and whenever they find it mentioned, they cry childishly, we found it and thus we will continue to stay alive. Nothing could set the activists comfortable and with joy more than an official in the U.S. administration declaring the current situation in Darfur as an ‘’Ongoing Genocide’’.

When the President Obama’s especial envoy to Sudan, Retired Major General Scott Gration, declared last June that the situation in Darfur is not a genocide but rather ‘’remnants of genocide, consequences of genocide, the results of genocide’’, the activists and advocacy groups denounced that statement and fiercely waged a media war against the general.

They have felt the danger threatening them from an unexpected source, the man they fixed their hopes on to lead a tougher line against Khartoum came out with flexibility and incentives. From that time on, the envoy has been a constant target of the advocacy groups of campaign of doubts and pressures, aiming at forcing him to change his mind about Sudan.

The good news came to the activists when President Obama described the situation in Darfur as genocide in his Africa speech from Ghana. They hailed that speech as the right and timely prescription of the reality in the region. The president had come under influence of a harsh campaign launched by activists before that speech to recognize Darfur as a scene of an ongoing genocide.

The denial of the conditions improvement in Darfur to confirm the theory of the ongoing genocide in the region has been into action following the statement made by the outgoing commander of AU/UN Hybrid Force in Darfur, General Martin Luther Agwai, who stated publicly "that the war in Darfur is over, what is seen now is banditry and criminal activities pursued by armed groups".

That positive type of reporting by a man who assumed leading authority in Darfur security and peace establishing didn’t please the activists and advocacy groups, since it doesn’t suit their cause. They started throwing doubts around the man and questioning his neutrality and professionalism as did the LA TIMES paper in its editorial opinion dated August 31, 2009.

The behavior and practices of the advocacy groups advocating about Darfur indicate to purposeful and dishonest kind of activity being pursued by unfaithful and self-serving people. They don’t build their missions on the principles of neutrality and transparency as the humanitarian workers should do, on contrary, they proved to be serving other’s agendas and objectives.

Clarification
Written by : Peter Chot Deng (SSN)

Introduction: After lengthy deliberations and consultations, the Lou Nuer Community members in Queensland State (Australia) have come up with the following article and resolution with respect to the state of affairs that has recently taken place and time in Jounglei State (Sudan).

common sense says: that Civil societies take up arms to defend their political ambitions, economic prosperity, social bond and religious allegiance when the Central authorities of their state crumble. This common fact applies to Jounglie State where might makes right.

Without any prejudices, we the Lou Nuer Citizens in Diasporas in southern hemisphere in general and in Australia in particular support the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). We also condemn the attack that targeted and burned down Duk Padiet in Jounglie state, but we assure that attackers were not militia. But they were angry citizens.

In 2006, with open arms, the Lou Nuer Citizens received the Southern Sudan army troops and handed over all guns of different types to their son BOL kONG who had willingly led the troops to the area. Unfortunately, the Lou Nuer citizens discovered later on that the disarmament that took place in the area was planned for Lou Nuer.

After having succeeded in collecting guns from the Lou Nuer area, irresponsible personalities in the region disclosed that each tribe in the state has the right to protect and defend itself against any potential or perceived threats that may emerge from within or without the state. The Lou Nuer Community here in Australia, considered the statement as a premature and direct invitation to arms struggle that will lead to a state of anarchy in the state.

Facts and figures

This is to feed our dear readers with the bloody figures that have taken place among the civil communities in Jounglie state. It has become apparent that the total failure of the Government of the South Sudan (GOSS) has led to bleeding incidents which can be summarized as follows:

In 2004, humanitarian Boats bound for Akobo loaded with food and medicine were attacked killing forty five (45) persons who were on board and most of the victims were children and women.

For a period of Four (4) solid years, frequent attacks have been going on between Lou Nuer and Muerle communities and the death toll was of 1200 persons.

In 2007 and 2008, Dinka in Duk Padiet and Congnor communities attacked Lou Nuer Citizens in the grazing land killing fifty five (55) persons from Lou in which three quarters of the victims were identified as children and women.

In 2009 three Shilluk villages were burned down to ashes by Dinka Nyouk in a tribal conflict leaving behind eighty nine (89) persons dead, three quarters of the victims were children and women and elderly people.

In 2009 administrative personnel, police and wild life officers traveling on land from Bor to Nyirol County, were road laid and stripped of their guns. In addition, ninety three million Sudanese Pounds for Nyirol county development and services were looted.

In September 2009, Lieutenant Colonel Gai Choul was killed by a Dinka man in Bor Town the capital of Jounglie state simply because he is from Lou Nuer.

In 2008 Muerle citizens, in cold blood, were killed in Bor hospital at the presence of Dinka Bor police.

In 2008, Nuer Gawar traders on their way from Bor to Ayot District were killed in cold blood; then, their commercial goods were taken.

Resolution

This resolution states that repetition teaches the most sluggish organisms to comprehend the theory of diminishing returns. They had thought that the first disarmament would have changed the balance of powers or weaken the Lou Nuer position in the region .All in all by and large, the Lou Nuer Community in Australia has come up with this resolution encouraging the GOSS to fairly find ways and means to resolve grievances across the southern civil societies regardless of their ethnic backgrounds and has recommended for general disarmament across the South and for the GOSS responsibility to protect the weak

The killing of kids is not only a crime but a sin
Written : By Zechariah Manyok Biar

(ST)

I have been waiting to hear how people from Dinka Bor would react to the killing of seven Kuku children by armed Bor civilians in their ongoing fight against armed Mundari civilians. To my delight, many people from Bor community who commented about the incident condemned the killing of these innocent children.

