1/5 of a decade later....

The air of depression was so pungent in Khartoum it almost masked the residue of the passing "kataha" (sandstorm) that filled the skies as much as it found its way into your nasal passage.

It's been two years. Not only two years since my last blog entry but also since I last visited Sudan.

Much has changed over the past couple of years - globally and within my birth country. And as I prepared for my visit "home" just 2-weeks after the official inauguration of South Sudan, I could not help but wonder how SO much of nothing has probably changed. A country's split, redrawing of the borders, a tear across the land - is not something I feel a regular citizen walking across the street notices or outwardly feels. I did not anticipate any difference, regardless of all the despair splashed across my peers' social networking platforms. I just didn't buy it.

I wasn't incredibly wrong, either. Generally speaking, what I came across was not the feelings of loss at a redrawn border, rather an increased level of depression and discontentment among, primarily, the youth. It was a heightened level of what I had seen a couple of years earlier. The regular citizen was just - fed up. Even friends who were working decent jobs, were well traveled, educated etc, were shadowed by a certain gloom that surpassed all walks of life.

It baffled me. Nothing drastic has happened within the past 2 years (aside from the obvious split into 2 countries, and I could tell that this somber mood had been brewing since before the South’s secession). Was it the soaring food prices? The fact that our neighbors and nations across the way were fighting (and semi-achieving) their rights and we were benched during the big game? Rising unemployment? Was it internal politics? Or was it just the damn heat?

It could be none of the above or it could be a blend of all. What I can probably say with confidence is: protests are ignited by overarching feelings of misery at the state of your country. Calm down, overly-zealous news stations, I doubt there’s going to be a need for headlining "Sudan uprising " anytime soon, there are entirely too many pieces missing in the puzzle (which I will get into in a later blog – hey, I’m back why not?!).

However, you can’t start a fire without a spark.

The Terrorism of Labeling

I've always despised the word "terrorism".  Just the way it was used, solely targeting specific ethnic groups was extremely grotesque and ignorant to me.  I thought of the many many incidents - DOMESTIC incidents that occur where masses of innocent people are killed for reasons unknown.  Columbine massacre.  Oklahoma City bombings.  The KKK. The Jewish Defense League.  The list goes on.

I want to refer you to an interesting article published on the Huffington Post.  It starts off 

"Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is."

My first instinct upon reading this article was to immediately post it on my blog, with a description of how terrorism should NOT just be denoted to people of Arab of Islamic ethnicity.  That terrorism goes far beyond the Gulf and Arab world and is located within the U.S. among OTHER faiths.  But then I started thinking, really thinking about the whole concept.

I find it somewhat.... interesting when people attach a faith to the word "terrorism".  Seems like an oxymoron to me.  It creates a feeling of ignorance and antipathy surrounding a certain religion.  It builds upon our already looming sense of misunderstanding of each other that exists in today's world.  I strongly feel we need to reconsider and reflect on how we label certain acts.  

One person's 'Christian Fundamental Terrorist' is another person's devout leader.  One person's 'Radical Islamist' is another person's desperate 17-year old orphan.  

Don't take this the wrong way.  I am not excusing these random acts of violence.  However, I AM making a statement that religion does not equate terrorism and should not be forced into the equation because it will add up to increasing hate. 

Imprisoned Promises

I watched Obama on that screen, heart swelling with happiness when he announced the closing down of the torture chamber better known as Guantanamo Bay.

 

Yes! The change we were looking for.  Way to break free of the previous 8 years of complete and utter uselessness! Way to show the world that you are ABLE and WILLLING to restore America's image.  Good job, O!

 

Then there's all this talk about Senate pulling funding for the closing, and that the U.S. President is left with, ultimately, 3 choices:

1) veto

2) fundraise for alternate funds

3) go along with the decision to just kind of, put off the prison - closing -issue- thing.

 

What in the world happened?  This may not seem like such a big deal in retrospect, but, it reinforced some old feelings I once had about Presidents being Puppets.  You are the face of America, you say pretty things, you make us smile and applaud (sometimes, if your act is good enough).  But essentially you are being pulled and played by "others" - others of higher position.  The 'REAL' decision makers.

 

O, don't tell me you're like that, please.  

