The following is the draft translation of a recent article from Sudan.
ADMISSION OF MORE INTERNATIONAL FORCES INTO DARFUR IS ONE OF THE EPISODES OF INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE
The special envoy of the General Secretary of the United Nations, Ban Brunk, demanded sending international forces to the region of Darfur, that was stated in his report which he presented in front of the Security Council on Saturday 14.01.2006 saying: “The efforts to settle peace in Darfur failed, it is a must to send forces dependent on the United Nations to maintain peace, reaching to (20) thousand soldiers in order to disarm the militia, and provide security, in order to return about 20 million stranded person to their areas". The Sudanese government refused to spread the International forces, and hung to the forces of the African Union, that was stated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and after that by President Omar Al-Basheer who criticized the concealed hands which try to admit the foreign forces into Darfur, renewing the emphasis of the government on the complete confidence of Sudan in the African Union, and its capability to solve the issue of Darfur. To understand this case, we have to go a little backwards, and understand the truth about the problem and its dimensions.
Three elements contributed to the origination and aggravation of Darfur issue: The First: The local competence on the land and pastures among the tribes of the region which are about (85) tribes, The Second: the negligence of the current and former governments in looking after the affairs of their citizens, with justice and charity, which is a duty by Islam, and The Third: the outer interference and stirring of the problem in the framework of struggle between Europe and America.
In the framework of struggle between Europe and America, it is the Europeans who originated the problem, especially France and Britain, support was given to the rebels in Darfur through Chad, concerning supplies and point of support and resort, its rulers are agents for France. London was a news media minaret for the chiefs of rebel movement. President Omar Al-Basheer emphasized the relation of Britain in exploding the situation in Darfur saying on 10.08.2004: "the issue of Darfur which the new colonist is waving was blown out by those who implemented the policy of closed regions in Sudan". As for America, it did not want to stir the problem of Darfur, until the separation of south Sudan -through the agreement of Nevasha- is over, While Europe (Britain and France) wanted to stir the problem of Darfur and heat it, hoping to succeed in overthrowing the government or penetrate it in compensation of its weak role in the South.
After the success of Europe in stirring the issue of Darfur through the news media, describing it to be the greatest humanitarian catastrophe in this era, the number of those killed was hundreds of thousands, and more than one million immigrant, it went along two directions: One of them: To isolate the Sudanese government and to implement punishment on it and those authorized in it, The Second: work to have military interference by admission of international forces into the region of Darfur, knowing that America -which is drowned in the swamp of Iraq and Afghanistan- cannot send forces to Sudan, America opposed that and used to interfere always to thwart the European plan by cutting the road on it through alternative plans or by adopting the plans of Europe and then abort them.
On 22 July 2004, America adopted a resolution project for the Security Council, which warns the government of Sudan and gives it a time limit of one month or else it will be exposed to punishments, while Europe wanted the military interference and punishment to be without a time limit. On 31 March 2005 France succeeded with the support of Britain, to pass over the resolution project 1593 through the International Security Council, this resolution is concerned with turning those who committed war crimes in the region of Darfur to the International criminal court, America refused the resolution problem, and demanded to judge the accused in a special court which is situated in the Tetran city of Arosha, similar to the special court of war crimes in Rwanda, then it abstained from voting on the resolution project, after it excluded its soldiers from the resolutions concerned with the International criminal court, it inspired the government to form special courts, and refuse the resolution project, especially that the government did not sign the treaty of founding the International criminal court, and it did that, which weakened the effect of the resolution on the government.
In the endeavor of Europe to admit international forces into Darfur, Tony Blair spoke on 22.07.2004 about sending five thousand British soldiers to Darfur, and on 31.07.2004 France spread forces on the borders between Chad and Sudan, voices rose in the world asking for military interference in Darfur, the Australian Prime Minister spoke about his readiness to share in an international force in the region of Darfur, that was reported by the (Sidney Morning Gerard) news paper on 02.08.2004. Then America put forth the idea of admitting African forces into Darfur, that was stated by its ambassador in the United Nations John Danforth, he said: "most of the international pressure on the Sudanese government must emphasize on the necessity of having a wider existence for the African Union", he refused the idea of expanding the International existence in the region. America succeeded in admitting the African forces into Darfur, and cut the road for the European intervention, it was not satisfied by that, it made efforts to support the forces of the African Union, by transporting the forces of the African Union with its planes and paid (170) million dollars as a contribution from it, which exceeds the budget of one year of the African forces which are in Darfur, the budget of which is (160) dollars for a whole year.