One comment that really caught my attention and even compelled me to write this article was from Gai Kuol Deng who is also from Bor. Although Gai mentioned a killing of children in Pariak by Mundari few months ago, he condemned the killing of the innocent seven children in Gemeiza in the strongest term he could think of. Gai said under the article published by Sudan Tribune, entiled, “7 children killed in Dinka Bor fresh attack at Gemeiza,” “The killing of kids is not only a crime but a sin.”

I cannot add more to Gai’s use of terms in condemning the killing of these innocent children. Killing is only justified if it is between the armed people. In our culture in the South, in almost all our communities, the killing of children, women, and old people is unacceptable. We did not need human rights laws to understand that these groups of people were no threat to anybody during any fighting because they could not attack anybody. Why would one kill them?

I thought our people in Bor were going to be blindfolded by their tribal loyalty at the expense of what our community upholds as the right thing to do—not killing innocent people. But I am happy that many people from Bor still know that it is unacceptable to kill children however much one is provoked.

I am also happy to hear that the Governor of Jonglei State Gen. Kuol Manyang Juuk has visited the scene of the fighting in Mundari areas where the recent fighting destroyed Mundari villages and displaced its people.

I am further happy that Governor Kuol “has ordered the commander in charge of the Dinka Bor cattle camps to move all the camps into Jonglei state within seven days,” as reported by Sudan Tribune on October 11, 2009, whatever that means. Commander in charge or the chief of cattle camps? I don’t know.

We want to see if the armed youth from Bor will disregard Governor Kuol’s orders the same way Lou-Nuer youth disrespected Deputy Governor of Jonglei State Mar’s advice last month and still attacked Duk Padiet. We will wait and hear what happens within seven days that Gov. Kuol has given as the deadline for moving out of Bor cattle camps from Gemeiza areas. It doesn’t matter whether Gov.

Kuol is not in direct control of youth chiefs in cattle camps, our people still understand that Gov. Kuol is the Governor of Jonglei State and has direct authority to order any local leader in Jonglei State to move away from any place deemed problematic. This is what we expect our leaders to do. Leaders who side with their tribes against other tribes do not deserve to be our leaders. Our message as citizens of South Sudan must be clear in this area.

We know that sometimes people are provoked to act, but we must maintain our values in any situation. We must respect the lives of innocent people even when their fathers and their husbands were the ones who provoked us. Two wrongs do not make right. We cannot justify the killing of innocent people in any community simply because their people killed our innocent people in the near past.

I would conclude by saying that I am proud about the comments many people from Bor gave against the killing of the seven innocent children from Kuku. We must add to this maturity and teach our people what it means to respect the lives of innocent people in any situation.

Not only the lives of children, women, or old men that we regard as innocent in our culture, but we must also teach our people to respect the lives of captured people during the war because captured people are always helpless and they become no threat to anybody when they are in the hands of their enemies.We must know that our disagreements always are at the level of brothers and sisters even if these disagreements lead to loss of lives.

Sudanese human rights group launch new deception and fraud campaign
It is no longer a secret that most of the foreign organizations operating in field of human rights are suspected forums and organizations that have ties with some circles that has nothing to do with the human rights issues.

In fact, these forums and organizations use the human rights issue for serving ill-intentioned agendas.

In this regard, I think every body remembers the ugly scandals about embezzlement of funds of a famous human rights center.

During the recent period, a new body called Forum of Sudanese Human Rights Activists was trying to follow the same track of the foreign center and its Khartoum-based branch in a bid to repeat what it seemed as fraud attempt.

The research and academic bodies and civil society organizations have revealed that the new group, which pretends to be a human rights organization, is a political organization with specific ideology.

If the group had a good faith, it had to distance itself away from any political ideology and affiliation.

As part of its political action, the group has prepared documents and set the agendas beforehand.

No doubt that the determination of the agendas alone is not the problem, but the suspected, non-objective work of the group is the real problem. For example, the document says introduction of effective leadership that guarantees the success of the group is one of the agendas of the group.

It is easy to infer that the group is still working without effective leadership.

Surely, this search for leadership necessitates conducting attempts to deceive specific persons pushing them to assume the leadership of the group.

Another item in the document of the group says that the group is working to involve the members of the forum, the democratic and friendly powers and human rights activists to guarantee the forum effectiveness and strength.

This method of political fraud is usually used by known ideological activists to use others to serve their own agendas.

The document of the group says that it intends to twist the facts and make fabrications, persuading the public opinion that these fabrications are true.

Now Where Does SPLM Stand?
Written By: Alsir Sidahmed

(SV)

During a recent popular rally organized by the SPLM, Yasser Arman spoke to those attending saying that even if the South is to opt for separation in 2011, the SPLM in the South and SPLM in the North will work hand in hand to unite the country again.

