Western-induced African Genocide, Climate Change and Manifest Destiny....
People always wonder why Sudan "suddenly" became such a military target of the West...bah, who are we fooling....of America. They ask why A.F.R.I.C.O.M. has bases nearby there, straddling the entire Sahel zone all the way to Senegal. In all fairness, the entire continent of Africa is a target of the west...primarily American and French military forces.
Well, the answer to that is.......
**Strategically, Sudan is...[well, was, before the West...namely, the U.S., successfully partitioned it, as they did Korea, Germany, India (Pakistan), Ethiopia (Eritrea), Palestine (Israel), China (Taiwan), the U.S.S.R. (Ukraine, Georgia and co.) and so on, and so forth] the largest country in African in land size.
**It is strategically located on the Red Sea....immediately south of Egypt and borders on seven other African nations.
**It is about the size of the entire Western Europe, but has a controllable population of only 35 million people.
**Darfur is the western region of Sudan. It is the size of France, with a population of just 6 million.
Sudan has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world. Over 400 ethnic groups have their own languages or dialects but Arabic is the one common language, and some 85 percent of the Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising livestock.
**All are Muslim, local and Sunni Muslim.
Now on to the good stuff......
In 1959, Agip, an Italian oil company, was given an exploration concession in the Red Sea area of the North East sector of Sudan. No oil, however, was found. The first oil discovery had to wait until 1979. This 'newly' discovered mineral resources in Sudan catapulted them to the forefront of U.S. corporations' greedy radar. According to Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir, Sudan might have oil reserves as large or larger than those of Saudi Arabia, currently considered to have the world's largest reserves. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper. The other two places where uranium (used to enrich nuclear material) are found, Niger Republic and Namibia, are already under the secure control of A.F.R.I.C.O.M. United States military forces.
***For over two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the south of Sudan (reminiscent of Wetern-funded terrorist groups like Isis in Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Contras in Nicaragua and many others), where oil was originally found. This long civil war drained the central government’s resources. When a peace agreement was finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in western Sudan.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government steadfastly retained its independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan’s oil policy, the U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration, drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of Sudan’s oil. It is no regret surprise therefore, that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is the only sitting Head of State wanted for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity for his "crimes" against humanity. Anytime a President is wanted by the International Court in the Hague, it usually means he refused to knuckle under and fork over his country's natural resources to America.
Is it now beginning to make sense to you?
U.S. policy revolves around shutting down the export of oil (or other resources..."conflict" diamonds, coltan, uranium, gold etc...), through sanctions and inflaming national and regional antagonisms in places that are oil-rich and doing business with China or Russia.
As previously stated, (it bears repeating), for over two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the south of Sudan, where oil was originally found. This long civil war drained the central government’s resources. When a peace agreement was finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in western Sudan.
As a result, in 2003, terrorist Janjaweed fighters in military uniforms, mounted on camels and horses, laid waste to the region. In a campaign of ethnic cleansing targeting Darfur’s blacks, the armed militiamen raped women, burned houses, and tortured and killed men of fighting age. Through whole swaths of the region, they left only smoke curling into the sky.
At their head was a 6-foot-4 Arab with an athletic build and a commanding presence. In a conflict the United States would much later reluctantly call genocide, he topped the State Department’s list of suspected war criminals. De Waal recognized him: His name was Musa Hilal, and he was the Sheikh’s son.
It is interesting how the narrative is always twisted to bury the real reasons for Western "invention" in Africa. The fighting in Darfur is popularly described as racially motivated, pitting mounted Arabs against black rebels and civilians, but the United Nations described the fault lines as having their origins in another distinction, between settled farmers and nomadic herders fighting over failing arable lands. While this may be partially true, the distinction between “Arab” and “African” in Darfur is defined more by lifestyle than any physical difference: Arabs are generally herders, Africans typically farmers. The two groups are not that much racially distinct from one another. The aggression of the warlord Musa Hilal, they said, could be traced to the fears of his father, and to how climate change shattered a way of life. Neither version was the true primary reason for the West' involvement. 
The name Darfur means “Land of the Fur” (the largest single tribe of farmers in Darfur), but the vast region holds the tribal lands, the 'Dars', of many tribes. In the late 1980s, landless and increasingly desperate Arabs began banding together to wrest their own dar from the black farmers. In 1987, they published a manifesto of racial superiority, and clashes broke out between Arabs and Fur. About 3,000 people, mostly Fur, were killed, and hundreds of villages and nomadic camps were burned before a peace agreement was signed in 1989. More fighting in the 1990s entrenched the divisions between Arabs and non-Arabs, pitting the Arab pastoralists against the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit farmers. In these disputes, Sudan’s central government, seated in Khartoum, often supported the Arabs politically and sometimes provided them arms.