In spite of the admission of the African Union forces into Darfur, which amounts to seven thousand soldiers, three thousand of them are police forces, and the effort to find a reconciliation through negotiations, yet the situation on the ground stayed as it is, from fighting, being in war and the mutual accusations, because the rebels always made deeds which thwarts the mission of the African forces, to show its inefficiency in keeping security, thus opening the door for the European intervention, they also -in the negotiations of Aboga- raised the roof of their demands to an extent which leads to thwart the negotiations, Salem Ahmad Salem -the special delegate of the African Union in the peace talks between the government and the rebels- says in front of the Security Council: "the policy of intended pause is accomplished by the Justice and Equality Front and the Liberation Movement of Sudan, the movements do not see the negotiations as a strategic field, but as a tactic field, it sees the battle field as a strategic field". That was clearly manifested in the last negotiations tour of Aboga, which necessitated America to hold the strings of the issue instead of dealing with the reaction, and that is by making an effort to change or threaten the system in Chad -the main tool of Europe in this struggle- knowing that the system in Chad is being changed from Darfur, that is why an army of rebel Chads headed by sergeant/Muhammad Nur Abdelkareem assaulted the Chadian city of (Adri), and got hold of it before retreating from it, the system in Chad -which knows the danger of military work which initiates from Darfur- got mad, and it started to accuse Sudan, Alami Ahmad -the Foreign Minister of Chad- says: "we have in our hands statements and proofs and captives, which emphasize that the new rebel movement has financial and military support from Khartoum, which seems that it took its attitude on the basis that the Chadian government has relation with the rebels of Darfur, although all the witnesses ascertain the retreat of this relation in pushing them towards peace", then the President of Chad made a news media campaign and toured in the neighboring countries to put pressure on Sudan, especially after eight Chadian armed movements united in the city of (Modena) north east of Chad on 27-28.12.2005, thus forming the United Front for Democratic change in Chad.
Under the shade of this unstableness, Europe succeeded inputting its suggestion of sending international forces to Darfur, on the table of negotiation inside the corridors of the United Nations, while America still insisted on the continuing of the African forces, or at least supporting it, Jendai Freizer assistant of the American foreign minister said: "Washington supports consolidating the forces of the African Union with international forces ,and not to replace it", Condoleezza Rice the American foreign minister declared -when she arrived to attend the nomination of Liberia’s president on 16.01.2006- saying: "The African Union wants the Mission to be African in Darfur, it is hoped that there will be enough African forces to do that, there should be more African forces, and we will soon come to know who will be ready to participate in the delegation of the African Union", she went further than that to prove the right of Sudan to refuse the entry of the international forces, when she requested it to allow them to enter saying: "Sudan have to accept the interference of international forces to guarantee the continuation of the situation in Darfur". As for Kofi Anan -General Secretary of the United Nations- he inspired the Sudanese government to refuse spreading international forces in Darfur, when he ascertained that the spreading of international forces could not be done without the approval of the Sudanese government.
This is the reality of admitting more international forces into Darfur, it is clear that the refusal of the government to admit these forces is only to cut the road for Europe and to make the whole country stay under the American influence, or else why did the government allow the international forces to enter our country under different names, such as a military committee to implement the agreement of Al-Nuba mountain, to African forces, or forces to execute the agreement of Nevasha, until the number of the foreign forces in our country became more than seventeen thousand. How do we speak after all that of refusing international forces? Aren’t the forces of executing the agreement of Nevasha international forces? Aren’t the forces of the African Union international forces? How do you judge then?!