That is a good overture, but before that the SPLM needs to spell clearly and officially where it stands on the issue of unity. Statements by individual leaders are not enough, neither those motioned in one occasion nor another especially in the North favoring unity. Moreover, it is not helpful to say that this or that leader’s view on unity is irrelevant as it is the Southern citizens, who are going to decide.

As the leadership took to arms without being mandated to do so by the people of the South, it is also their duty to come out clear as a party and through its official bodies stating where it stands on the issue of unity. Still that is not binding to the ordinary citizen and other parties, who may have different agendas.

This issue becomes more important following the breakthrough in the referendum law, which should be tabled before the council of ministers and eventually to the parliament. Given the political deal behind it, it seems there won’t be a problem that can block passing the law.

However, the referendum is the second step that should follow the general presidential and parliamentary elections slated for next April. That in itself is a good exercise to educate the people and send strong message where SPLM stands. The whole idea of having elections before the referendum is to have legitimately elected bodies, reflecting somehow the will of the people to carry out the referendum issue.

Elections are generally times for maneuvers and building alliances. Already SPLM managed to host a number of heavy weight political parties in the famous Juba Conference last month. The most important outcome of that conference was the endorsement of the call to run the referendum on simple majority.

The recent NCP/SPLM deal on the issue removes sticking point, leaving some minor issues to iron out like the census, security law etc, which given the political will could be overcome through dialogue as happened with more thorny issues.

However, agreeing on the procedures for referendum that may lead to separation with simple majority out of 75 percent of those casting their votes, is the easy part of the deal. There are more substantive issues related to the day after and how to share the responsibilities and outcome of separation. Despite some leaks that discussions have started on these issues, but apparently nothing serious was conducted so far.

The time left, though limited, needs to be utilized in a more somber way to enhance the chances of unity, at least for two more solid reasons one to do with economy and the other a political one. The lifeline for both the North and South economically speaking is oil. Reality shows that while the bulk of reserves are in the South, the outlet to world markets is in the North.

Politically speaking, separation is not a solution to current problems, otherwise the North will be inviting Darfur to separate and equally Equatorians will find it more suitable to go their own way.

The best solution is to know how to manage differences and live together and that is where the SPLM needs to come out now and clearly on the issue of unity.

Eye Witness
Written By: Alfatih Ziada

On 22/10/2009 in the Counterpunch Tom Mountain who lives in Eritrea wrote:-As one of the first to write about the problems in West Sudan/Darfur, in mid 2003, and living side by side here in Asmara for three years with representatives of the Darfur,and other Sudanese resistance, my investigation has found no evidence of genocide.

The refugees of the Darfur conflict were and are the beneficiaries of one of the largest and most effective relief works in history. Darfur has had an international police force in place for years, who work along side Sudanese security forces and most of the violence has ended. In the Ogaden, Ethiopian death squads, funded by western “aid” have spent the better part of the past decade spreading murder and mayhem across the countryside.

With almost everyone from the International Committee of the Red Cross to “Doctors Without Borders” being expelled, there has been miniscule coverage of this genocide in the western media let alone any exposure of the western role in funding the Ethiopian regime. Compare this to the saturation of the western media with the “Save Darfur” propaganda campaign and the tried and true golden rule of “show me the money” needs to be applied to explain what is really going on.

The Darfur genocide myth has been promoted by western “human rights” NGOs who have collected tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars under the rubric of “Enough” and “Preventing Genocide”.

The claims of genocide are based on estimates of the number of deaths that were rapidly inflated as the dollars started rolling in. First it was 100,000, then 200,000, then 300,000 and finally, in a claim so ludicrous that even the British government media watchdog yanked it off the air, 400,000 people were supposed to have been victims of genocide in Darfur. None of the Darfur representatives I have heard here in Asmara ever gave any credibility to the western figures.

In fact, most everyone here in the Horn, at least those not on the western payroll, all agree the real number of those lost in the violence in west Sudan is in the tens of thousands, a tragic number but far surpassed by what has befallen those suffering in Somalia and the Ogaden where a real genocide has been taking place. Sudan is estimated to have suffered some two million deaths during its decade’s long civil war between the north and the south. After many years of hard work, peace has slowly, almost tortuously, been nurtured in Sudan, with the major ground work laid during negotiations held here in Asmara. In contrast to this what is the program of action demanded by the “Save Darfur” lot? A western-led military invasion and occupation a la Iraq and Afghanistan! With half a million or more dead in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to western military “intervention” who in their right mind could think that sending western soldiers to Sudan will do anything other than destroy the peace so painfully built these past few years and cause even more suffering? The west, in particular the USA is hell bent on keeping Africa in a state of crisis, the better to exploit. And the “Save Darfur” lobby is all for bringing more violence to Africa under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”, while little of the tens of millions they collect ever reaches the Sudanese who it was intended for. Busting the Darfur genocide myth is long overdue.(on the same track, however, On 27 August 2009, the departing commander of the joint UN/African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur said that the region was no longer in a state of war.

General Martin Agwai added that local rebel groups have split into factions, and that -banditry in addition to localized disputes over water and land, constituted the main sources of violence in Darfur ) If people in the west (particularly The Sudan hawks in the U.S. administration) really want to help Africa they should stop donating to the “Save Darfur” fraudsters and start demanding accountability for the tens of billions of western aid that is paying for a real genocide in the Ethiopian Ogaden.