In 2003, a rebellion began in Darfur, a reaction against Khartoum’s neglect and political marginalization of the region. And while the rebels initially sought a pan-ethnic front, the schism between those who opposed the government and those who supported it broke largely on ethnic lines. Even so, the conflict was rooted more in land envy than in ethnic hatred. “Interestingly, most of the Arab tribes who have their own land rights did not join the government’s fight,” says David Mozersky, the International Crisis Group’s project director for the Horn of Africa.
In July 2004, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed a resolution designating the situation in Darfur as genocide, calling on the White House to “seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur.” Shortly thereafter, the politics around the use of the word “genocide” became a far greater preoccupation than the crisis itself.
After the conflict supposedly ended in October 2006 with the signing of the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement which was brokered by the government of neighboring Eritrea, Sudan’s presidential assistant, Nafie Ali Nafie in 2012, accused "unnamed" Western countries, (we all know it's America), of seeking to target Sudan through its eastern region, promising that their wait for the end would be long and fruitless.
Why did Darfur’s lands fail? For much of the 1980s and ’90s, environmental degradation in Darfur and other parts of the Sahel (the semi-arid region just south of the Sahara) was blamed on the inhabitants. Dramatic declines in rainfall were attributed to mistreatment of the region’s vegetation. Imprudent land use, it was argued, exposed more rock and sand, which absorb less sunlight than plants, instead reflecting it back toward space. This cooled the air near the surface, drawing clouds downward and reducing the chance of rain. “Africans were said to be doing it to themselves,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Ironically, given President Donald Trump's stand on climate change, it is instructive that by the time of the Darfur conflict scientists had identified another cause. Climate scientists fed historical sea-surface temperatures into a variety of computer models of atmospheric change, and given the particular pattern of ocean-temperature changes worldwide, the models strongly predicted a disruption in African monsoons. “This was not caused by people cutting trees or overgrazing,” says Columbia University’s Alessandra Giannini, who led one of the analyses. The roots of the drying of Darfur, she and her colleagues had found, lay in changes to the global climate.
With countries across the region and around the world suffering similar pressures, some see Darfur as a canary in the coal mine, a foretaste of climate-driven political chaos, underscoring the zeal with which countries obsessed with manifest destiny and regime change capitalize on this to rearrange the political climate more to their liking....
Over a decade later, even after dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and the deployment of two peacekeeping missions, genocide is still occurring in Darfur. Millions continue to live in makeshift camps for the internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands are in Chad, where the government is seeking to strip them of their Sudanese identity by relabeling them as Chadian citizens. In doing so, Chadian authorities are effectively preventing them from going back home.
Reminiscent of isis, the Taliban, Boku Haram, and many other terrorist organizations around the world which somehow, miraculously and magically always seem to achieve American economic goals by proxy, the Janjaweed militias that led the 2004 genocide are now back in full force, and much like the Congolese genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, America, having achieved one of their goals, to entrench drone bases and military outposts in portions of mineral-rich Africa, has now found it expedient to relegate the genocide in Darfur, Sudan to the back burner.
Even as outrage was provoked by media stories of mass rapes and photos of desperate refugees, there was more hand-wringing than actual action. The charges that tens and hundreds of thousands of African people were being killed by Arab militias backed by the Sudanese government fell on deaf ears. Sudan was labeled as both a “terrorist state” and a “failed state” and hypocritically, much like the Vietnam war demonstrations, and hundreds of other movements in America which spring up only AFTER the damage has been done, a coalition of 164 organizations that included the National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance and other religious groups that were also, unsurprisingly, the strongest supporters of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq marched in nationwide campaigns, exhorting the U.S. to “Stop Genocide in Darfur”.
The agenda changes as different theaters of financial gain are identified.
As the U.S. posing as a "neutral mediator", kept pressing Khartoum for more concessions, they also simultaneously helped train the SLA and JEM, Darfuri rebels that initiated Khartoum’s violent reaction. Thousands of people, especially children, have died in Sudan of totally preventable and treatable diseases because of U.S. cruise missile attacks, ordered by President Bill Clinton on Aug. 20, 1989, on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. This plant, which had produced cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis, provided 60 percent of the available medicine in Sudan.
The U.S. claimed Sudan was operating a VX poison gas facility there. It produced no evidence to back up the charge (sound familiar?). This simple medical facility, totally destroyed by the 19 missiles, was not rebuilt nor did Sudan receive a penny of compensation.
U.S. imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region. Chad, which is directly west of Darfur, participated in a 2006 U.S.-organized international military exercise that, according to the U.S. Defense Depart ment, was the largest in Africa since World War II. Chad is a former French colony, and both French and U.S. forces are heavily involved in funding, training and equipping the army of its military ruler, Idriss Deby, who has supported rebel groups in Darfur.
Don't just watch tv, and shout slogans about Darfur, or any of the hundreds of countries being annihilated for your petty luxury comforts and the ascension, into billionaire-status of the 1%.
Educate yourselves.
Comments
Post a Comment