Oh Muslims, rulers, rebels and opposition;
How do you accept to be tools of this international struggle, when the government is in the hands of America, and the rebels and the opposition in the hands of Europe, you torture your people by being killed and driven away, in desire of greed in life and personal leadership under the spears of the Kafer colonists?!
Oh Muslims; our people in Darfur;
Your duty is to be aware of the intentions of these Kafer colonists, they are all from the same species, whether they were Americans or Europeans, they are the enemy, so treat them as enemies. You should hang to the rope of Allah and cast away the sectarianism of ignorance;
((وَاعْتَصِمُواْ بِحَبْلِ اللّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَاء فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىَ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ))
"And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided." [Al-Imran: 103]
We call you to work seriously to uproot the influence of Kuffar from our country and all the Muslim countries, by establishing the Rashidi Khilafah on the steps of the Prophecy, which is due to come by the will of Allah, for this thing let the workers work.
20 Thul Hijjah1426 AH
20 January 2006 CE
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Analysis: What is the tug-of-war taking place in Lebanon?
The following is the draft translation of a political analysis article written in Arabic.
Question: What is this tug-of-war taking place in Lebanon which erupts at time and quietens down in another without any stability. The regime supporters are not able to remain on a steadfast position and nor are they able to adopt a resolute decision. The same applies to the opposition, whose statements change and whose priorities are not fixed on any situation. Rather, the issue of Hariri’s killing, over which events exploded, the issue of elections is about to dominate over it, whether from the supporters or opposition where the interests of the politicians are more prominent than the issue itself. This is clear from what the meetings and contacts between some members of the supporters and opposition have mentioned. All of them fluctuate in their positions without any resolute stance. Rather, the international committee for investigation gained sovereignty and powers in Lebanon, above the sovereignty and powers of the state of Lebanon. But despite this the matter has been passed over by the supporters and opposition without any feeling or concern. How should this be interpreted?
Answer: The answer to this question does not require a lot of explanation since it is clear to those who have insight. The answer is as follows:
1- What is taking place in Lebanon is an intense struggle between America on one side and Europe on the other (whist France is public about it and Britain works behind the scenes). America is trying to continue her influence in Lebanon which existed before, especially since the Taif agreement until today and preserve this influence in the same way it existed before, without being diminished after the departure of the Syrian army. And Europe see in this an opportunity to expel the American influence and take its place.
2- These states, which struggle against each other, possess internal instruments which reflect the ambitions of these colonial states internally and execute their wishes and plans. That is why the internal instruments change their stance and comments according to the decisions of these vying states. That is why we find some of these instruments adopt a stance today which differs greatly from what the stance was a day or even hours ago because they themselves do not adopt the stance but the stance of others. The decision is not in the hand of these instruments but in the hand of the vying states. This is what explains the fact that the supporters and opposition, despite raising the same flag, the same Taif agreement, freedom, sovereignty, independence and revealing the truth (behind the killing of Al-Hariri)….cannot unite and come up with a solution because the decision is not in their hands. Had America and Europe agreed on a solution this instant then all the sides would have executed it and changed their views to be in harmony with this solution, they would do this not even gradually, but instantly.
3- The dominance of the interest of the supporters and the opposition and their electoral aims regarding the Hariri issue is expected. Both the supporters and the opposition do not look at the Hariri issue except in terms of achieving the interests of the vying states and the interests of their followers in Lebanon. When these states realise their interests then the Harriri issue will be forgotten as other similar issues were forgotten before. There will be then a search for a scapegoat to put the blame on according to a method they are adept at. After that they will present to the public the result of investigation, in a way that pleases the vying colonial powers and wins the applause of the internal instruments.
4- The fact that the supporters and the opposition do not sense the danger of the international investigation committee and the fact that this committee is a mandate over Lebanon is due to the fact that these groups are busy in pursuing their special interests an they are not concerned with a mandate or sovereignty. The political classes, both the supporters and the opposition, have found pleasure in mandate (over Lebanon), regardless of the names given to this mandate.