The $2.7 Billion Scandal: Where's the Southern Parliament?
Written BY. Isaiah Abraham, JUBA

(SSN)

The Minister for Finance in the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) has just revealed yet again another financial scam of this government in the tune of US$2.7 billion (5.4 billion Sudanese Pounds), on the so-called grain contracts allegedly from the previous Finance Minister, Mr. Kuol Athian Mawien schemes.

According to the Finance Minister, his investigation has just stumbled on the matter out of the blue, something his predecessor's Report never revealed. Hon. Bari-Wanji, the matter has been passed unto you, if the minister word on Monday is anything to believe, kindly dig deep and hook the culprits now!

But the scandal has caught the Southern public by big surprise if not shock, after nearly all the departments have similar cases of graft allegations or say practices. People have a lot to tell on the ongoing campaign to loot, assuming that their government would one day 'sleep on the right side' and say enough is enough.

Someone must be fixed on these corruptions to send a message to those are think they are immune or say of evil mindset among our society. To date, unfortunately, thanks to the regime that sees nothing, hears nothing or do nothing, no one on the allegation or implicated has been locked behind bars, until investigation proves them otherwise.

Now, who is going to deny here that we have a self serving government by a clique of individuals who allotted themselves financial impunity, against the will of the majority. Those who feel that this is their government and it's their right to go on a looting spree and still get away with it, must be stopped by none other than the great House.

Who in his right mind would again trust this clique of trained crooks, whose decadence in government is documented all over the world where they have stepped with dollars hanging in their pockets? Where on earth will you find a government annual budget of $2 billion and the same system is ready to enter into contract with dubious contractors without an approval from the Parliament?

Imagine a few months ago, we were in trouble as to cash related scams on similar routes (fortunately papers didn't pick it up), but today we are almost going the same root. I have come to believe that there is no political aura from the top to fight this war called corruption. Last year we had huge financial reserves and today the minister has another language, what a crooked government here!

I don't think we need to waste time crying in silence about what we should do against Kiir's corrupt and weakling regime run by a few.

The government officials from the top to the bottom stand charged and you, the Parliamentarians, have given them all the leeways. You have stopped doing your duties impartially and according to your mandate.

Everyone is wondering what's the problem even to notable individuals (fierce debaters) such as Jimmy Wongo, Richard Mulla, Nyaulang Stephen, Gabriel Matur, Daniel Woor, Bari Wanji among others. You have the ability to bring sanity to the government and the need to account those responsible for crimes even crimes of omission.

Please impeach Mr. Kiir, let him go home, his regime has run amok and he should be stopped. What do you really think had gone wrong there in this particular scandal? Do you think the top doesn't know the disappearance of that huge amount?

Tell us, he isn't aware and we will bet by Machiavelli theory! How come that he has so much interest here and there in the names of his close associates?

Don't leave any stone unturned on this matter of the $200 million that has already been paid. The Ministry has confessed that they don't have anything behind (receipts). This is purely a theft and someone therefore must be accounted.

Dear Parliamentarians, you must show yourselves guardians of the peoples aspirations; you are a strong arm of the government, we know what you have achieved thus far. You indeed contributed much, only that no one is ready to operationalize or put your ideas down to work.

There is no political will anywhere. We beseech you, Honorable Member,s here then to rise above your tribal closets and rescue our people from this senseless clique that calls itself a government. We are hearing them refusing to accept the Machar-Taha agreement on the Referendum on baseless grounds. Don't take side on what is happening in the Executive, there is more than what catchs the eye. Its just stark politics.

We ask you to take charge and let the process leading to the Referendum go ahead unhindered. Elections exercise must not be curtailed because of some scores we want to unleash. Boycott at this point is defeatist and wrong! There is no time to play such game. After all the NCP won't stop working nor the House won't be closed due to SPLM absence.

The party we all loved has lost direction and no longer in control. They are in the pockets of foreigners who are out to deny us our rights because supposedly the regime change theory will deny Al Bashir a legitimacy in the April slated elections.

We are in dire need of leadership at this time, you are here to help us out. From everywhere we are a besieged nation (financially, politically, developmentally or security-wise, protection of our own lives and property and so on)

Down with Kiir, yes to change!

Unity and Secession Dream
What can we do if we want to measure the real reaction of the Sudanese people in general towards the First Vice President statement a few days ago in which he revealed the real secession intentions of the SPLM.

FVP did not only urge the southerners to vote for secession but he also decidedly affirmed that by separation they will be free from being slaves whilst in unity they will remain second class citizens. The call did not pass like that, but it created a mixture of conflicting feelings towards issues which could not be evaluated from now. However, the call for secession revealed in anticipation the expected results of the referendum and makes the issue indisputable.

Notwithstanding, we should stand a historical stance toward this separation stance of FVP as there are several questions that pose themselves over the issue such as why did Salva Kiir call frankly for secession at this time in particular? Was it spontaneous as a reflection to the differences between the two partners? Was it planned and the FVP seized the opportunity to announce it? The last assumption seems to be the right one as that could be confirmed by the hard and continuous work for the political and legal arrangements to establish a separate state.