 

As President of a DEMOCRACY you uphold your right and RESPONSIBILTY to do what you promise.  The closing down of this prison is symbolic.  It has many levels of meaning - it is saying "no" to torture, "no" to evil hypocritical ways, "no" to American ruthlessness and "yes" to progression, to humanity.  Some of those prisoners were brutes, yes.  But you cannot be a nation that condemns inhumane treatment of human beings, a nation that denounces undemocratic approaches to justice, and then turn around and build a torture chamber on an island where prisoners (Some of who are indeed, innocent) know no justice and undergo unheard of techniques (water boarding and such) in an attempt to hear them suffer.  That is not what you preach.

 

Relations with the East (especially the Arab world) are vital right now, O.  Keep to your word, uphold your promises. You are the President of change - that's what you told us all.  

Allow me to introduce you to 'Save Darfur'

"What about the "Save Darfur" campaign, what kind of stuff do they do here?" I asked a local woman in Al  Fasher.

"The who?" she responded quizzically.

The governor of Darfur stated:

"As the governor of the State of Darfur for 5 years, I will go on the record and tell you this: from the $310 million raised by this Save Darfur organization, not ONE dollar has been received by the people of Darfur."

I spoke to another source who said that no, Save Darfur has actually sent some funds to Darfur.  That amount? $3000.  Three thousand out of 31 million - what is that, one one-thousandth of their so called "Funds for Darfur"?  Well let me ask you this, dear readers, and you are all pretty smart people.  Logical.

Zero dollars or 3000 dollars: what happened to the rest of the rest of the money?

Some background.

"Saviors and Survivors" by Mahmood Mamadani does an excellent job of breaking down the conflict in Darfur, the Save Darfur movement and the controversies.   

In reading this marvelous book, researching on my own and speaking to various intellectuals in this field, I began to slowly make sense and understand this movement.  "Save Darfur" is an organization founded in a synagogue by Zionist Jews.  It was a business move. I dare anyone to challenge this statement. And let me prove to you why.

Darfur is a gold mine.  A friend of mine said, "it's like this: Darfur is like a chocolate cake..and everyone wants a piece of it." True.  The Darfur region is rich with gold, uranium, Arabic gum, OIL and the land is sitting on top of that good ol' H2O. Yes, water.  Very very useful to, like, EVERYONE in the world given the global water shortages.  But especially for Israel.

 An article in BBC:

"The Lebanese have long accused Israel of having designs on the waters of the River Litani, and Syria accuses it of being reluctant to withdraw from the banks of the Sea of Galilee, the source of up to 30% of Israel's water. Israelis in the West Bank use four times as much water as their Palestinian neighbours."

And on the Trumpet.com:

"Israel is currently experiencing its fourth consecutive year of drought. The drought is so bad that last winter’s rainfall was only 65 percent of the long-term average. Even though the main pipeline transporting water from the Sea of Galilee to the rest of the nation was closed for part of the year, the water level in the sea has dropped close to the danger line." 

So, suffering water shortages.  A looming issue for the coming years.  Where to turn, where to turn?

Question: Where is a region with an unstable governance structure (Darfur is home to more 100 tribes and has undergone about 90 civil conflicts since the 80s) that will make it easy to instigate domestic struggles? And a region with the resources needed? 

Answer: The western region of Darfur.

There has always been civil conflicts in the Darfur region.  It goes back to the cattle grazers and the nomadic horse-riders.  Strategically and intelligently frame the issue as an Arab versus African conflict.  Ruthless Islamist Arabs violently killing, slaughtering, raping, innocent poor Black Africans  Who could this issue be exposed to? Who would care so deeply about the poor Black people?

African Americans.

And this is what the coalition did.  Upon their launching, Save Darfur implemented their campaign in every Black publication, college, community and television station. Howard University even sponsored a day off of school to host a Save Darfur rally.  And they did it well.  They told African Americans that BLACK people were being killed. They were being tortured and captured by these Arabs.  And it was their responsibility to help out their fellow Africans. 

And so the t-shirts shouting: "Save Darfur" and the images with the poor Black baby and a tear running down his dirt-stained cheek was paraded on Constitution Ave., and George Clooney stood atop that podium and called for an END to the killing of innocent AFRICANS, calling it "ethnic cleansing", and Black Entertainment Television (BET) advertised a-plenty, and "Save Darfur" become a household name. A fad.  A call to action.  

For all the wrong reasons.