Lebanon, under its current situation, with its political class which controls it, and with the influence over which the colonial states, America and Europe, struggle will remain a prey over which the colonial Kuffar compete. It will remain also an extreme harm to its people and the region. The only solution for its problems is that it should be returned to its origin, which is the lands of ash-Sham and all of it should be organised into one strong, God fearing, powerful and just state: the Khilafah Rashidah. At that time the citizens, whether Muslims or non-Muslims will enjoy safety and security, without depreciation or exaggeration. All of the citizens will have their equal rights and duties before judiciary, without any discrimination based on colour, race or religion; rather they will all be treated justly before judiciary.
30 Safar 1426 AH
09/04/2005
Question: What is this tug-of-war taking place in Lebanon which erupts at time and quietens down in another without any stability. The regime supporters are not able to remain on a steadfast position and nor are they able to adopt a resolute decision. The same applies to the opposition, whose statements change and whose priorities are not fixed on any situation. Rather, the issue of Hariri’s killing, over which events exploded, the issue of elections is about to dominate over it, whether from the supporters or opposition where the interests of the politicians are more prominent than the issue itself. This is clear from what the meetings and contacts between some members of the supporters and opposition have mentioned. All of them fluctuate in their positions without any resolute stance. Rather, the international committee for investigation gained sovereignty and powers in Lebanon, above the sovereignty and powers of the state of Lebanon. But despite this the matter has been passed over by the supporters and opposition without any feeling or concern. How should this be interpreted?
Answer: The answer to this question does not require a lot of explanation since it is clear to those who have insight. The answer is as follows:
1- What is taking place in Lebanon is an intense struggle between America on one side and Europe on the other (whist France is public about it and Britain works behind the scenes). America is trying to continue her influence in Lebanon which existed before, especially since the Taif agreement until today and preserve this influence in the same way it existed before, without being diminished after the departure of the Syrian army. And Europe see in this an opportunity to expel the American influence and take its place.
2- These states, which struggle against each other, possess internal instruments which reflect the ambitions of these colonial states internally and execute their wishes and plans. That is why the internal instruments change their stance and comments according to the decisions of these vying states. That is why we find some of these instruments adopt a stance today which differs greatly from what the stance was a day or even hours ago because they themselves do not adopt the stance but the stance of others. The decision is not in the hand of these instruments but in the hand of the vying states. This is what explains the fact that the supporters and opposition, despite raising the same flag, the same Taif agreement, freedom, sovereignty, independence and revealing the truth (behind the killing of Al-Hariri)….cannot unite and come up with a solution because the decision is not in their hands. Had America and Europe agreed on a solution this instant then all the sides would have executed it and changed their views to be in harmony with this solution, they would do this not even gradually, but instantly.
3- The dominance of the interest of the supporters and the opposition and their electoral aims regarding the Hariri issue is expected. Both the supporters and the opposition do not look at the Hariri issue except in terms of achieving the interests of the vying states and the interests of their followers in Lebanon. When these states realise their interests then the Harriri issue will be forgotten as other similar issues were forgotten before. There will be then a search for a scapegoat to put the blame on according to a method they are adept at. After that they will present to the public the result of investigation, in a way that pleases the vying colonial powers and wins the applause of the internal instruments.
4- The fact that the supporters and the opposition do not sense the danger of the international investigation committee and the fact that this committee is a mandate over Lebanon is due to the fact that these groups are busy in pursuing their special interests an they are not concerned with a mandate or sovereignty. The political classes, both the supporters and the opposition, have found pleasure in mandate (over Lebanon), regardless of the names given to this mandate.
Lebanon, under its current situation, with its political class which controls it, and with the influence over which the colonial states, America and Europe, struggle will remain a prey over which the colonial Kuffar compete. It will remain also an extreme harm to its people and the region. The only solution for its problems is that it should be returned to its origin, which is the lands of ash-Sham and all of it should be organised into one strong, God fearing, powerful and just state: the Khilafah Rashidah. At that time the citizens, whether Muslims or non-Muslims will enjoy safety and security, without depreciation or exaggeration. All of the citizens will have their equal rights and duties before judiciary, without any discrimination based on colour, race or religion; rather they will all be treated justly before judiciary.
30 Safar 1426 AH
09/04/2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)