On the other hand the South-South dialogue conference which has drawn hundreds of southern Sudan elites is an attempt to put the priorities of the upcoming stage on top of which the preparation for the general elections, the referendum, the current political scene, economy and wise democratic government in the south. It is high time for southern Sudan leaders to exert their efforts in the upcoming period for the elections as it comes before the referendum, as there will be no referendum without conducting free and fair elections.

Referendum is a great project with vital results determining the future of Sudan so it should be conducted in a free environment that enables every citizen to have his say being with a united Sudan or with secession. Elections are more important then comes the referendum issue.

Leave SPLM/A/GOSS for Dinka
Written by: William Okuch

(SSN)

Deviation of SPLM/A/ GOSS into tribal ownership by serving and protecting single tribe:

Lebanese people were treasonously divided by the colonial administrators into denominations where the Lebanese's sectarian-based political system emerged. Such governmental system has caused Lebanon a serious civil war and equal political representative rather than meritorious representation. Lebanese parliament has 128 seats. Half of the seats are allotted to Christian denominations and the other half to four Muslim sects: Sunnis, Shi'ites, Druze and Alawites and these sects are Lebanese tribes which resemble our tribal system in South and African.

DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER:

1- The president of the Lebanese republic is allotted to the Christian sect. 2- Prime Minister is set for Sunni denomination sect. 3- Parliamentary is given to Shia sect.

DECISION TAKING: Three powers must agree on any policy or legislation and before any decision taking.

WHAT HAPPEN IF GOVERNMENTAL POWER IS ABUSE BY A SINGLE SECT OR TRIBE KNOWN AS PRIME MINISTER, PARLIAMENTARY SPEAKER AND PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC? If any of the three powers known as parliamentary, presidential and ministerial powers go it alone, it must be face by a boycott or pull out from the government by other sectarian governmental representatives in order to invalidate or to delegitimize it decision as partially governmental decision that would not serve a interest of all citizens.

Let give one example. If each one from the readers could remind herself or himself about the last Lebanese 2008 election in which son of assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri won the parliamentary majority. He as winner has a legitimate right to form a government. But since that election, the formation of government is not possible because other parties want first to safeguard or guaranteed that government would not be partial and each sect is enforcing its demand for a certain ministry.

ROLE OF THE LEBANESE ARMY: Lebanese army consists of different denominations and usually in any case of civilian disobedience to government that cause deadly fight between different sectarian supporters, NO SOLDIER IS ALLOWED to rise her/his hand against any one of the protesters simply to avoid LEBANESE AMRY DIVISION. You can even see soldiers being abuse or insult by the protesters without reaction from army deployed in Lebanese streets across the entire Lebanon.

ROLE OF SPLA: SPLA is composed up of different tribes in the southern Sudan. But unlike Lebanese army which refrains itself from taking part against any sectarian members. SPLA supports the Dinka militants in many fronts through GOSS and SPLM who usually would order SPLA to crash Non-Dinka tribes and disarm them from their spear and pistols to be vulnerable to Dinka invasion. SPLM/GOSS have instantly ordered SPLA to destroy Nuer Lou after previous attack against the Duke Padit in defends of Dinka inhabitants. But SPLM/GOSS did not order SPLA to protect Mundari when Dinka burned down more than twenty Mundari villages killing their inhabitants.

In recently second attack launched by Dinka militant against Anakdar, THREE SPLA OFFICERS were killed by Anakdar resistant fighters who deterred Dinka from invading their village. Anakdar dwellers have and handed over the dead SPLA officers to Dinka-led government in Malakal under Governor Gatluak Deng. Also on Nov 09-2009, with Dinka militants being support by SPLA has attacked inhabitants of Canal. Shulluk villagers were able to chase away Dinka invaders killing some of the Dinka invaders.

But on their returning from chasing Dinka invaders away, unexpectedly SPLA has opened fire at Shulluk village fighters and almost five of them were killed by SPLA weaps. SPLA involvement as this in fight against Shulluk villagers has discouraged some of Shulluk villagers to remain in vulnerability. Some of them have fled to Malakal and others have refused to abandon their villages. But Dinka militants being encourage by SPLA have launched other attack against Atar on Nov 10-2009 and slaughtered two old men with knives who prepare dying on their ground.

That is SPLM/A and GOSS.

My questions to all southerners who are lovers of peace, stability, coexisting, harmony, respect and the CPA are these. 1- Do we take part in SPLMA/GOSS to serve Dinka tribe in the expense of our own people? 2- How do we react to our Dinka-SPLA comrades when they point their guns against our elders, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, sisters, blinds, deaf and dumb? 3- Will you guys from other tribes serving in SPLA not be second a target after Dinka SPLA managed to kill your own people? To make you survive require on thing or word! Be silence and submissive to your boss (Dinka) in SPLA, or be killed if you louder your voice against Dinka mortal acts. 4- Why do we want to be one nation if we are becoming predators against each other? We must leave SPLA and GOSS for Dinka if Dinka people and politicians continue condoning their mortal expeditions against other tribes intended to brought demographic change.

Washington raises doubts over coming elections in Sudan …Why?
The Spokesperson of the US State Department said last Saturday that Washington has doubts over the ability of Sudan to conduct the elections scheduled to take place in April 2010.

The US State Department attributed the alleged inability of Sudan to run the elections to what it called lack of agreement on the election process besides the differences between Naivasha Peace Partners on borders demarcation. On his part, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mu’awia Osman rejected the US allegations in this regard, saying the electoral process has already began with the opening of the voters’ registration process.

The Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman said more than 10 million voters were already registered in the election record in a time when the General Election Commission extended the registration process for another week to block the way before any future protests or critics against the process.

No doubt that the statement of the US State Department spokesperson is really surprising because even the leaders of the Sudanese opposition forces did not raise any doubts over the rules of the electoral process as the election act, which was approved by the Sudanese Parliament, did not include any item violating the international rules in this regard.

The critics of the opposition forces focus on what they call the absence of the democratic atmosphere a matter which is considered by some observers as reflection to the competitive nature of the elections a thing the opposition fears.

Perhaps, the most surprising thing concerning the US stance is the repeated statements of the US Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration that Washington calls on the various parties to pay attention to the election process while casting doubts over the ability of Sudan to conduct the election. The UN has also said the Sudanese election act includes the agreed-upon international standards.

Concerning the border demarcation issue, the committee, which was established to solve this problem, is making progress and did not reach a stumbling block so far. Thus, it could be said that the current climate in Sudan is favorable for conducting the elections. The US statements toward the election in Sudan reflect the conflict between the radicals and those who adopt objectivity within the US administration toward Sudan.

Democracy Wounded in South
BY: Dominic Maku

(SSN) South Sudanese fought, died in their millions, toiled, labored and many are still languishing in foreign lands in order to bring home democracy and the rule of law.They left their motherland and ventured into the wilderness in all the neighboring countries of Africa: (Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Congo, South Africa, Egypt and beyond). They ate leaves (poisonous and wild), some of them were eaten by wild animals on their way in search of refuge and good life in the mountains of Ethiopia and across the deserts and overseas when they died of hunger and thirst. Men, women and children lost their dear lives as they struggled to find a place to call home.

Then came the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (a.k.a. CPA) in 2005 so that they could return home and reconstruct their broken homes, infrastructures and lives. The CPA stipulates profoundly that peace has finally been secured and it is time for the people of South Sudan in particular and the Sudan at large to go home and rejuvenate their lives. In that document (CPA) are enshrined the democratic principles and values that would be used by the interim leaders to govern the people amicably. The CPA became the interim constitution of the Sudan (including the south) and it is the cornerstone and the backbone of the governments of the country (GoSS and the GoNU).

In the constitution the basic democratic principles are laid out (constitutional rights [freedom of democratic participation through political parties, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association and so forth). It took a multilateral effort to negotiate the CPA (the international community, regional political block [IGAD], religious organizations, Non-governmental organizations, Government organizations and many others) to bring the CPA to fruition. Which means that the signatories to the CPA have an obligation and responsibility to see into it that it does not falter and crumble or break into piecies. However, it seems those who brought the CPA did not do justice enough by bringing peace to Sudan given the recent attempt by the SPLM political party. The SPLM unilaterally took a decision to dismantle the core principles of the CPA in a letter written by one of the prominent politicians in South Sudan Government (GoSS). In major twenty characters, "I am writing to you on directives of H.E. General Salva Kiir Mayardit, the FVP of the Republic, the President of GoSS and SPLM Chairman to request your cooperation with all other Political Parties and not to hinder their work except the so called SPLM-DC." signed by Dr. Luka Monoja the acting Minister for Presidential Affairs in the GoSS. Apparently the two decades or so civil war that ended by the signing of the CPA has been reduced and sealed by the words of a Presidential minister who is the mouth piece of the President of the GoSS and the VP of the Republic of the Sudan. One wonders what they were doing when they decided that they have all the political powers do make decisions of such a huge magnitude. Were they sitting down in their offices or standing up under a tree when they reached that decision?

Apparently they have all of a sudden forgotten that their actions are guided by the CPA which is the constitution of the land. Who gave them the right to impede a registered political party with equal constitutional right like theirs from carrying out their political activities? Now the SPLM-DC has dragged them to the very constitutional court that protects them all (all political parties including the SPLM). Whoever gave the President of the GoSS the advice that it is the right thing to do to terminate the participation of the SPLM-DC political party in the south is currently contemplating ways of how he/she will get the SPLM out of the legal dilemma.

The interim constitution is the law of the land and nobody is above the law (not even the president, leave alone a political party such as the SPLM). Thus, it seems like the constitutional court has a case to hear when the time for deliberation comes. I am not a lawyer to anticipate about any possible outcome of this case, but it seems the law has been broken if I am not mistaken. Why would the National Congress Party still allow the SPLM operate in the North even if there was a rumor that one of its prominent members was killed in Yambio lately (Mrs. Biringi?). Because the NCP is aware about the consequences of illegitimate action? What is the Take of the International Community and the Regional Signatories to the CPA about the wounds of democracy in South Sudan? It is common sense that the international community and the regional signatories to the CPA will not accept the unilateral decision by the SPLM because they helped negotiate a constitution that is to be helpful to bringing peace in Sudan (but the letter is not all over the media [local and global]. The CPA was negotiated in order to bring to an end the blood bath and suffering of the people of Sudan, but destroying it will be tantamount to another human catastrophe over there.