The Darfurian tribes who committed atrocities against civilians in Darfur are as black as those they murdered, and just as indigenous. It is not a Black/non-Black issue.  Check your facts, "Save Darfur."

Walk down the street in Darfur, the people look like replicas of the people in downtown Khartoum.  Ever wonder why Save Darfur never had a picture of President Omar Bashir swaying in the wind alongside the "Government of Terror" slogans they posted? Because Mr. Bashir is Black.  That would not have made sense. It would not have equated the Arab versus Black analogy.

Do the research.  Ask questions.  

Revelations in Al Fasher

Darfur is Africa.

Riding down the dirt road in the Northern city of Al-Fasher, our bus seemed to be cruising down a familiar path, not foreign to many of the passengers. Beside me, a young Ghanian man said to himself: "This, this is what the fuss is about?" An established professor from Gambia looked out the window and exclaimed: "This is like many cities in Gambia. This is like Nigeria. This is like Sierra Leone. You know, this is

Africa."

He was right. Al Fasher was not just like Africa, it resembled the donkey-drawn carts, the kids running barefoot in the dirt, the mud-built huts, the very air of Sudan's capital. It was a sight all too familiar.

We eagerly walked out of the bus, keen to interact with the locals and discover the region. A young woman, maybe a few years older than me joined my group and I.  She was modestly dressed in a headscarf and loose gown.She mustered up the English that she has been taught and proudly said: "I was student in Al Fasher University."

I later learned that Al Fasher University is home to more than 11,000 students and a variety of schools including the School of Engineering.
And they call it a genocide.

I had a million facts I wanted cleared up, a million questions I wanted answers, a million skepticisms I wanted voided.  On behalf of the figures splashed on TV screens, the images on magazines, the accusations on Congress' lips, the fingers pointed towards the Sudanese government, John Prendegrast and Jerry Fowler (ENOUGH project founder and Save Darfur president, respectively), I impulsively and blatantly  asked the young woman in Arabic: "Is there a war in Darfur?"
She smiled at my straightforwardness, a trait not common to the evasiveness of Sudanese dialogue.  

"To be honest with you I have not seen an exchange of fire since 2004 when the situation was at its worst," she responded.

I was quite surprised at this new fact, and urged my group to come around so that I could translate this new piece of knowledge.

"What is going on then?" I thought to myself.  This cannot be a crisis built out of absolute nothingness.

We passed a secure building, quite possibly the largest in Al Fasher.  The United Nations African-Union Mission in Darfur, it spelle

d out.  According to the village tribal leader we later conversed with, UNAMID was operating effectively and successfully in the region.  Soon, we drove passed the dilapidated OXFAM site.  Shut down permanently by the Sudanese government.

We were lead to speak to the Al Fasher

 tribal leader.  I chuckled to myself as I looked up at his jolly round face thought of an African Santa Clause. 

He began to explain to us, as the 

leader of the village, the situation in Darfur.  He spoke to us about the operating schools, university, the growing health care system and mostly of the Darfurian pride.  And as if on que, an old man dressed in a torn up jalabiya stained with dirt, said to our group: "We do not want your pity, we don't need your help -- we are a proud people of Sudan and are living just fine!"

Typically Sudanese, I thought to myself.  

Nationalistic, patriotic and dignity for days.  

We wandered around the Abu Shook camp for internally displaced people.  I knew in an instant we were in one of the better sites. 

 I first noticed the food piled high.  Watermelons were stacked one on another in the beating sun.  Women were busily working, molding clay into bricks for their homes.  Men were bartering and conversing at the market.  People were being productive.

And they call it genocide.

The Backdrop

When people find out I'm really not from D.C. or the Northern Virginia area, and that I am indeed from Sudan the first question that pops out (most) of their mouths is: "Oh my goodness: like, Darfur? It's pretty bad over there isn't it?" My reaction is usually one of the following: general agreement, wishy-washy arguments or a smile and a nod.
So when I was offered the opportunity to take a 7-day trip to Khartoum including a visit to Darfur on a "fact finding mission" - I was thrilled. I could finally see beyond the CNN's, the BBC's and the Sudan TV's - and discover, on my own, what truly lies behind the troubled zone.

Dehumanizing Palestinians via T-shirts

T-shirts symbolizing a culture of hate, of inhumanity.

