webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2011 - 12:48:43 EST
The Balkanization of Sudan: The Redrawing of the Middle East and North
Africa
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures2/22736.jpg
<http://www.globalresearch.ca> Global Research, January 16, 2011
Sudan is a diverse nation and a country that represents the plurality of
Africa through various tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet
the unity of Sudan is in question, while there is talk of unifying nations
and of one day creating a United States of Africa through the African Union.
The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama
Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of
South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.
The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders
and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European
Union.
The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan
A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its
government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track
record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could
justify this.
In regards to Sudan, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work.
One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted
by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S.
sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and
Ethiopia are casually ignored.
Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted
genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the
bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and
motivated by Khartoum's ties to Chinese oil interests.
Sudan supplies China with a substantial amount of oil. The geo-political
rivalry between China and the U.S. for control of African and global energy
supplies is the real reason for the chastisement of Sudan and the strong
support shown by the U.S., E.U., and Israeli officials for the seccession of
South Sudan.
It is in this context that Chinese interests have been attacked. This
includes the October 2006 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in
Defra, Kordofan by the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) militia.
Distorting the Violence in Sudan
While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional
nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been
manipulated and distorted.
The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the
regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic
interests. . If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues,
which have been fuelled by outside forces. .
Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel
are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour
and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training,
financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese
government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum's shoulders
for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and
control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several
states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan
Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese
government by the U.S., E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving
the objective of dividing Sudan.
It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the
entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the
deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the
deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping
mandate.
This is a re-enactment of the same procedures used by the U.S. and E.U. in
other regions where countries have either formally or informally been
divided and their economies restructured by foreign-installed proxy
governments under the presence of foreign troops. This is what happened in
the former Yugoslavia (through the creation of several new republics) and in
Anglo-American occupied Iraq (through soft balkanization via a calculated
form of federalism aimed at establishing a weak and de-centralized state).
Foreign troops and a foreign presence have provided the cloud for state
dismantlement and the foreign takeover of state infrastructure, resources,
and economies.
The Question of Identity in Sudan
While the Sudanese state has been portrayed as being oppressive towards the
people in South Sudan, it should be noted that both the referendum and the
power sharing structure of the Sudanese government portray something else.
The power sharing agreement in Khartoum between Omar Al-Basher, the
president of Sudan, includes the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir
Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and the President of South
Sudan.
The issue of ethnicity has also been brought to the forefront of the
regional or ethno-regional nationalism that has been cultivated in South
Sudan. The cleavage in Sudan between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called
African Sudanese has been presented to the outside world as the major force
for the regional nationalism motivating calls for statehood in South Sudan.
Over the years this self-differentiation has been diffused and socialized
into the collective psyche of the people of South Sudan.
Yet, the difference between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African
Sudanese are not that great. The Arab identity of so-called Sudanese Arabs
is based primarily on their use of the Arabic language. Let us even assume
that both Sudanese ethnic identities are totally separate. It is still
widely known in Sudan that both groups are very mixed. The other difference
between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan is that Islam predominates in the
rest of Sudan and not in South Sudan. Both groups are still deeply tied to
one another, except for a sense of self-identification, which they are well
in their rights to have. Yet, it is these different identities that have
been played upon by local leaders and outside powers.
Neglect of the local population of different regions by the elites of Sudan
is what the root cause of anxiety or animosity between people in South Sudan
and the Khartoum government are really based on and not differences between
so-called Arab and so-called African Sudanese.
Regional favouritism has been at work in South Sudan.
The issue is also compounded by social class. The people of South Sudan
believe that their economic status and standards of living will improve if
they form a new republic. The government in Khartoum and non-Southerner
Sudanese have been used as the scapegoats for the economic miseries of the
people of South Sudan and their perceptions of relative poverty by the local
leadership of South Sudan. In reality, the local officials of South Sudan
will not improve the living standards of the people of South Sudan, but
maintain a klepocratic status quo. [1]
The Lond-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World
In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the
the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt
were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were
also one country in practice until 1956.
Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep
Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against
British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against
Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan
against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same
way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the
Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as
exploiting the South Sudanese.
After the British invasion of Egypt and Sudan, the British also managed to
keep their troops stationed in Sudan. Even while working to divide Sudan
from Egypt, the British worked to create internal differentations between
South Sudan and the rest of Sudan. This was done through the Anglo-Egyptian
Condominium, from 1899 to 1956, which forced Egypt to share Sudan with
Britain after the Mahdist Revolts. Eventually the Egyptian government would
come to refuse to recognize the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium as legal. Cairo
would continously ask the British to end their illegal occupation of Sudan
and prevent the integration of Egypt and Sudan, but the British would
refuse.
It would be under the presence of British troops that Sudan would declare
itself independent. This is what lead to the emergence of Sudan as a
separate Arab and African state from Egypt. Thus, the balkanization process
started with the division of Sudan from Egypt.
The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East
The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a
continuation of the British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon
Plan is to ensure Israeli superority through the balkanization of the Middle
Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this
context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an
Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the
balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this
context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called "After Iraq:
What Will the Middle East Look Like?" [2] In the Goldberg article a map of
the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon
Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutentant-Colonel
(retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military's Armed Forces Journal in 2006.