The unilateral decision taken by the SPLM on wounding democracy is one step to solving a political crisis, but in doing so they are creating more crises (they are trying to solve one problem by creating three or more problems). Are the international community and the regional signatories prepared to help the Sudanese once more when a crisis crops up again in less than ten years of the CPA? That remains to be seen. But what about the innocent civilians who have been and will still be caught up in this crisis? Are they prepared to endure another decade or so of terrible life? Oh boy! This is hard to tell. What is happening in South Sudan is not new in the political context of African political landscape. All the 53 African countries had been through a number of civil wars and independence liberation wars against the colonial forces. Sudan did the same and in 1956 it attained its independence from the British, but shortly, the next fifty years will witness a protracted civil war that would engulf it into a political turmoil.

Many African countries after achieving their independence resorted to dictatorship. Did it wok? Absolutely not. In fact, dictatorship sank most of Africa's human resources and natural resources into the ground. Dictatorship failed in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Congo [Brazzaville and Kinshasa], Burundi, Central African Republic and many others). Consequently, most of those countries are the least developed in the world. When one draws a parallel between the growing situation in South Sudan with what the West had been through, one will be left with nothing but to sympathize with Junub before it degenerates into oblivion. I am not saying that something bad will happen because of the action the SPLM has taken against the SPLM-DC. But if one followed what had happened in the neighboring countries there is a worry that the same scenario could take place because the strategy used is similar to those used by the neighboring countries. Why is the SPLM not happy with the SPLM-DC? Many in the Sudan, particularly south Sudan would argue that the leader of the SPLM-DC is a traitor and a betrayer of the cause of the South Sudanese people for their independence from the repressive regime in Khartoum. Many have written condemnation articles in all the media channels calling the SPLM-DC Chairman Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin names of all sorts. In one of the news channels some even threaten that he should not set foot onto South Sudanese soil. Some have accused him (Dr. Lam) of collaborating with the NCP, and so forth and so forth. But ever since the SPLM-DC political party was formed and registered it seems that the accusations against Dr. Lam are unfounded and unrealistic because many Southerners and Northerners alike are joining his party every minute. Why would these upright minded people (teachers, politicians, doctors, elders, men, women and children of all walks of life) flock into a political party that is a threat to them? Many- both in the Diaspora and back home - want to see that they have a home of their own and they are willing to support whoever will provide them with the opportunity to get the sense of belonging. Others believe that it is peace time and it is time to open up the political space for all to appear and face the ballot box. Think about peace, Mr. President, and allow all political parties to contest and whoever wins the elections does not matter, but let the next generation not die because of a simple decision. LET THERE BE PEACE, that's is why you are a God loving individual.

SPLM and Arrests… Judge not that ye be not judged
(SV) Written By: Nasr Addeen Ghatas

The leaders of the SPLM who complained to the satellite channels on their arrest by police despite their immunity, have not remembered what they have done in the South with the political parties' members there whom their Movement has arrested and kept in containers as prisoners.

The Movement had previously arrested all the staff of the census campaign from the North while it announced its objection to the census results after the signing of it by its head at the presidency, then it repeated the delay of all forms of works to complicate the political action and the freedoms then it called for hypocrisy!! Then came the strange position of the Movement as it always plays that role by hindering the registration processes for elections in the country.

All the positions of the SPLM do not harmonize with its natural role which it must play as the authentic partner in implementing an agreement that will transform the whole country towards peace whether by voluntary unity or voluntary separation..!!

Then it takes other positions which are not cementing the freedoms as it claims in its political speech... And as the Movement does not want other voices in the South it has arrested six members of the Southern parties at (Rumbek) and (Magwi) areas and also arrested the NCP Executive Manager at Bahr Al- Ghazal ( Mabiour Flouj Akai), and the Movement does so without shame, as it also arrested  the registration officers and NCP information secretary at Melut Locality and the later was transferred to Kosti hospital after his health has deteriorated due to the torture..!!

NCP delegates to the registration processes in Torit town, were subjected to severe beatings, arrest of Radio Al-Leer Director, seizure of the plane of the electoral register committee at Aweil  Airport and confiscation of its contents on the way of the bandits, arrest of NCP leading figure in Equatoria, James Lasu.

SPLM violations have no limits and by the hands of its leaders who threaten the supporters of the NCP there  and as the arrests philosophy  of the Movement is a common tactic to prevent its partner's activities there  on the assumption of its absolute right on the South.

Its nonstop for its approach to the said irresponsible style, its intelligence service which holds a grip on everything in the South has arrested many of its partner's supporters there and most of them are still in the movement detention which are metal containers.

They have arrested more than 15 members of the NCP at Warap State and the Governor there has refused to release them saying to the leading figure Osama Abdullah, "If the President of the Republic comes I will not release them."

SPLM, which is afraid of the elections and seems to be a failure, likes hindering the registration and turnout by the people and it called out the armed forces commanders for investigation for their elections registration.

The Movement which did that with the Sudanese citizens who have to participate in the registration process to realize the democratic transformation that the movement called for which is a lie and falsehood. It has organized the registration of foreigners who have no right to vote.

SPLM allowed three Ugandans to register in Warap State besides the registration of children under 18 years old.

SPLM does nothing good in its political process but all evil, nonsense and idle talk. It is well known for its procrastination in implementing the CPA and it caused the delay of border demarcation between the South and the North.