The Ominous Cloud Beyond the Border

I was watching MSNBC this afternoon and one of the guests on the show said something quite interesting. The looming threat in the United States is not "radical Islam" (ugh that word makes me want to hurl). He said that in 10 years, the American public will not be concerned if the Sunnis or Shiites are in power in Iran (or any version of that). Rather, the threat exists just south of the border. Mexico.

In one of my classes, a couple of students remarked that Mexico is a nation that the American public is oblivious about. A threat that the American public is blind to. I found this rather interesting because

1) the statement that was made on MSNBC actually made a LOT of sense. The problem in the Middle East- whether its the Sunni-Shiite struggle in the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Hamas, or I'll go as far as to say the ruling party in Iraq, is simply NOT going to matter to John or Jane Smith from across the street. I keep saying this and I will say it again: the U.S. has to put their domestic issues as a priority. So all the hulabaloo about democratizing the East, the U.S. involving itself in Middle East affairs for the "reform of the country" - give it a rest. Americans don't care.

2) Just below the border, Mexico is a main source for many illegal drugs entering the United States, including as much as 90 per cent of the cocaine consumed in the States.

This is a hot button topic among conservative think tanks, I don't know how serious the Obama administration feels about it. However, if this indeed is the case, then, well, yikes.

"In its first version of the annual US survey of global counternarcotics efforts, the Obama State Department painted a grim picture of the situation in Mexico, where government attempts to fight traffickers are hindered by rampant corruption and have ignited a war between authorities and drug cartels that killed more than 6,000 people last year and more than 1,000 so far in 2009."-Sydney Morning Herald Feb. 28, 2009

***UPDATE***
I was quite surprised to hear Obama mention Mexico (quite distinctly and directly) during his National Press Conference Tuesday evening. One, because I blogged about it randomly and, well, I just felt like Lady Cleo with my crystal ball. Secondly, proves the point that MSNBC correspondent mentioned. So as far as Mexico's situation, Here's what "Obs" is doing: has already met with the President of Mexico Felipe Calderon , he is doubling the task force, sent $700 mil to help Mexicans, triple department intelligence analysts there and double criminal alien teams supporting Mexican law enforcement agencies.

"Can't touch this!"

If you think Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir gives a hoot, he doesn't. You can't tell him anything. How did I derive at such a revolutionary thought? Well, within the past week the President will have made two international trips - Eritrea and an upcoming trip to Egypt - despite ICC arrests made several weeks ago. He was also scheduled to attend the Arab Summit in Doha (But was advised against it later by Islamic scholars in Sudan). Watch out, world!

Technically, when ICC issues an indictment on a leader, he is to be arrested as soon as he enters internatoinal airspace. And that's what ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has called for. But neither Eritrea nor Qatar are among the 108 signatories to the Rome treaty which established the ICC and are under no obligation to arrest Bashir. So, try a little harder Ocampo.

Sudan's United Polio Eradication

The cynic in me is having a moment to recede. Today marks the second round of National Immunization Days against polio in Sudan, as the country intensifies efforts to tackle the virus.
According to a UNICEF press release this morning:
"Around 9 million children in every state of the country are being targeted in this latest initiative, which commences on Monday in the northern states and one day later in Southern Sudan."

Now I am fully aware that Sudan has not exactly been on the rose colored path for some time, however I have to say that I was (relatively) pleased to know that this initaive is being coordinated by the Government of the National Unity and the Government of the South. Together. Yay.

Eighteen of the 26 States of this vast African country now have confirmed cases of polio since the beginning of the outbreak in May 2004. A three-year period of polio-free status -- from 2001 to 2004 -- led authorities and health agencies to focus limited global resources on other countries. However, with the most recent case on February 6, 2009 and a total of 14 cases to date, nationwide efforts to fight this deadly virus have commenced once again.

All you Sudan government bashers (in whatever capacity), let's try to not to sneer at this initiative - after all, this deadly virus usually attacks children. Any effort to eradicate it gets a thumbs up from me.

Who is the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan?

J. Scott Gration

As a retired U.S. Air Force General, Gration has a diverse background. Grew up in the Congo, fluent in Swahili, more than three decades of experience in military affairs earning him seven rows of ribbons. Additionally, in 2006 he accompanied Obama (then, a Senator) on a trip to Africa as an "Africa expert."
He's been to Congo, Kenya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, South Africa.
But, wait. Virtually NO experience in Sudan. Let me correct myself: Absolutely no experience in Sudan.