It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was
shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan,
and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to
East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg's article,
Eriteria is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and
Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.
In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists
have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab
states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. This has
been achieved through the soft balkanization of federalism in Iraq, which
has allowed the Kurdistan Regional Government to negotiate with foreign oil
corporations on its own. The first step towards establishing this was a war
between Iraq and Iran, which is discussed in the Yinon Plan.
In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exasparate sectarian tensions between
the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. The division
of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means of balkanizing Syria
into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan
is to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of
religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims,
Christians, and the Druze.
In this regard, the Hariri Assasination and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
(STL) have been playing out to the favour of Israel in creating internal
divisions within Lebanon and fuelling politically-motivated sectarianism.
This is why Tel Aviv has been very vocal about the STL and very supportive
of it. In a clear sign of the politized nature of the STL and its ties to
geo-politics, the U.S. and Britain have also given the STL millions of
dollars.
The Links between the Attacks on the Egyptian Copts and the South Sudan
Referendum
>From Iraq to Egypt, Christians in the Middle East have been under attack,
while tensions between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims are being fuelled.
The attacks on a Coptic Church in Alexandria on January 1, 2011 or the
subsequent Coptic protests and riots should not be looked at in isolation.
[3] Nor should the subsequent fury of Coptic Christians expressed towards
Muslims and the Egyptian government. These attacks are tied to the broader
geo-political goals of the U.S., Britain, Israel, and NATO in the Middle
East and Arab World.
The Yinon Plan stipulates that if Egypt were divided that Sudan and Libya
would also be balkanized and weakened. In this context, there is a link
between Sudan and Egypt. According to the Yinon Plan, the Copts or
Christians of Egypt, which are a large minority in Egypt are the key to the
balkanization of the Arab states in North Africa. Thus, the Yinon Plan
states that the creation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt (South Egypt) and
Christian-Muslim tensions within Egyptian are vital steps to balkanizing
Sudan and North Africa.
The timing of the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt and the referendum
in South Sudan are no coincidence. The events in Sudan and Egypt are linked
to one another and are part of the project to balkanize the Arab World and
the Middle East. They must also be studied in conjunction with the Yinon
Plan and with the events in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as in relation to the
efforts to create a Shiite-Sunni divide.
The Outside Connections of the SPLM, SSLA, and Militias in Darfour
Outside interference or intervention as in the case of Sudan has been used
to justify the oppression of the domestic opposition. Despite its
corruption, Khartoum has been under siege for refusing to merely be a proxy.
Sudan is justified in suspecting foreign troops and accusing the U.S.,
Britain, and Israel of eroding the national solidarity of Sudan. For
example, Israel has sent arms to the opposition groups and separatist
movements in Sudan. This was done through Ethiopia for years until Eritrea
became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea
coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and Eritreans.
Afterwards Israeli weapons entered South Sudan from Kenya. From South Sudan,
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the political arm of
the SSLA, would transfer weapons to the militias in Darfur. The governments
of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the the Uganda People's Defence Force
(UPDF), have also been working closely with the U.S., Britain, and Israel in
East Africa.
The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition and separatist
groups is significant. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel and its members
and supporters regularly visit Israel. It is due to this that Khartoum
capitulated and removed the Sudanese passport restriction on visiting Israel
in late-2009 to satisfy the SPLM. [4] Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that
South Sudan will recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.
The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that separatist groups in
Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:
[Sudan People's Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced
establishment of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement office in Israel, a
press release said today.
"After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the supporters of
SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of SPLM in Israel." Said
[sic.] a statement received by email from Tel Aviv signed by the SLMP
secretariat in Israel.
The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the
vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance with
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open in any
country including Israel. It also indicated that there are around 400 SPLM
supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur said last week
he opened an office in Tel Aviv. [5]
The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan
What happened to the dreams of a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement
to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses. The Arab World
has consistenly been balkanized.
Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World is on the
U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.
The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the U.S., Britain, and
Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not
intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been
part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and
the Muddle East.
The resulting process of "democratization" leading up to the January 2011
referendum, serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the
rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true
national sovereignty in South Sudan.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] A kleptocracy is a government or/and state that works to protect,
extend, deepen, continue, and entrench the wealth of the ruling class.
[2] Jeffrey Goldberg, "After Iraq: What Will The Middle East Look Like?" The
Atlantic, January/February 2008.
[3] William Maclean, "Copts on global Christmas alert after Egypt bombing",
Reuters, January 5, 2011.
[4] "Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport", Sudan Tribune,
October 3, 2009:
<
<http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?iframe&page=imprimable&id_article=3277
6>
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?iframe&page=imprimable&id_article=32776
>.
[5] "Sudan's SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel - statement", Sudan
Tribune, March 5, 2008:
< <http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?page=imprimable&id_article=26251>
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?page=imprimable&id_article=26251>.
ANNEX: THE ATLANTIC MAP OF THE "NEW MIDDLE EAST"
http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/goldberg-map.jpg
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----