Mr. Gration Again in Town
Written By: Alsir Sidahmed

By the time US envoy Scott Gration landed in Khartoum to help restart the dialogue between NCP and SPLM and resolve outstanding issues as Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton announced last week, agreements covering the referendum law,Abyei Act ad Popular Consultation for People of the Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan were already in hand, approved by the council of ministers in an extraordinary session Sunday night and are on their way to be tabled before the parliament, in effect ending the six weeks boycott.

Gration had tried over the past few months in Khartoum and Washington to broker a deal especially during his last two visits, but to no avail.

This is not the first time. When the dispute over Abyei went out of hand and the two sides resorted to arms initially last year, the US envoy then William Richardson failed to also in providing help.

In fact the SPLM turned down his offer to mediate and went ahead for a tete-a-tete talk with NCP that resulted in a road map to resolve the Abyei dispute through international arbitration in The Hague, which was completed earlier in the summer.

Part of the problem is that Washington is not seen as honest and neutral mediator given its long anti Khartoum stand and that SPLM enjoys the support of many lobby groups, which restraints those envoys from exercising some pressure whenever is needed.

The first envoy considered by the former Bush administration was the former official and diplomat Chester Crocker, but he insisted on getting a free hand and is shielded from the lobby groups’ pressure.

Failing that he declined the post that went to former Senator John Danforth, who given his independence, strong character, his religious credentials that appeal to the political base of the Bush administration managed to exercise enough authority to make Naivasha talks sail and end up eventually in a deal.

The two experiences of Abyei and last week’s crisis show clearly that the two partners can reach a deal on their own. As eloquently put by Salva Kiir, the First Vice President when he heard some people shouting “Down with Bashir”, he replied “We are in the same boat. If Bashir falls, I’ll fall too.”

That is reality, but there is a need and a possibility as well to move a step further and help improve trust between the two partners. After all US standing position is that problems of Sudan will be solved by Sudanese people themselves and others will be only helping.

In his return Gration will find that the voters’ registration exercise was largely completed, not only in a peaceful way, but that there was higher than expected turn over with remarkable registration in the South and the three Darfur provinces, a clear indication of people’s yearning to exercise their democratic right.

But elections are after all are not only registration and casting the vote, but more to have conducive atmosphere of peace and tranquility to carry out that exercise.

Mr. Gration needs to utilize his current visit to send a very clear message that US stands firmly behind the ballot box and that the precedent of not accepting results if not in line with self interests as happened with the census will not be tolerated.

Given the expected presence of some 2,000 international observers that should be easy to guarantee.

The ICC, Another False Flag Plan (1-2)
Written By: Alfatih Ziada

We kindly remind our reverend reader of how Uncle Sam “cooks” incidents to provoke or topple other regimes .As Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted,"we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – [in the hands of terrorists as the imputed reason for going to war with Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

In other words, "everyone" couldn't agree, then, to invade Iraq and depose Saddam solely because he wasn't nice to certain "humans," to certain major oil companies, or to certain Likudniks.

Following a meeting between Bush and his advisers, Paul Wolfowitz is quoted "On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether to attack Iraq, but when".

Operation Northwoods (a false flag plan) was planned to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere.

People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Following the same footsteps and since no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology, the US-led West settled on one issue-humanitarianism-for toppling Khartoum regime, in other words everyone couldn't agree on toppling Khartoum regime if the issue were spelled out blatantly.

They(the West) know that Darfur rebels have no real cause, and their demands don’t exceed a network of all-weather roads, electricity and potable water; notwithstanding, the West-collaborating with Ingaz adversaries – encouraged the rebels to raise arms making a case of no case.

Not only that but also the West sponsored and supported the rebellion diplomatically, politically, financially, morally and militarily. When all their efforts failed to bear fruits they resorted to their last tool: what they called the ICC that is thought to have been based on a battery of ill-thought-out lies or more precisely another false flag plan.

Truth, falsehood, facts, and made-up "notions" – it is all the same to the lie factory. When one phony argument based on nothing but supposition and sexed-up "factoids" fails, it is just a matter of "deploying" another one.

The "dodgy dossier" against Al-basher was compiled and "deployed" by people for whom dodginess is a virtue. Which fool ever thought the ICC was about genocide or enforcement of justice? The most surprising thing about Ocampo's ‘revelation’ that he would have indicted Al-basher regardless was that so many found it shocking.

Thus Ocampo inadvertently demonstrated that his ethical case for indicting Al-basher was as much of a flimsy pretext for targeting Islam, as were the non-existent war crimes. From long before the first words of Ocampo, this was a farce kangaroo court looking for a cause to justify it.

Ocampo now stands accused by outraged observers of misleading justice and the public. Of course he did – it would be the height of historical naïveté to have imagined anything else.

Darfurians are kindly asked to contemplate that Iraqi deaths due to US invasion go beyond 1366 350, that is to say nothing counts in Uncle Sam's calculations when regime change is deemed necessary. .Lies and false statements of the West are best shown in an interview on BBC with Blair who was asked (If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?).

The first pretext for attacking Iraq was patently false. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come up with a new reason for joining with the United States in aggressing Iraq.

The original pretext was that Iraq had weapons-of-mass-destruction; but Iraq was scoured from top to bottom by the occupiers, and there was no WMD to be found.