Don't mean to be critical, Mr. Gration, I mean you seem to be a pretty levelheaded man and your idea of a "no nuclear weapons" for ANYONE (including the U.S.), is pleasant. However, a special envoy to Sudan would acutally require you having been to Sudan once.

It just keeps getting getting bleaker and bleaker for Sudan.

P.S. they don't speak Swahili in Sudan, either.

Written by the Honorable Mahathir Mohamed (Former Prime Minister of Malaysia)

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on March 16, 2009 7:13 PM

1. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, the sitting President of Sudan.

2. The ICC admits that this is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State of the ICC.

3. The alleged crime of President Al-Bashir is that he is "suspected" of having co-ordinated the design and implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign or alternatively it is also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was in control of all branches of the "apparatus" of the State of Sudan and use such control to secure the implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign.

4. It is also alleged that he was responsible for;

• Five counts of crimes against humanity : murder - article 7(1) (a); extermination - article 7 (1) (b); forcible transfer - article 7 (1) (f) and rape - article 7 (1) (g); (the fifth is not stated)

• Two counts of war crimes; intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not

• taking direct part hostilities - article (2) (e) (i); and pillaging - article 8 (2) (e) (v) (the second crime is not given)

5. Apparently it was found that the President did not commit genocide and this charge could not be brought against him.

6. The world is aware of the hatred of the United States for President Bashir and clearly the US would like to see a regime change. Maybe the fact that Sudan has fairly large oil reserves has nothing to do with wanting to remove a recalcitrant Head of State. But maybe it has. Seems that those who have oil who are not compliant will get into trouble with the United States.

7. But the grounds for arrest can also be easily applied to (former President) George W. Bush and (former Prime Minister) Tony Blair. The two are both guilty (proven) of more killings, extermination, forcible transfer and rape by virtue of their having, as Heads of Government, actually co-ordinated the design and implementation of the illegal wars against the Afghanistan and Iraq - countries which cannot be proven to have attacked the US the way the insurgents attacked the Government of Sudan.

8. As Heads of State faced with insurgency the President of Sudan has a duty to act against the insurgents. Of course he must be control. He wouldn't be a responsible Head of State if he left the counter-insurgency measures to others. Since when has it been considered wrong to fight against insurgents? Are Sri Lanka, the Philippines and others also guilty?

9. We are not told what weapons were used by Bashir but Bush and Blair directed the sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children, use of depleted uranium in bombs and shells, instigated a war between Sunni and Shiah Iraqis, killed more than 100,000 "civilian not taking direct part in hostilities," detaining and torturing prisoners outside the law and a host of other crimes against humanity which deserves to get the attention of the ICC; which the ICC should issue warrants of arrest.

10. If President Bashir is considered culpable, then Bush and Blair must be considered even more culpable. Many other Heads of Governments must also be issued warrants of arrests.

11. But the ICC is obviously applying double standards, picking on President Bashir but ignoring the perpetrators of the same crimes by other Heads of Governments. It is the essence of justice that it applies to everyone equally. How can we respect the ICC if it is so obviously biased and openly discriminates between different people?

12. I would warn the Heads of State of other weak countries that they are likely to suffer the same fate as the President of Sudan. It is not necessary that you have done something wrong. If you are a recalcitrant, trumped up charges can be made against you and warrants of arrest issued. You are aware that the United States is bent on effecting regime change everywhere. The ICC will be a good apparatus for this. It will be cheaper than shock and awe invasions.

13. The world must condemn the ICC action because it represents a travesty of justice. If this is allowed to go through, the ICC will become another apparatus of resurgent imperialism of the powerful countries.

14. We are already living in an unjust world. There will be more injustice with the setting up of ICC

International Reactions to Sudan's Current Affairs

U.S. President Obama invited UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit the White House to discuss Sudan and the warrant.
The African Union gave a big thumbs up to Bashir for rejecting the ICC decision.
George Clooney is pissed.

And, today:

"A bill that would prohibit any state contracts with people who do business in Sudan passed the House on Tuesday. HB436, sponsored by Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, is in response to the continuing conflict in Darfur and follows similar federal legislation. "As our state [has] more of a global look in its citizenry," Litvack said, "we have a role and responsibility to make social policy representing our new population." The bill passed unanimously and moves to the Senate."

-Salt Lake City Tribune